How the GW myth is perpetuated


Extrafire
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Dobson discovered the waxing and waning of the ozone concentrations in 1956.

More than just that, but why belabor the point.

Quote:

I remind you now that at that point in time, the fluorocarbons had been in production for nearly thirty years.

Yup, but not widely used in the world.

Quote:

The problem is, natural chlorine can and will react before it reaches the stratosphere, though of course not all.

Some will react, some won't. But since the amount of chloride calculated to be in the stratosphere at any one time is calculated to be 50 times higher than the entire annual output from CFCs, it's plainly obvious that the amount that does reach the stratosphere is gi-hugic, completely dwarfing the amount available from CFC's.

Quote:

To go back to the reactions, I did say 100,000 earlier, do you not see how that could work?

The process is repeating, the free radical end product will start the same process that the UV did by breaking the chlorine free from the fluorocarbon. That is how one molecule of fluorocarbon can be reponsible for such large numbers of destroyed ozone, much like any naturaly emitted chlorine which manages to reach the stratosphere.

Yeah, I see it. I also am aware that it's turning it into O2, which is then available to be turned back into O3, along with another billion or so O2 molecules for every Cl molecule, most of which are there from natural sources anyway.

Quote:

When you say production peaked at 750,000 tonnes, do you mean that as the highest production in one year or the running total for all CFC's, which I remind you are a portion of the total fluorocarbons. The numbers I found through to 1993, are about double the number you have quoted, for only CFC-11 and 12.

No, the number was refering to the chloride availble from the CFC's, not the CFC's themselves.
Quote:

Global warming, the sun, thirty more years you say, don't count your chickens yet. The evidence has grown stronger, and if you search out some information on climate equilibrium, you will find that we have some warming accrued and yet to arrive.

Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?
 
hermanntrude
#62
A couple of notes from a chemist:

- Tonington is correct with his equations, although there are more, but the net result of all of them is that Chlorine radicals destroy ozone and produce oxygen, while still regenerating themselves repeatedly.
-chloride and chlorine radicals are not the same thing. Chloride is a negative chlorine ion. an atom of chlorine which has lost an electron. It has 6 electrons in its outer shell. Chlorine radicals are simply chlorine atoms. Halogens by their nature are short of one electron, meaning that in their atomic state, they have one unpaired electron. Chlorine gas usually exists as two chlorine atoms sharing their unpaired electrons in a covalent bond.
 
typingrandomstuff
#63
I guess I have to give you the whole picture all over again.

The earth is cooling in its center because it is lossing its magnetic properties each year by 10%. If you do not believe what I am typing, research electromagnetic loss. There should be an article in national geographics and couple of others.

According to the Humphrey-model of electromagnetics, this is also a time of rain. Rain clouds cools down the earth. In truth, I think the global warming (on the surface caused by human activity) is very severe. The earth tries to balance it out somehow. The balancing properties let people feel the earth cooler.
 
typingrandomstuff
#64
The earth is turning colder inside and hotter on the surface.
 
typingrandomstuff
#65
Global warming:

Possible benefits: a longer time in the dieing earth for people, plants which can endure all weather will thrive.

Negative: Burning and killing overboard, UV rays damage, and acute cancer causes, no outdoor activities, how will outdoor ventilations work, deaths, e.t.c

Central Cooling:
Positive: Less emphasis on global warming

Negative: No heat, no rock recycling. How will people live? Without the rock recyling, no mountains. No mountains, no minerals. No minerals, No steel, copper, jewlery, items, special devices.

Situation: Fourtunately, we are sort of at the tip of the start of the central cooling and at the very middle of global warming. Rain helps to cool and drive down global warming temperatures.

It is more correct to say our oil is running out and we need an energy source that last long, and it cannot be too much mechanical aspects.
 
typingrandomstuff
#66
Each planet must have a life span. At the center of the core, there is an amount that the earth can burn and chrun to stay alive. For planets with an atmosphere, the amount can last for a lot of time before the planet dies. It lasts a long time because it can recycle and reuse the energy. During reusage, some of the energy is not completely recycled and lost. By that lost, the earth will slowly die. Usually this death takes billions of years.

People uses a lot of minerals and that disrupts the earth's ability to recycle. People um. they um. take the mineral and turn the mineral into something else. This leads to the earth to have less life span and the people too. If people too recycles, they do not need to mine, and they can distrub less of the materials. The less distrubance of materials leads to less death of earth. Thus, the people save the earth and themselves.

Cooling reason:
People break the recycle parts and the earth usuage of the center's fuel is slowly used up. When people break the recycle parts, less fuel for earth to recycle; without recycling, the earth's fuel to be alive decrease and the earth become cooler.

I can be wrong. If you do not believe me.
 
hermanntrude
#67
TRS, you are confusing an already complex issue by introducing a billion-year mechanism to cloud the facts relating to the hundred-or-less-year mechanism of global warming, which may or may not be caused by mankind.

Specifically we're talking about the effect of chlorine radicals on the ozone layer. Kindly don't tell us about the cooling of the planet, which is immeasurably slow and irrelevant to the subject.
 
typingrandomstuff
#68
Okay. I'm just answer why cold and warm weather occur together for :

"Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?"

Chlorine:
Um. You guys are on the right tract.
 
typingrandomstuff
#69
If you want an explaination, ask.
 
hermanntrude
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by typingrandomstuff View Post

Okay. I'm just answer why cold and warm weather occur together for :

"Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?"

Chlorine:
Um. You guys are on the right tract.

Any cooling on the scale of 9 years is NOTHING to do with the billion year process of cooling within the earth.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say we're on the right "tract".

I'm supposed to ask for an explanation, although I'm dreading it.
 
Tonington
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

...
Some will react, some won't. But since the amount of chloride calculated to be in the stratosphere at any one time is calculated to be 50 times higher than the entire annual output from CFCs, it's plainly obvious that the amount that does reach the stratosphere is gi-hugic, completely dwarfing the amount available from CFC's.

Yeah, I see it. I also am aware that it's turning it into O2, which is then available to be turned back into O3, along with another billion or so O2 molecules for every Cl molecule, most of which are there from natural sources anyway.

No, the number was refering to the chloride availble from the CFC's, not the CFC's themselves.
Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?


You just aren't getting it. If fluorocarbons yield a self repeating process which kills ozone (which it would not do if we hadn't released it in the first place) and prevents another oxygen atom from bonding to a diatomic oxygen( to make more ozone), and in the end leaves that chlorine atom as a free radical( said repeating process begins), then it doesn't matter that most of the world has stopped use. This is a longterm effect, though not as long as some of our other more "ingenious" technologies.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but there are still human made products which are on the rise. Halon, containing bromine which I mentioned is much more potent than it's CFC cousins, is still on the rise, though it has been phased out since 1996 under the Montreal Protocol.

Global warming and the ozone issue do not even belong in the same thread. Perhaps this thread should be split. Irregardless, 9 years of temperature data do not on the scale of this issue make for a reliable trend. If you look at the temperature record, it isn't smooth. The climate responds to all sorts of perturbation, and the recent trend( the last 150 years or so) shows an expected and definite warming. Volcanoes don't only produce chlorine, they also produce aerosols which add a cooling forcing to the overall climate. This is but one of the many known natural phenomena incorporated by the many disciplines which contribute to climate study.
 
