How the GW myth is perpetuated


typingrandomstuff
#91
I also forget fluctuation must occur at this time of year in the graph except the people just roughly graphed the humphery-model.
 
Extrafire
#92
I don't have much time. I'll reply to what I can and I'll get back to the rest on the weekend.


Quote:

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.

Well that's a very simplistic and incomplete idea of solar variances. The sun has many differing cycles. Sunspots vary over an 11 year cycle, but also on a longer (maybe irregular) changes. During the "Little Ice Age" there was almost no sunspot activity at all, yet that 11 year cycle was still there. I've also heard that there's a 50 year cycle, but I can't remember anything about it. Then there's a 1500 year cycle that's been there regular as clockwork for 900 thousand years, even through ice ages and interglacial periods. Dennis Avery describes that kind of stuff in an audio.

Here's a graph of CO2 and sunspot and temperatures. Notice how the temperature fluctuations are almost in lockstep with sunspot activity, but not CO2.

Ice cores have revealed that CO2 increase follows temperature increase. Notice that Al Gore used them in his movie, covering a few hundred thousand years, one huge graph above the other. Usually in this kind of graph, the two are superimposed so the relationship is very clear, just like in the graph I pasted here. Al Gore didn't do that. Could it be because if he had, it would clearly have shown the temperature increases preceeding the CO2 increases. And he wouldn't have been able to make his movie.

Temperatures preceed CO2 increases by 800 years. I don't know why the time delay, but that's what happens. Let's see, CO2 is increasing now, what was happening to the temperature 800 years ago? Oh right! The medieval climate optimum, when temperatures were much warmer than now.

 
typingrandomstuff
#93
Wow, the sun is gigantic and the earth is like a small coin.
 
Tonington
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Well that's a very simplistic and incomplete idea of solar variances. The sun has many differing cycles. Sunspots vary over an 11 year cycle, but also on a longer (maybe irregular) changes. During the "Little Ice Age" there was almost no sunspot activity at all, yet that 11 year cycle was still there. I've also heard that there's a 50 year cycle, but I can't remember anything about it. Then there's a 1500 year cycle that's been there regular as clockwork for 900 thousand years, even through ice ages and interglacial periods. Dennis Avery describes that kind of stuff in an audio.

Here's a graph of CO2 and sunspot and temperatures. Notice how the temperature fluctuations are almost in lockstep with sunspot activity, but not CO2.

Ice cores have revealed that CO2 increase follows temperature increase. Notice that Al Gore used them in his movie, covering a few hundred thousand years, one huge graph above the other. Usually in this kind of graph, the two are superimposed so the relationship is very clear, just like in the graph I pasted here. Al Gore didn't do that. Could it be because if he had, it would clearly have shown the temperature increases preceeding the CO2 increases. And he wouldn't have been able to make his movie.

Temperatures preceed CO2 increases by 800 years. I don't know why the time delay, but that's what happens. Let's see, CO2 is increasing now, what was happening to the temperature 800 years ago? Oh right! The medieval climate optimum, when temperatures were much warmer than now.

I was responding to the article which cited solar irradiance, not sun spots. Solar irradiance does not correlate to the noted rise in greenhouse gases. End of story.

I'm not sure where you found that graph, as the graphs I've seen are markedly different. Your graph appears to be plotting the length of cycles versus years with a temperature overlay, which is absurd. The average sunspot cycle is about 11 years, but there is some variance. If we want to plot the sun spot numbers we get very different graphics:


Also, sunspots tend to increase in number as the suns irradiance increases, which as I've discussed already has no discernible effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

The medieval warm period, is annecdotal evidence of warming, which doesn't even equate to a global scale. Regional warming, no doubt. But the idea that the medieval warm period was globally warmer than today is incorrect. All proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now, and warming faster. There are numerous studies listed here from the NOAA, with accompanied data if you wish to fact check. Specifically, the NOAA says this about the medieval warm and little ice age:
Quote:

Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries

Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."

In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

For larger viewing version of graph, please click here or on image.

There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. For example, Mann et al. (1999) generated a 1,000 year Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction (shown above) using data from multiple ice cores and tree ring records. This reconstruction suggests that the 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000 (shown in yellow). (For complete scientific reference of this study, please click here. Link to Mann 1999 FTP Data.)

In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. To learn more about the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz. (For complete review reference click here.)

 
typingrandomstuff
#95
A persuasion theory fight.
 
Extrafire
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

I was responding to the article which cited solar irradiance, not sun spots.

And I was explaining that there are many variations in solar output that affect temperatures on earth. Sunspots are important because they correspond to the strength of the suns magnetic field, which affects the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the earth, which affects the amount and elevation and characteristics (water or ice) of cloud formation, which has a huge influence on global climate.
Quote:

A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth's climate.

An essential role for remote stars in everyday weather on Earth has been revealed by an experiment at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen.
It is already well-established that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars far away in the Milky Way, penetrate Earth's atmosphere they produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons.
Now, results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.
Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.
The Danish team officially announced their discovery on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society, the British national academy of science.
.....
"We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei," says team leader Henrik Svensmark, who is Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research within the Danish National Space Center. "This is a completely new result within climate science."
A missing link in climate theory

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth's climate through their effect on cloud formation.
The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines. It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth's surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth's climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth's climate.

More info on sunspots:
Quote:

Incidentally, the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820. More recently it was discovered that the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures (2). There is an even better correlation with the length of the solar cycle, between years of the highest numbers of sunspots. For example, the temperature anomaly was - 0.4 K in 1890 when the cycle was 11.7 years, but + 0.25 K in 1989 when the cycle was 9.8 years. Some critics of the theory of man-induced global warming have seized on this discovery to criticize the greenhouse gas theory.
All this evokes the important question of how sunspots affect the Earth's climate. To answer this question, we need to know how total solar irradiance received by the Earth is affected by sunspot activity.
Intuitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased. However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise.

Quote:

Solar irradiance does not correlate to the noted rise in greenhouse gases. End of story.

You're ignoring this:
Quote:

Temperatures preceed CO2 increases by 800 years.

And where does all of our heat come from? Right. The sun. It does correlate. Even Al Gore used the evidence (only he distorted it to fit his theory).

Quote:

The medieval warm period, is annecdotal evidence of warming, which doesn't even equate to a global scale. Regional warming, no doubt. But the idea that the medieval warm period was globally warmer than today is incorrect.

I know that a lot of doomsayers have tried to pretend that the Medieval Climate Optimum was a local weather pattern, but really, that's such a pathetic attempt to manipulate established history and geology. And the infamous Mann Hockey Stick Graph???? That's been so thoroughly exposed as a fraud, not even the IPCC tries to defend it anymore! In fact, they totally ignore it in their latest report, after prominently using it 6 times in the previous report.
Check out the story of the expose:

Quote:

So Steve starts digging. First, he read's Mann's original report. He finds it an exercise in obscurity. From what he published, it's very, very hard to tell just what statistical methods Mann used, or even what data he operated on.
This is wrong -- it's not supposed to be that way. Scientists are supposed to leave a clear path so other people can follow them up and replicate their research.
The fact that it's so obscure suggests that Mann does not want anyone checking his work.
But Mann used government grants in his research. Which means he has an obligation to disclose. Steve contacts him, asks for the information. He gets a runaround. He gets pointed to a website that does not have the information. He tries again, and again gets a runaround -- in fact, Mann sends him a very rude letter saying that he will no longer communicate with him.
Why should he? Steve isn't a legitimate researcher in that field. He's just a businessman.
But Steve is now sure there's something fishy going on, and he doesn't give up. He gets other people to help him. Finally they are pointed to a different website, where, to their surprise, they find that someone has accidentally left a copy of the FORTRAN program that was used to crunch the numbers. It wasn't supposed to be where Steve found it -- which is why it hadn't been deleted.
Also, there was a little more carelessness -- there is a set of data labeled "censored." Steve can't see, right away, what's significant about it, except that a score or so of data sets are left out of the censored data.
Steve looks at the program. He finds the glitch rather easily. He tries the program on random numbers and realizes that it always yields the distinctive shape that has caused all the stir.
Sorting out the data sets is much harder. He contacts a lot of people. He does what anyone checking these figures would have to do, and he realizes: If anyone had tried to check, a lot of this information would already have been put together.
He realizes: I am the first person ever to attempt to verify these astonishing, anomalous, politically hot results. Out of all the researchers in this field who had a responsibility to do "due diligence" before accepting the data, none of them has done it.
Finally he has all the original data put together. It includes more than just real numbers -- it includes "extrapolated" data, which means that sometimes, where there were holes, Mann just made the numbers up and plugged them in. This is sloppy and lazy -- but it's just the beginning.
What's crucial is that Steve now understands why the "censored" data sets are smaller than the ones Mann used. The full source data includes those misleading results that shouldn't have been used. But the "censored" data sets leave it out. This means that Mann knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an accident. Mann ran the program on the data without the misleading numbers, and then he ran it with the misleading numbers. What he published was the results that made his ideological case.