Extrafire
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrude View Post

A couple of notes from a chemist:

- Tonington is correct with his equations, although there are more, but the net result of all of them is that Chlorine radicals destroy ozone and produce oxygen, while still regenerating themselves repeatedly.
-chloride and chlorine radicals are not the same thing. Chloride is a negative chlorine ion. an atom of chlorine which has lost an electron. It has 6 electrons in its outer shell. Chlorine radicals are simply chlorine atoms. Halogens by their nature are short of one electron, meaning that in their atomic state, they have one unpaired electron. Chlorine gas usually exists as two chlorine atoms sharing their unpaired electrons in a covalent bond.

Thanks for the lesson. However it's all of limited relevance. Theories that conflict with the evidence are flawed. Yes it's been done in the lab, which means it's reasonable to assume it occurs in nature too. Yes it turns ozone into oxygen (which then promptly turns back into ozone). Problem is, it would have to do it billions of times, there's just way too many oxygen molecules. And we have the evidence of increasing ozone levels at the very time that CFC's were increasing the fastest.

It's a problem that doesn't exist.
 
Extrafire
#73
Quote:

You just aren't getting it. If fluorocarbons yield a self repeating process which kills ozone (which it would not do if we hadn't released it in the first place) and prevents another oxygen atom from bonding to a diatomic oxygen( to make more ozone), and in the end leaves that chlorine atom as a free radical( said repeating process begins), then it doesn't matter that most of the world has stopped use. This is a longterm effect, though not as long as some of our other more "ingenious" technologies.

As I said before, it's a problem that doesn't exist. The idea that the antarctic ozone hole is anything but natural has been disproved. The Japanese scientists whom I referrenced for you did their study in 1986, in response to the "discovery" of the hole by NASA. They were looking for the cause scientifically, and they found it (natural, lack of sunlight and vortex weather pattern). And to back up their study, when NASA photographed the hole splitting (because the vortex split in two) there was plenty of ozone over the south pole, in spite of the "new science" that said there couldn't be. I'm all for reducing air pollution, but let's not go crazy solving problems that aren't real.

You're the one not getting it. There is no problem.

Quote:

Global warming and the ozone issue do not even belong in the same thread.

Well, you brought it up. I had to correct your statement. It took off from there. Enough said. I think we've done with ozone for now.

Quote:

Irregardless,

Huh??? Is that a word? Don't you mean "regardless"? "Irregardless" would seem to be a double negative, all on its own.

Quote:

9 years of temperature data do not on the scale of this issue make for a reliable trend. If you look at the temperature record, it isn't smooth.

This is true, which is why I've been saying it "appears" to have started cooling, or "might" have begun a cooling trend. The scientists say we're due, and it would be consistent with their observations if it has started. The last time the climate was this warm (a little warmer actually) the warmest year was 1934, and it was about 1942 before the cooling became pronounced enough to be a trend. Last time it lasted about 30 years. This time they're predicting 50 years before it starts warming again.

Quote:

and the recent trend( the last 150 years or so) shows an expected and definite warming.

Yup. The general trend since the end of the "little ice age" has been a warming trend with occasional dips of cooling, like the one we're probably entering now.

Having seen how much better humanity fares in warming periods than cooling, I'll take warm thanks. I linked to the History Channel documentary "Little Ice Age - Big Chill" a few posts back. Did you watch it? There's a study that was ordered by Prez. Carter in the '70's (when global cooling was in vogue) to imagine the worst case scenario, should the climate cool down like it had in the little ice age. These weren't radicals doing the work, they were pro's, and it's quite a scary scenario, because it's a real possibility, unlike the fairy tales put out by the likes of Al Gore which are mostly good for scaring school kids. It's available on YouTube in all 11 parts. The prediction is in the last segment. Worth watching just for the history, no matter what your position is on climate change.
 
Extrafire
#74
Since we're done with the ozone thing which doesn't belong on this thread I thought I might critique your comments on climate change.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Climate Change in a Nutshell

I guess I should start with some of the basic science. First off, there is a natural greenhouse effect. The term ‘natural’ here is what I think is being exploited most. Without the greenhouse effect, there would be zero long wave radiation absorbed, and the planet would swing daily from one temperature extreme to another. This in mind, our activities over the past 8000 years have really been changing the face of the planet, from burning of natural landscapes to grow our crops to building large cities which are the cornerstone of our civilization, these activities among other things have and continue to contribute to the greenhouse gas portion in our atmosphere.

Pretty good so far, except you didn't mention that our contribution to greenhouse gasses is quite minimal.

Quote:

We’ve gone beyond the point of sustainable growth and presently are consuming more resources than the Earth can naturally provide.

Now that's just silly. You sound like Paul Ehrlich and his doomsday predictions. We will never run out of resources. Read a book called "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer to understand why. Perhaps it could best be summed up by something Sheik Yammani said, "The stone age came to an end, but not for a lack of stones. The oil age will also come to an end, but not for a lack of oil".

Quote:

Global climate models are the diagnostic tool scientists use in assessing how the climate will change. Routinely these models are crapped on by media outlets, but they are in fact very reliable. James Hansen of NASA GISS in 1988 used models to predict that the next twelve years would see a rise in global surface temperature with a brief cooling period due to a volcanic eruption. He made this claim before a Senate committee and time has revealed that his prediction, or rather his models prediction was remarkably accurate. Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991. If we want to focus on other climate factors besides the mean global surface temperature, models have also made astonishingly accurate predictions such as: as surface temperature increased there was a corresponding stratospheric cooling, amplified warming in the Arctic, and the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infra-red radiation (also known as the radiative forcing.)

In this you are completely wrong. Where are you getting this stuff? Those computer projections are totally useless. The first time it was tried, when global warming was just being thought of as a problem, the computer projection showed a very slight warming over the next century, not what they were expecting or what they wanted. So they assumed that increased CO2 would cause increased atmospheric water, and they added that into the data, and got the result they wanted (it didn't come true). THey've tested computer models by entering data from 30 years ago to see what it comes up with for today's climate, and they couldn't even get that right, when they knew what the answer was supposed to be! Are you seriously suggesting that someone was able to feed climate data into a computer and get a prediction of a volcanic eruption? Come on! Someones making up that crap.

Quote:

I always hesitate to bring this kind of thing up, because quite frankly it smacks of tinfoil and area 51 to me, but without question there is a powerful lobby with global scope, not only confined to domestic politics, and I feel they have been responsible for much of the confusion over this matter. Everyone by now has probably heard about the former oil lobbyist and Bush aide Phillip Cooney, who removed and adjusted government scientists findings and suggestions. Consider that one of the largest single emitters of greenhouse gases are old and even new ‘grandfathered’ coal generation plants. Consider again that coal is very abundant in many areas across the globe. Many industry leaders were members of the Global Climate Coalition, whose stated purpose was to cast doubt on the theory of Global warming, until now when the science has become much more firm, and larger partners in this coalition such as BP and DuPont dropped out.

Oh no, no, no, don't ever bring up something like that in a debate! You're just conceding that your position is so weak you can't defend it with logic, evidence and fact. Any time someone resorts to smear tactics it means they're admitting defeat, because if you could defeat your opponents arguments you would, you wouldn't try character assasination. Sure, your supporters might like that, and frequently the media likes it, because they're on your side, but arguements and debates are won on the basis of evidence, logic and fact, not by calling your opponent names.

Quote:

From there, it was the late 1970’s when the first warnings from scientists came connecting heavy coal use and climate change.

No, it was the early 70's, when the warnings from scientists claimed that production of CO2 by fossil fuel use was causing global cooling and we were on the cusp of a man-made ice age. Ever flown an airplane up through an overcast? Notice how dim it is underneath, and how it almost hurts your eyes when you emerge into the sunlight? The theory was that increased CO2 would reflect sunlight away from the earth just like those clouds. (Apparently CO2 is opaque). In the late '70's it was realized that the cooling had apparently stopped.

Quote:

In the late 80’s when the Montreal Protocol began and industry learned how damaging emissions can be constrained, the war for propaganda began. Fred Palmer quipped : the Earth’s atmosphere is “deficient in carbon dioxide,” and he wanted Western Fuels, the company he was running to lead the charge to a world with 1000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Staggeringly stupid stuff really. These culprits have also produced such gems as the idea that more carbon makes for better crops and less world hunger, despite the fact that increased CO2 by itself does not improve growth discernibly unless there is accompanied increases in both temperature and rainfall. Even then the nutritional content of the food is much less as there are a host of other nutrients that are deficient because of our unsustainable use of soil across the globe.

More nonsense. When a plant has all the water it needs, and more, and all the nutrient it needs, like in my garden, additional CO2 will make quite a difference. This has been demonstrated (There are commercial greenhouses that have CO2 pumped into them to boost growth). A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes. If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing. (Besides which, most plants in the world are neither cultivated nor food. Forests are full of plants, and cover more area than is under cultivation.) If you're referring to the trace elements that are deficient in some foods, growing bigger, faster won't have any effect on that.

Quote:

Those scare tactics used by the "skeptcs" simply aren't true.

Uhmmm..Ya got it backwards. The "skeptics" are saying there's nothing to be scared about, while you guys are saying the world's about to end. Who's using scare tactics?

Quote:

There are countries and industries fo instance, around the world that have allready slashed emissions by up to 70%, while maintaining strong economic growth.

Really? Which ones? None in Europe. Only Sweden and England mightmake their Kyoto targets, 6 other countries might come close, and they cheated to do it. None of the other European countries even seem to be trying, some are increasing their emissions by up to 60%, and 25 new coal fired electric plants are planned for just after Kyoto expires.

Quote:

In some areas of the world, wind power is cheaper allready than conventional generation facilities on a $/MW basis, which helps explain why wind energy continues to grow at roughly 20% every year. Also consider that wind generation is expected to drop in price by a further 20-30%. So what happens when the wind isn't around? Well, one solution is to dot the region with turbines instead of putting all your eggs in one basket. Perhaps excess energy could be used to create hydrogen. How about some more bad press? Wind generation is noisy, well I can tell you that I've had a conversation standing right underneath one of those big windmills, and I could hear just fine. They're unsightly, not half as unsightly as a smoke stack. Potential hazard to birds, not now that they're sleek instead of those funky Dutch looking models. Other power generation options include, solar thermal power, and photovoltaics, for it's a good bet that if theres no wind, theres probably sunlight. There are many other options such as tidal, hydro, geothermal and some oddities( check this out,) but the best solution is a multi-faceted approach, one best suited to regional conditions.

That's pretty good. I'm in favor of any kind of energy generation, including hydro dams and nuclear (the best option), anything that gets the West off mid-east oil dependancy, which is a disaster waiting to happen.

Quote:

The relationship that exists between the greenhouse gases and our civilizations don't need to be so tenacious. There are better options, and they are growing more efficient every year. It actually baffles me how someone can be so attached to a world view that ignores the consequences of our own actions. A lesson that can be learned from the Montreal protocol, public outcry is effective, very effective at initiating change. Not all change is bad, though I shudder at the thought of run away climate change.

Yes public outcry is effective, so effective that it can cause governments to make stupid decisions that are costly and damaging to society, the economy, and people.
 
Extrafire
+1
#75
Some quotes that put it in perspective

Quote:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. [The Environmentalists' Little Green Book, ISBN 0-615-11628-0]

Quote:

Jacques Chirac himself said at the infamous Hague talks, that the Kyoto Protocol is "the first component of an authentic global governance".

Quote:

Margaret Wallstrom now the EU vice president of EU communications, said with utmost clarity, "Kyoto was about hobbling America's economy, to give socialist Europe a fighting chance"

 
Tonington
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

As I said before, it's a problem that doesn't exist. The idea that the antarctic ozone hole is anything but natural has been disproved. The Japanese scientists whom I referrenced for you did their study in 1986, in response to the "discovery" of the hole by NASA. They were looking for the cause scientifically, and they found it (natural, lack of sunlight and vortex weather pattern). And to back up their study, when NASA photographed the hole splitting (because the vortex split in two) there was plenty of ozone over the south pole, in spite of the "new science" that said there couldn't be. I'm all for reducing air pollution, but let's not go crazy solving problems that aren't real.

Maybe you could link to where you found their conclusions, a google search turned up 4 hits and a scholarly search gave up one, but I can't access that journal from where I am this summer. I'm not in the habit of accepting single studies as proof positive, especially if I can't access the authors conclusions and see their methodology.

Quote:

This is true, which is why I've been saying it "appears" to have started cooling, or "might" have begun a cooling trend. The scientists say we're due, and it would be consistent with their observations if it has started. The last time the climate was this warm (a little warmer actually) the warmest year was 1934, and it was about 1942 before the cooling became pronounced enough to be a trend. Last time it lasted about 30 years. This time they're predicting 50 years before it starts warming again.

Which scientists are saying that, and what would lead them to believe it's the beginning of any longer term cooling trend than the obvious warming trend we're in? Also, if you're referring to that NASA report, that isn't a global report, it only accounts for temperature readings in the USA. NASA lists 2005 as the hottest year globally and 1998 is the second warmest globally.


Quote:

Having seen how much better humanity fares in warming periods than cooling, I'll take warm thanks. I linked to the History Channel documentary "Little Ice Age - Big Chill" a few posts back. Did you watch it? There's a study that was ordered by Prez. Carter in the '70's (when global cooling was in vogue) to imagine the worst case scenario, should the climate cool down like it had in the little ice age. These weren't radicals doing the work, they were pro's, and it's quite a scary scenario, because it's a real possibility, unlike the fairy tales put out by the likes of Al Gore which are mostly good for scaring school kids. It's available on YouTube in all 11 parts. The prediction is in the last segment. Worth watching just for the history, no matter what your position is on climate change.

I haven't but I will when I'm at a better computer.
 
Tonington
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Pretty good so far, except you didn't mention that our contribution to greenhouse gasses is quite minimal.

Cite evidence please.

Quote:

Now that's just silly. You sound like Paul Ehrlich and his doomsday predictions. We will never run out of resources. Read a book called "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer to understand why. Perhaps it could best be summed up by something Sheik Yammani said, "The stone age came to an end, but not for a lack of stones. The oil age will also come to an end, but not for a lack of oil".