"To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world."

Quote:

In the Sargasso Sea (an area popularly known as the `Bermuda Triangle') , radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in sea bed sediments by L. Keigwin [12] demonstrates that sea surface temperatures were around 2F cooler than today around 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) , and around 2F warmer than today 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period) . In addition, the data also demonstrates that the period before 500 BC (the so-called Holocene Climatic Optimum) saw temperatures up to 4F warmer - and without any greenhouse gas component to cause it.

Quote:

In Taiwan, Kuo-Yen Wei et al. performed lake sediment studies similar to those in Kenya, which again revealed the imprint of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age [13] . According to their summary -

  • "The interlaminated dark and light colored lake sediments obtained from several mountain lakes appear to reflect large-scale wet and dry cycles over the past 2400 years (Chen et al., 1993; Lou et al, in press) . The detected 450-years periodicity is similar to that of the solar oscillation. The Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) were recognized (Lou et al., in press) . These two epochs were also identified from palynological records from the Central Range (Liew et al., 1995) "
They also referred to studies of annual to seasonal records from tree-rings
  • "Studies of tree rings of Taiwan fir allowed to reconstruct past summer and winter temperatures of the alpine mountain area during the past 300 years. It is demonstrated that cold climate prevailed during the Little Ice Age (Tsou and Liu, 1995) ."
Finally in a synopsis of the various proxies studied in and around Taiwan -
  • "During the past 2000 years, the climate has become warmer and wetter, intervened with the conspicuous Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) . Tree-ring data confirmed also the effect of the Little Ice Age in alpine Taiwan mountains. Fluctuation of humidity over the past 2,400 years as derived from lake sediments suggests that the recognized dry/cold periods coincide with major historical commotion events in Chinese history."

Quote:

In a recent paper in the South African Journal of Science, Tyson et al [27] developed a climate history from oxygen 18 isotopes (a temperature proxy) , carbon 14 isotopes (a proxy for solar activity) , and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite in a cave in the Makapansgat Valley. According to the authors -

  • "The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1C cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3C higher than at present during the extremes of the Medieval Warm Period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres."
They dated the Medieval Warm Period at pre-1000 to 1300 AD, with mean temperatures 6 to 7F warmer than today, and dated the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1800 with mean temperatures up to 2F cooler than today.
The authors then proceeded to attribute a cause to these two events.
  • "The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation."
The variability of the sun causing impacts on earth's climate, was reaffirmed by this South African study. All the climate changes they noted correlated with known changes on the sun.

Quote:

Published multi-proxy studies by Villalba in 1994 [30] and Cioccale in 1999 [2] confirm the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Argentina.
In the central regions of Argentina, there was a warm climate from 600 AD up to around 1320 AD, allowing human populations to settle and cultivate higher altitude areas, matching the Medieval Warm Period. After 1320, two cold `pulses' were noted. During the second pulse (the main phase of the Little Ice Age) , glaciers in the southern Andes began to advance and residents abandoned settlements in the higher altitudes. According to Cioccale, "Both cold pulses can be related to the Sporer and Maunder Minimums respectively" . Again the sun was held responsible for these events.