Never run out of resources? Hows that sand taste? Overfishing, repeated stress to soil which requires amendments, tree harvesting, all ecosystems have a natural carrying capacity. We have gone beyond that point which is why we: need aquaculture to provide food to the billions of people who rely on fish as their primary source of protein, add chemical fertilizers in such large amounts to the soil, plant new forests with a single fast growing tree, which reduces the ability of that area to cycle nutrients as efficiently or as completely.

Quote:

In this you are completely wrong. Where are you getting this stuff? Those computer projections are totally useless. The first time it was tried, when global warming was just being thought of as a problem, the computer projection showed a very slight warming over the next century, not what they were expecting or what they wanted. So they assumed that increased CO2 would cause increased atmospheric water, and they added that into the data, and got the result they wanted (it didn't come true). THey've tested computer models by entering data from 30 years ago to see what it comes up with for today's climate, and they couldn't even get that right, when they knew what the answer was supposed to be! Are you seriously suggesting that someone was able to feed climate data into a computer and get a prediction of a volcanic eruption? Come on! Someones making up that crap.

Did you even try to look up what I said? Here is where James Hansen responding to critics. Volcanoes can be introduced into climate models. You know how all the "skeptics" use things like natural and historical and things of this nature? Well they are right, there are aspects of the climate which are known and occur with some predictability. Volcanoes are one such example.

Quote:

Oh no, no, no, don't ever bring up something like that in a debate! You're just conceding that your position is so weak you can't defend it with logic, evidence and fact. Any time someone resorts to smear tactics it means they're admitting defeat, because if you could defeat your opponents arguments you would, you wouldn't try character assasination. Sure, your supporters might like that, and frequently the media likes it, because they're on your side, but arguements and debates are won on the basis of evidence, logic and fact, not by calling your opponent names.

Not quite what I was getting at. It's not character assassination when there is a well documented effort to lobby for lax regulations and even fraudulent activity by those in a government position by appointment. The science is supported by logic, the effort to undermine the legitimate science is there for all to see. It is a matter of public record. I only hesitate to bring it up because I don't like conspiracy theories, and there are those out there who go beyond the reasonable claims which can be made concerning matters like the Global Climate Coalition, here's a better look.

Quote:

No, it was the early 70's, when the warnings from scientists claimed that production of CO2 by fossil fuel use was causing global cooling and we were on the cusp of a man-made ice age. Ever flown an airplane up through an overcast? Notice how dim it is underneath, and how it almost hurts your eyes when you emerge into the sunlight? The theory was that increased CO2 would reflect sunlight away from the earth just like those clouds. (Apparently CO2 is opaque). In the late '70's it was realized that the cooling had apparently stopped.

And that theory was thrown out when the evidence was lacking. That hypothesis has been thrown out. The current working theory of global warming works. Moving from an area of relative darkness to an area of brighter light will always 'almost hurt your eyes.' Happens to me every time I wake up in the middle of the night and have to turn the lights on. There is an interesting aside to what you've said. It's the global dimming theory.

Quote:

More nonsense. When a plant has all the water it needs, and more, and all the nutrient it needs, like in my garden, additional CO2 will make quite a difference. This has been demonstrated (There are commercial greenhouses that have CO2 pumped into them to boost growth). A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes. If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing. (Besides which, most plants in the world are neither cultivated nor food. Forests are full of plants, and cover more area than is under cultivation.) If you're referring to the trace elements that are deficient in some foods, growing bigger, faster won't have any effect on that.

I said:
"increased CO2 by itself does not improve growth discernibly unless there is accompanied increases in both temperature and rainfall", you respond with "when the plant has all the water it needs and more, and all the nutrient it needs", which is exactly what I said.

Your last portion is rubbish. Agricultural practices have moved towards increased yields as the desirable traits. The nutritional value has declined in the past 50 years as a result. University of Texas at Austin released a report in 2004 which analyzed nutritional content now and compared it to 1950's data. The result was a decrease in: protein, calcium, phosphorous, iron and ascorbic acid. They conclude that:
"Emerging evidence suggests that when you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster, but they don't necessarily have the ability to make or uptake nutrients at the same, faster rate."


Quote:

Uhmmm..Ya got it backwards. The "skeptics" are saying there's nothing to be scared about, while you guys are saying the world's about to end. Who's using scare tactics?

The aforementioned Global Climate Coalition for one. Also, I never said the world would end. That's ridiculous. Who is this group I belong to saying such things? I only want my progeny to have access to clean air, predictable reserves of fresh water, good nutritional food and the chance to prosper, rather than pay for my own generations mistakes.

Quote:

Really? Which ones? None in Europe. Only Sweden and England might make their Kyoto targets, 6 other countries might come close, and they cheated to do it. None of the other European countries even seem to be trying, some are increasing their emissions by up to 60%, and 25 new coal fired electric plants are planned for just after Kyoto expires.

In England. I believe some in Denmark as well, with co-operative energy production.

Quote:

That's pretty good. I'm in favor of any kind of energy generation, including hydro dams and nuclear (the best option), anything that gets the West off mid-east oil dependancy, which is a disaster waiting to happen.

I don't really like the large scale hydro, damaging to fish runs. Nuclear by far would be my preferred base load for any energy plans.

Quote:

Yes public outcry is effective, so effective that it can cause governments to make stupid decisions that are costly and damaging to society, the economy, and people.

Has anyone done any economic analysis of the costs of Montreal Protocol implementation? Seems to me the 90's were very successful times, I was a happy kid.
 
Extrafire
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Maybe you could link to where you found their conclusions, a google search turned up 4 hits and a scholarly search gave up one, but I can't access that journal from where I am this summer. I'm not in the habit of accepting single studies as proof positive, especially if I can't access the authors conclusions and see their methodology.

I don't have an internet location for their work. You'll have to do the research the hard way.

Quote:

Which scientists are saying that, and what would lead them to believe it's the beginning of any longer term cooling trend than the obvious warming trend we're in? Also, if you're referring to that NASA report, that isn't a global report, it only accounts for temperature readings in the USA. NASA lists 2005 as the hottest year globally and 1998 is the second warmest globally.

Quote:

LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, January 26, 2007
Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.

NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.

With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."




Quote:

I haven't but I will when I'm at a better computer.

You'll find it very interesting. Amazing how much of the turbulent European history we studied was due to the cool climate.
 
Extrafire
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Cite evidence please.

Quote:

Lars Kaml, from the Department of Astronomy and Space Physics at the University of Uppsala: "The main reason why CO2 can only have a small impact on the climate of the world is called saturation. This is a phenomenon well known from theory and observations of spectral lines in stellar atmospheres. An atom or a molecule does not absorb light and other electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths. It only absorbs in narrow regions in the electromagnetic spectrum. Every atom or molecule has its own characteristic sequence of spectral lines.
"Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has exactly one important spectral line in the infrared part of the spectrum. This line is clearly saturated. If you increase the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, not much will happen. The amount of infrared radiation, that is, heat, that will be absorbed changes only by a minimal and insignificant amount. Only if we increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by orders of magnitude, will there be a noticeable change."