Lots more studies from around the world demonstrating conclusively that the Medieval Climate Optimum was a world wide event. Scientific references are provided at bottom.

Try the Global Warming Test. There's lots of explanations as you go along. Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.
Last edited by Extrafire; Aug 24th, 2007 at 11:28 PM..
 
Niflmir
#97
I remember reading that precise temperature measurements didn't begin until about the 1980's and that is when the "cycle length vs temperature anomaly" graph stops plotting data. I have two fundamental questions: what is the magnitude of the error bars on that graph and how is the "temperature anomaly" calculated? Without good answers to those questions, the results are what we in the business call spurious.
 
typingrandomstuff
#98
Found the relation on cold and position of the universe. Still convinced global warming is by Carbon dioxide excess. Universes take years after all to shift from one place to another.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...L&type=science
 
Extrafire
#99
"A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable. - The New York Times, 1975
__________________________________________________ ___________
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."

- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
__________________________________________________ _________________
"The polar icecaps of Mars are receding at several miles a year, much faster than ours and that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are melting, in fact several of their moons were ice and are now liquid seas - how are SUV's causing that David Rothschild?" - Alex Jones

"Because those planets are closer to the sun, my friend." - David de Rothschild, Author '77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Changes'
__________________________________________________ ________________

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post


There you have it: many more extreme events, a predicted consequence of warming. There is no question that the climate is warming.

There is no question that the climate has warmed. There is a question whether it is still warming.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

The loss of arctic and antarctic ice cover, the increasing ranges of certain plants and animals and insects, all point to it.

Arctic sea ice is declining. This is nothing new, it was also in decline the last time it was this warm in the late '30's, only then it was considered a good thing. Also sometime around the end of the 19th century, also considered a good thing. And in 1421 (I think that's the correct year) the Chinese navy sent a polar expedition that encountered no ice.

However, while ice is currently receding on the southern portion of Greenland it's still nowhere near as benign a climate as it was when the Norse farmed there, and ice over the northern part is increasing, as is ice on Antarctica.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

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.

So true.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

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...

I don't think that's all that correct. I recall reading somewhere that other interglacials have been much warmer than now. Also, we know there were old growth forests 7,000 years ago in some areas that today are buried under glaciers.
Quote:

Ulrich Joerin, a wiry Swiss scientist in his late twenties, is part of a small group of climatologists who are in the process of radically changing the image of the Swiss mountain world. He and a colleague are standing in front of the Tschierva Glacier in Engadin, Switzerland at 2,200 meters (7,217 feet). "A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers here at all," he says. "Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest." He digs into the ground with his mountain boot until something dark appears: an old tree trunk, covered in ice, polished by water and almost black with humidity. "And here is the proof," says Joerin. Radical new theory
The tree trunk in the ice is part of a huge climatic puzzle that Joerin is analyzing for his doctoral thesis for the Institute for Geological Science at the University of Bern. And he is coming to an astonishing conclusion. The fact that the Alpine glaciers are melting right now appears to be part of regular cycle in which snow and ice have been coming and going for thousands of years.
The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago . "At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today," says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army.


Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

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.

I've already addressed how minuscule the human contribution is compared to the natural variation. Here's the graphs that Al Gore wouldn't superimpose in his film


Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

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.

Very little warmer. Mostly it mitigates the extremes of temperature swings. And the efforts to minimize our contributions would have no effect, while putting the money elsewhere could do great good.
 
s_lone
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post



Very little warmer. Mostly it mitigates the extremes of temperature swings. And the efforts to minimize our contributions would have no effect, while putting the money elsewhere could do great good.

Minimizing our contributions would have no effects? How about cleaner air? How about no more SMOG?!
 
typingrandomstuff
#101
cold core and hot surface plus the winds and rain of electromagnetics.
 
Extrafire
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone View Post

Minimizing our contributions would have no effects? How about cleaner air? How about no more SMOG?!

CO2 is not pollution, it is part of the air, and the vast majority of the volume of CO2 in the air is natural. Human activity contributes only a tiny percentage of the total. It is acknowledged by all sides in the debate that if the whole world met it's Kyoto targets, there would be no effect on global temperatures, and that's even acknowledged by those who believe in global warming catastrophism. In fact, being that our contribution is so relatively small, even if we eliminated all human contributions there would be no effect, even if the CO2 alarmism were true. That's what I was referring to when I said minimizing our contributions would have no effect.