Quote:

According to the atmospheric transmission data (H.W. Yates and J. H. Taylor, "Infrared Transmission of the Atmosphere," U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, NRL Report 5453, 1960) carbon dioxide has a very strong absorption band between 13.5 and 15.5 microns wavelength. Earth radiates as a blackbody with a mean surface temperature near 300K and has a peak energy wavelength at 10 microns. Earth's radiation energy in the 13.5 to 15.5 band is 8.4% of Earth's total blackbody radiation.
"Since CO2 absorbs all radiation in this band it absorbs and reradiates 8.4% of the total energy within 200 meters of the surface. Adding more CO2 does not increase this effect because it is at its maximum. Using the absorptivity function (Beer's Law) for a gas, CO2 would only begin to lose this impact if CO2 concentration dropped below a few parts per million. It has been above 200 ppm for over a million years according to geophysicists. Thus I claim the heat retention as a percentage of Earth's total radiation by CO2 is constant


Quote:

Humans produce about 50 giga-tonnes of atmospheric CO2 vapour per year. Be vewy afwaid!
But how big is 50 giga-tonnes of atmospheric CO2 vapour in the green house gas global warming context? Well, the portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03. The portion of green-house gasses that is CO2 is about 1% or 0.01. Thus, the portion of green-house gasses that is human produced CO2 is about 0.03% or 0.0003. The heat-trapping effectiveness of CO2 compared to the average of green-house gasses is about 10% or 0.10. Thus, the portion of the green-house gas global warming caused by human CO2 is about 0.003% or 0.00003 or 30 millionths . Even if we stop producing any CO2 at all, 99.997% of green-house gas global warming will still happen (even if we ignore the Borrello Limit and the saturation effect).




Quote:

Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for roughly 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases. Water is an immensely valuable resource on which our existence depends. Evaporation, precipitation, and the long-range transport of water vapor by winds is the process that constantly recycles water and renews fresh water resources, a feature unique to our planet. Like temperature, the AIRS instrument measures the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere in three dimensional, globally, every day.

NASA
Quote:

Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13m) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6m. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.
Here's a very simplified graphic on atmospheric absorption. And, at right, there's a somewhat more detailed graphic. Right: (a) Normalized blackbody curves for 5780 K and 220 K, plotted so that irradiance is proportional to the areas under the curves. (c) Atmospheric absorption in clear air for solar radiation with a zenith angle of 50 degrees and for diffuse terrestrial radiation. (b) Same as (c) but for the portion of the atmosphere lying above the 11-km level, near the middle latitude tropopause. [From Wallace and Hobbs, p. 332]

Read the whole page. This is from the bottom.


Quote:

Never run out of resources? Hows that sand taste? Overfishing, repeated stress to soil which requires amendments, tree harvesting, all ecosystems have a natural carrying capacity. We have gone beyond that point which is why we: need aquaculture to provide food to the billions of people who rely on fish as their primary source of protein, add chemical fertilizers in such large amounts to the soil, plant new forests with a single fast growing tree, which reduces the ability of that area to cycle nutrients as efficiently or as completely.


Quote:

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."

- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day, 1970


Didn't happen, did it? Doomsday predictions never do come true.

Overfishing? Sure, it's happening. That's why we have fish farms. What's it been, 10,000 years since we switched from hunter-gathering to land farming? Wonder why it took so long for aquaculture. Tree harvesting? Here in BC we plant 4 trees for every one we harvest, plus nature plants lots where we've logged as well. Single fast growing trees are only planted on private land, usually for pulp production. In North America now, there are more trees and more forest land than there were 100 years ago, more even than when Europeans first came here. Currently there's a glut of forest products on the market because supply greatly exceeds demand.

Quote:

Did you even try to look up what I said? Here is where James Hansen responding to critics. Volcanoes can be introduced into climate models. You know how all the "skeptics" use things like natural and historical and things of this nature? Well they are right, there are aspects of the climate which are known and occur with some predictability. Volcanoes are one such example.

My problem is with what you said. No-one can predict volcanic eruptions. They don't occur on schedules or timed intervals. Introducing one into a model is all well and good, but that's pure speculation, not evidence. Sure they affect climate, but unless they occured with a regularity like the "Old Faithful" gyser (and they don't) no-one knows how many or how often they erupt.


Quote:

Not quite what I was getting at. It's not character assassination when there is a well documented effort to lobby for lax regulations and even fraudulent activity by those in a government position by appointment. The science is supported by logic, the effort to undermine the legitimate science is there for all to see. It is a matter of public record. I only hesitate to bring it up because I don't like conspiracy theories, and there are those out there who go beyond the reasonable claims which can be made concerning matters like the Global Climate Coalition, here's a better look.

Sorry, the fraud is all on the alarmist side. Science is always supported by logic, but more importantly, evidence. And the evidence doesn't support the alarmist position, but rather the skeptics. I could give you lots of links if you want.



Quote:

And that theory was thrown out when the evidence was lacking. That hypothesis has been thrown out.

Only when it started to warm up again.

Quote:

The current working theory of global warming works.

No it doesn't, it relies on fraud (remember the Mann "hockey stick" graph? How about the Stern report?) If the predicted cooling trend they'll throw it out too.

Quote:

Moving from an area of relative darkness to an area of brighter light will always 'almost hurt your eyes.' Happens to me every time I wake up in the middle of the night and have to turn the lights on. There is an interesting aside to what you've said. It's the global dimming theory.

Yeah, that's what they used for global cooling alarmism, and they'll probably ressurect that one in 30 years or so.

Quote:

I said:
"increased CO2 by itself does not improve growth discernibly unless there is accompanied increases in both temperature and rainfall", you respond with "when the plant has all the water it needs and more, and all the nutrient it needs", which is exactly what I said.

Not quite. In many, even most situations, like boreal forests or farms there is an abundance of water and nutrient. You implied that it would have no effect unless the temperature and rainfall increased also, which is untrue. And since temperatures have been increasing, particularly in the northern and southern temperate zones, the benefit would seem to exist.

Quote:

Your last portion is rubbish. Agricultural practices have moved towards increased yields as the desirable traits. The nutritional value has declined in the past 50 years as a result. University of Texas at Austin released a report in 2004 which analyzed nutritional content now and compared it to 1950's data. The result was a decrease in: protein, calcium, phosphorous, iron and ascorbic acid. They conclude that:
"Emerging evidence suggests that when you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster, but they don't necessarily have the ability to make or uptake nutrients at the same, faster rate."

I didn't say that the nutritional value has not declined, although they haven't declined all that much. I saw a study recently that found no discernable difference in the nutritional value of products grown with modern practices and those grown organically. My point was that this was irrelevant to the effect of increased CO2 on plant growth.



Quote:

The aforementioned Global Climate Coalition for one. Also, I never said the world would end. That's ridiculous. Who is this group I belong to saying such things?

How about Al Gore? David Suzuki? Leonardo DeCaprio? The IPCC? I could go on. Scare tactics and indoctrination of children. No, I know neither you nor they ever said the world would end. What, have you never heard of hyperbole? Althought they're saying the world as we know it will end.

Quote:

I only want my progeny to have access to clean air,

Then fight against pollution, not climate change. Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority (Video)

Quote:

predictable reserves of fresh water,

Nothing to worry about in Canada.

Quote:

good nutritional food

If you don't like mass produced food, grow your own or choose organic. It's available everywhere. Again, not a problem.

Quote:

and the chance to prosper,

Prosperity comes from capitalism and free enterprise when people are free to pursue their own goals. Read the aforementioned "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer, "The Mystery of Capital" (Why capitalism works in the west and fails everywhere else) by Hernando DeSoto.

Quote:

rather than pay for my own generations mistakes.

Unfortunately progeny always pay for the previous generations mistakes. And benefit from their good works. The problem is determining which actions today are mistakes.


Quote:

In England. I believe some in Denmark as well, with co-operative energy production.

What countries have slashed their emissions? Denmark has a huge offshore wind turbine industry, but they still aren't going to meet their Kyoto obligations.


Quote:

I don't really like the large scale hydro, damaging to fish runs. Nuclear by far would be my preferred base load for any energy plans.

Well we agree on this.

Quote:

Has anyone done any economic analysis of the costs of Montreal Protocol implementation? Seems to me the 90's were very successful times, I was a happy kid.

That's as kids should be. Glad you had that experience. Kids shouldn't have to worry. Unfortunately, now kids are worrying about catastrophies that aren't going to happen.

The '90's weren't all that prosperous. You have a kid's memories, which have nothing to do with the economic situation of the world around you at that time, and that's as it should be too. Times have been better the last 8 or 10 years.
Last edited by Extrafire; Aug 19th, 2007 at 07:16 PM..
 
Tonington
#80
So for the first post, a few questions arise. The article cites changes in solar irradiance as the driver of both the carbon dioxide concentrations and the increasing temperature, yet the irradiance is a nearly decadal cycle. Heres the data from NOAA:

Now here is the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations:


Now it seems to me, if solar irradiance were the driver of emmissions, the two graphs would show some form of correlation. They don't. There have been many studies in the past which claimed changes to solar irradiance was the largest contributing factor to global warming. The fact is, when the data is correlated, there is no way the solar irradience can be the largest contributing factor.
 
Tonington
#81
The saturation argument. Well, if the lower atmosphere bands were saturated, which they aren't, that is inconsequential, as it is in the absorption in the thin layer of the upper atmosphere where the infrared actually escapes Earth that determines Earth's heat balance. We know the bands are not saturated from an effect known as pressure broadening. The absorption lines get thinner as pressure drops, and similarly broader as the pressure increases. The majority of the spectrum lies between the lines and the absorption coefficient drops with a drop in pressure. These issues were satisfactorily dealt with 50 years ago, and are now included in models. Models which by the way are also being used to forecast the global warming on Mars.

With respect to water vapour, while it is the largest greenhouse gas by proprtions, it is not the strongest forcing, nor does it have as many positive feedback loops as the other gases. With particular importance again going to the upper atmosphere where there is very little water vapour to block escaping infrared. There is lots of CO2 and Methane however.

This saturation argument has recently surfaced on the blogosphere, as did the solar irradiance a while back. What's humorous is that models are bashed here on Earth, but when a study uses them to show warming on Mars, all of a sudden they're valid scientific tools. here

BC may have a glut of timber product, but global timber stocks are declining. Regional means squat. Aquaculture has been practiced for 4000 years now, it's my major at school, and unfortunately there are a large number of sectors across the globe that ruin it's reputation by acting improperly, there are plenty of examples in your neck of the woods.

Phillip Cooney is not an example of fraud... pffft. Links can be dragged up anywhere, it's the methodology of studies and the conclusions that are telling. Junkscience would be a good example of omitting relevant facts in their skewed representation of the science.
 
Dexter Sinister
#82
Let's try some incontrovertible facts, shall we?

The World Meteorological Organization reports on extreme weather and climate events

Geneva, 7 August 2007(WMO) - Weather and climate are marked by record extremes in many regions across the world since January 2007. In January and April 2007 it is likely that global land surface temperatures ranked warmest since records began in 1880, 1.89C warmer than average for January and 1.37C warmer than average for April. Several regions have experienced extremely heavy precipitation, leading to severe floods. The Fourth Assessment Report of the WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes an increasing trend in extreme events observed during the last 50 years. IPCC further projects it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.

WMO and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services of its 188 Members are working with other UN Agencies and partners towards the establishment of a multi-hazard early warning system. Furthermore, they are putting in place sustainable observation systems needed for monitoring and assessing the impacts of climate change and determining the adaptation priorities for the most vulnerable countries.

Heavy rainfall, cyclones and wind storms

During the first half (June-July) of the Indian summer monsoon season, four monsoon depressions (double the normal frequency) caused heavy rainfall and floods in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Many stations reported 24h rainfall exceeding 350 mm. These monsoon extremes and incessant rains caused large-scale flooding all over South Asia, a situation that continues even now, resulting in more than 500 deaths, displacement of more than 10 million people and destruction of vast areas of croplands, livestock and property.

Cyclone Gonu, the first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea, made landfall in Oman on 6 June with maximum sustained winds near 148 km/h. Gonu moved through the Persian Gulf making a second landfall in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In Oman, the cyclone affected more than 20,000 people and was responsible for more than 50 fatalities.

Heavy rains during 6-10 June ravaged areas across southern China. Flooding affected over 13.5 million people with more than 120 fatalities due to floods and landslides.

In England and Wales the period May to July in 2007 was the wettest (406 mm) since records began in 1766, breaking the previous record of 349 mm in 1789. The extreme rainfall in June, with 103.1 mm of rain recorded in 24 hours during 24-25 June in northeast England, was followed by a similar event with 120.8 mm of rain on 20 July in central England. Both events resulted in extensive flooding across parts of England and Wales. At least nine people have died and damage is estimated at more than US$6.00 billion.
With 126 mm (normal for 1961-1990: 71 mm], Germany experienced its wettest May since country-wide observations started in 1901. In sharp contrast, the previous month was the driest April since 1901 with an average of 4 mm (7% of the 1961-1990 normal).

A powerful storm system affected much of northern Europe during 17-18 January 2007 with torrential rains and winds gusting up to 170 km/h. There were at least 47 deaths across the region, with disruptions in electric supply affecting tens of thousands during the storm. Initial estimates of losses were reported as 3-5 billion Euros.

The worst flooding event in 6 years hit Mozambique in February. An estimated 30 people were killed and 120,000 evacuated from the central Zambezi basin. Additional flooding and loss of life was attributed to the landfall of tropical cyclone Favio on 22nd February.

Abnormally heavy and early rainfall in Sudan since the end of June has caused the Nile River and other seasonal rivers to overflow, resulting in extensive flooding and damaging more than 16,000 houses.

In May a series of large swell waves (estimated at 3-4.5 meters) swamped some 68 islands in 16 atolls in the Maldives causing serious flooding and extensive damages.

In early May, Uruguay was hit by the worst flooding since 1959. Heavy rainfall in portions of Uruguay produced floods that affected more than 110,000 people and severely damaged crops and buildings.

Heat Waves

Two extreme heat waves affected south-eastern Europe in June and July, breaking the previous records with temperatures exceeding 40 C. Dozens of people died and fire-fighters worked around the clock fighting blazes devastating thousands of hectares of land. On 23 July, temperatures hit 45C in Bulgaria, setting a new record.

In May a heat wave affected areas across western and central Russia breaking several temperature records. In Moscow, temperatures on 28 May reached 32.9C, the highest temperature recorded in May since 1891.

In many European countries, April was the warmest ever recorded with the temperatures reaching more than 4C over and above the long-term mean in some areas.

Recognizing the severe health impacts of heat waves, the WMO and the World Health Organization (WHO), are at an advanced stage of preparing Guidance on the implementation of Heat Health early Warning Systems (HHWS).

Climate Change and Extremes

According to the most recent climate change scientific assessment reports of the joint WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature. The 100-year trend (1906-2005) is 0.74C. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Paleoclimatic studies suggest that the average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in the past 1,300 years.

IPCC further notes that there has been an increasing trend in the extreme events observed during the last 50 years, particularly heavy precipitation events, hot days, hot nights and heat waves. Climate change projections indicate it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.

Additional facts:

An unusual cold winter season brought winds, blizzards and rare snowfall to various provinces in South America with temperatures reaching as low as -22C in Argentina and -18C in Chile in the beginning of July.

On 27 June a winter weather front moved across South Africa bringing the country's first significant snowfall since 1981 (25 cm of snow in parts of the country).

In India, a heat wave during mid-May produced temperatures as high as 45-50C.

Many European countries had their warmest January on record. January temperatures in The Netherlands were the highest since measurements were first taken in 1706, averaging about 7.1C (2.8C above 1961-1990 average) while in Germany the temperatures were 4.6C above the 1961-1990 average.

An increase in intense tropical cyclone activities in the North Atlantic since about 1970 has been observed.

This information is based on inputs received from several WMO Members and with the collaboration of the NOAA National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC), USA, Germany's National Meteorological Service, the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) and the Met Office, UK. It includes an indicative but not exhaustive coverage of the observed weather and climate extremes. More comprehensive information on weather and climate anomalies observed in 2007 will be provided towards the end of the year.

WMO is the United Nations' authoritative voice on weather, climate and water

For more information please contact:
Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele <javascript :sendMail('cpa','wmo.int');> , Chief, Communications and Public Affairs, WMO.
Tel: +41 (0)22 730 83 15.


There you have it: many more extreme events, a predicted consequence of warming. There is no question that the climate is warming. The loss of arctic and antarctic ice cover, the increasing ranges of certain plants and animals and insects, all point to it. The issue is not that the global climate is warming, that's a simple fact, the issue is the human contribution to it, and that's an issue surrounded by spin and politics and vested interests. The climate's been warming for about 12,000 years, that's what ended the last Ice Age. 12,000 years ago the place where I live was buried under several kilometres of ice. It isn't now, so obviously the climate is warmer now. D'uh... It's also true that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased about 30% since the Industrial Revolution, that's clear from measurements on bubbles of the ancient atmosphere found in ice cores. Whether human activity is or is not the cause is still problematic, because the changes clearly attributable to human activities are approximately at the level of uncertainty in the data.

But I don't think that really matters anyway. Pumping carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere makes it warmer, that's a simple fact, and whether what we're seeing now is a natural cycle or human caused, we should make every possible effort to minimize our contribution to it.
 
Karlin
#83
DUH , I was such a fool to believed that 650 million metric tonnes of CO2 would have any effect at all on the atmosphere. Gee I feel so stupid.

NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
 
Walter
#84
Back to the OP:


Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims
Michael Duffy
August 18, 2007



Imagine if the American government agency responsible for temperature records had announced a fortnight ago that it had overestimated annual temperatures since the year 2000. Imagine if, at the time of correcting this error, the hottest year on record was mysteriously altered from 1998 to 1934. Imagine further that if you considered the 10 hottest years on record after these corrections, the hottest decade changed from the 1990s to the 1930s.
Would that change your views on global warming? It should, because climate change theory says increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature. Yet the hot 1930s was hardly a decade of carbon-spewing industrial growth.
Well, all these things have happened. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates the average US temperature figures. It does this by processing data from land measurement sites. Earlier this year a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre approached the institute and pointed out an error in its more recent calculations. Figures since 2000 had been inflated by about 0.15 of a degree celsius.
The institute thanked him and on August 7 quietly changed these figures, and some of the rankings on its list of the hottest years on record, which extends back to 1880. It did this without any public acknowledgment of the changes.
The Goddard Institute is a major supporter of the climate change orthodoxy, and the discovery that it got one of the central data sets of global warming science and debate wrong is embarrassing and disturbing.
Previously, McIntyre, along with the economist Ross McKitrick, had demolished the so-called "hockey stick" chart used in the third report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The graph incorrectly portrayed the history of the Earth's average temperature over the past millennium as essentially unchanged until a steep climb in the 20th century. This made a modest rise in temperature appear far more unusual than it really was.
The two men had difficulty gaining access to the data and methodologies used in creating the hockey stick, a difficulty facing many who want to question the most basic research on which the science of climate change rests. It was McIntyre's continuing interest in such basic questions, pursued publicly at his blog climateaudit.org, that led him to look at the problematic siting of many US land weather stations (see photos of them at the website SurfaceStations.org) and how the data they produce is processed.

Strange as it might seem in a scientific field that spends some $6.4 billion a year on often abstruse research and computer modelling, the integrity of the basic temperature data is emerging as a serious problem. The Goddard Institute claims to correct data from poorly sited stations, but McIntyre says it refused to tell him how it does this in sufficient detail for him to check its results. When he obtained some of the raw data from specific sites and compared it with the processed temperatures created by the institute, he found problems. In one case data from a good site, at the Grand Canyon, had been changed to make the 1930s colder than they were.
Across the Atlantic, the British mathematician Douglas Keenan has claimed that two important academic papers on the reliability of Chinese weather stations are wrong. This is a major issue because one of the papers is cited by the IPCC to support its position that measurement errors owing to urbanisation and the "heat island effect" - which makes cities warmer than their surroundings - are insignificant. Keenan claims to have discovered that some of the Chinese stations have been moved a lot. One, for example, had five different locations from 1954 to 1983, over a distance of 41 kilometres. This makes the data largely useless.
It took several years to gain access to the information needed to reveal this fault with the papers, because the academics involved refused to release it. Keenan finally obtained it by the creative means of using Britain's Freedom of Information Act, on the grounds that an academic who had the information was a public servant.
The climate change establishment is represented by the website realclimate.org. Its response to McIntyre's success in getting the Goddard Institute to reduce US temperature figures for the period since 2000 has been to say that the implication for global averages is imperceptible, since the US is only a very small fraction of the global area. Strictly speaking this is correct, although America's figures are more important than its land area might indicate because they go back so far in an unbroken line, which is fairly unusual.
Since the break-up of the USSR, the number of weather stations in the world has declined by half. Many of them used to be in cold areas. The scientists who compile global averages presumably try to take this into account - although in light of some of the above stories you have to wonder just how well they succeed.
Whatever the scientific implications of McIntyre's revelation, the rhetorical one is huge. America is the centre of the global debate on climate change. No longer will Americans or anyone else be able to say the hottest year on record in their great nation was 1998. Looking at the new top 10, it's hard to see any signs of global warming. The ranking, starting from the hottest year, goes: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
It's a sad thought, but maybe we and our weather are not as unusual as some want to believe.
 
typingrandomstuff
#85
No proofs, no facts. Not trustworthy. Hum. Cooling trend in the earth's core have nothing to do with human activity. What's the next big thing? We live in a bubble and is not connect to the world? Keep on shreading ideas about fake stuff. One day you live to regret.

I know scientists are wrong a lot. A lot of times they make up stuff like how people post and argue, but I think the data is reliable. The data do not lie. If you do not believe me, you can research. This is turning to be an opinion rather than facts. I know there must be a global snowball trend. What cause the trend? I believe it is the electromagnetic forces and the weakening heat within the center of the earth.

People, you see, each planet have their own limit. They have a specific amount of energy and products to use. Using those products, the planet is able to live, make electricity, give planet life, change and durability. When those products are used up and there is no atmosphere or recycle parts, the planet dies. It cannot be proven, but do a star live and die? Do a planet live and die? Do we all live and die for the creation of the universe?

Another way a planet can die is through loss recycling. Although recycling do help the planet prolongs the life, some of the energy is escaped. For example, during a fusion reaction, the heat is escaped. As more of the similar energies disappear, earth grows weaker.

Does that mean recycling is evil? No. Recycling is better. It helps a lot. Recycling is the durable method to reuse items. Of course, the best method is to use less and do more by people's physical powers.

It's cold in the core and hot on the surface plus the electromagnetic flip to cool down the extreme heat. See how earth try to help? You guys and girls can do it. There's nothing to it.
 
typingrandomstuff
#86
Universe created by force. Change by evolution and dies by the creation's laws.
 
hermanntrude
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by typingrandomstuff View Post

No proofs, no facts. Not trustworthy. Hum. Cooling trend in the earth's core have nothing to do with human activity. What's the next big thing? We live in a bubble and is not connect to the world? Keep on shreading ideas about fake stuff. One day you live to regret.

I know scientists are wrong a lot. A lot of times they make up stuff like how people post and argue, but I think the data is reliable. The data do not lie. If you do not believe me, you can research. This is turning to be an opinion rather than facts. I know there must be a global snowball trend. What cause the trend? I believe it is the electromagnetic forces and the weakening heat within the center of the earth.

.

I'm not arguing that global cooling isn't happening. I'm arguing that it's happening so unbelievably slowly that it has NO bearing whatsoever on this debate, which is about a million-times-faster process of global warming.
 
typingrandomstuff
#88
Yay!
 
Tonington
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Back to the OP:


Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims
Michael Duffy
August 18, 2007



Imagine if the American government agency responsible for temperature records had announced a fortnight ago that it had overestimated annual temperatures since the year 2000. Imagine if, at the time of correcting this error, the hottest year on record was mysteriously altered from 1998 to 1934. Imagine further that if you considered the 10 hottest years on record after these corrections, the hottest decade changed from the 1990s to the 1930s.
Would that change your views on global warming? It should, because climate change theory says increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature. Yet the hot 1930s was hardly a decade of carbon-spewing industrial growth.
Well, all these things have happened. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates the average US temperature figures. It does this by processing data from land measurement sites. Earlier this year a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre approached the institute and pointed out an error in its more recent calculations. Figures since 2000 had been inflated by about 0.15 of a degree celsius.
The institute thanked him and on August 7 quietly changed these figures, and some of the rankings on its list of the hottest years on record, which extends back to 1880. It did this without any public acknowledgment of the changes.
The Goddard Institute is a major supporter of the climate change orthodoxy, and the discovery that it got one of the central data sets of global warming science and debate wrong is embarrassing and disturbing.
Previously, McIntyre, along with the economist Ross McKitrick, had demolished the so-called "hockey stick" chart used in the third report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The graph incorrectly portrayed the history of the Earth's average temperature over the past millennium as essentially unchanged until a steep climb in the 20th century. This made a modest rise in temperature appear far more unusual than it really was.
The two men had difficulty gaining access to the data and methodologies used in creating the hockey stick, a difficulty facing many who want to question the most basic research on which the science of climate change rests. It was McIntyre's continuing interest in such basic questions, pursued publicly at his blog climateaudit.org, that led him to look at the problematic siting of many US land weather stations (see photos of them at the website SurfaceStations.org) and how the data they produce is processed.

Strange as it might seem in a scientific field that spends some $6.4 billion a year on often abstruse research and computer modelling, the integrity of the basic temperature data is emerging as a serious problem. The Goddard Institute claims to correct data from poorly sited stations, but McIntyre says it refused to tell him how it does this in sufficient detail for him to check its results. When he obtained some of the raw data from specific sites and compared it with the processed temperatures created by the institute, he found problems. In one case data from a good site, at the Grand Canyon, had been changed to make the 1930s colder than they were.
Across the Atlantic, the British mathematician Douglas Keenan has claimed that two important academic papers on the reliability of Chinese weather stations are wrong. This is a major issue because one of the papers is cited by the IPCC to support its position that measurement errors owing to urbanisation and the "heat island effect" - which makes cities warmer than their surroundings - are insignificant. Keenan claims to have discovered that some of the Chinese stations have been moved a lot. One, for example, had five different locations from 1954 to 1983, over a distance of 41 kilometres. This makes the data largely useless.
It took several years to gain access to the information needed to reveal this fault with the papers, because the academics involved refused to release it. Keenan finally obtained it by the creative means of using Britain's Freedom of Information Act, on the grounds that an academic who had the information was a public servant.
The climate change establishment is represented by the website realclimate.org. Its response to McIntyre's success in getting the Goddard Institute to reduce US temperature figures for the period since 2000 has been to say that the implication for global averages is imperceptible, since the US is only a very small fraction of the global area. Strictly speaking this is correct, although America's figures are more important than its land area might indicate because they go back so far in an unbroken line, which is fairly unusual.
Since the break-up of the USSR, the number of weather stations in the world has declined by half. Many of them used to be in cold areas. The scientists who compile global averages presumably try to take this into account - although in light of some of the above stories you have to wonder just how well they succeed.
Whatever the scientific implications of McIntyre's revelation, the rhetorical one is huge. America is the centre of the global debate on climate change. No longer will Americans or anyone else be able to say the hottest year on record in their great nation was 1998. Looking at the new top 10, it's hard to see any signs of global warming. The ranking, starting from the hottest year, goes: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
It's a sad thought, but maybe we and our weather are not as unusual as some want to believe.

I've already touched on this, but how does the temperature record of the United States, after a change of 0.02 in the hottest year(1998 went from 1.25 to 1.23) have anything to do with GLOBAL warming? A tiny portion of the globe with a small change from two different databases is hardly the duck in the barrel it's made out to be.

Most importantly, the long term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 still beats out 1930-1934.
 
typingrandomstuff
#90
I forgot to add that data is reliable unless people change the data.
 

Similar Threads

42
History or Myth
by darkbeaver | Aug 2nd, 2009
0
The Shortage Myth
by darkbeaver | Dec 5th, 2007
35
How the Myth of Jesus came about
by Dreadful Nonsense | Oct 27th, 2007
17
The Myth of Zarqawi
by vista | Oct 24th, 2004