Cleaner air? Smog? CO2 is part of the air. Adding it to the air has no effect on it's cleanliness, any more than adding oxygen would. In fact, so far efforts to minimize CO2 have resulted in increased CO2 emissions and dirtier air from real pollutants. Alternative fuels such as biodeisel, ethanol, hydrogen require more energy to produce than they deliver, resulting in more overall energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In the rush to supply the biodeisel market, vast areas of tropical rain forest have been slashed and burned for palm oil plantations resulting in great releases of CO2 from the forests as well as thousands of years of accumulated peat being burned, not to mention massive amounts of pollution in the air in that area.

You want clean air? So do I. Then target the pollutants, not CO2, 'cause you'll only make it worse that way.
 
Extrafire
#103
More about dirty air, and the role it plays in global warming:

Quote:

A new study indicates that poor Asians burning dung for energy may be a major cause of global warming. It may explain why glaciers are really melting — and why climate is more complicated than some think.
Related Topics: Global Warming
It used to be a straight-line theory based on easily connected dots. The Earth was warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide generated by man, his factories, power plants and vehicles. The U.S. and the industrialized world had to drastically reduce its CO2 levels to prevent the poles from melting and the seas from rising.
But a new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature suggests that the absence of technology, not its reckless use, may be a major factor in raising the Earth's global temperature.
The haze of pollution called the "Asian Brown Cloud," caused by wood and dung burned for fuel, may be doing more harm than the tailpipes of our SUVs.
Researchers led by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California, launched three unmanned aircraft last March from the Maldives island of Hanimadhoo to fly through the Brown Cloud at various altitudes.
A total of 18 missions were flown to explore the blanket of soot, dust and smoke that at times is two miles thick and covers an area about the size of the U.S.
They found that the cloud of soot and particulate matter boosted the effect of solar heating on the surrounding air by as much as 50%.
"These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particulates as cooling agents in the global climate system . . . ." concluded the Nature article summing up the study. Dang. Just when we thought the science of global warming was settled.
These findings also may help to explain the rapid melting among the 46,000 glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau and why the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating since at least 1780.
This phenomenon also might help explain why carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures don't track very well, if at all.
The Asian Brown Cloud was first discovered by Ramanathan in 1999. He had grown up near Madras, India, where his mother, like millions of other Indian homemakers, cooked with dried cow dung — a plentiful, and renewable, source of cheap fuel that was a good source of heat. One might call it the earliest form of biofuel.
Such pollution, because it contains the residue from hundreds of millions of dung-fueled cooking fires and inefficient wood and coal furnaces, carries an unusually large amount of soot.
It previously had been assumed that such particulate matter, like that from volcanic eruptions, had a cooling effect on the Earth. Guess not — at least not all the time.
A computer simulation run by Surabit Menon, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University, using Chinese weather reports calculated the warming effects of the cloud. Menon found the brown cloud as it spread around the globe contributed more to global warming than Western greenhouse gas emissions.
S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, finds it "ironic that much of (this) pollution could be avoided by the use of cleaner fossil fuels, like gas, oil, and even coal, all of which release CO2."
Ramanathan has found some resistance to his discovery and its conclusions.
"My colleagues warned me when I got into this that global warming is not really pure science — politics is mixed in with it." An inconvenient truth for a dedicated scientist.
India, of course, is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol as a "developing" nation. It's not that easy to put a catalytic converter on a cow. Then there's the politics of the issue. It's easier to blame a soccer mom in her SUV than an Indian family struggling to get through the day.

Link
Last edited by Extrafire; Aug 27th, 2007 at 10:18 PM..
 
Extrafire
#104
And even more research to debunk global warming hysteria:

Quote:

New research

...concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. [...] According to Schwartz’s results, which are based on the empirical relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content, doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1oC increase in average temperature (0.1–2.1oC, two standard deviation uncertainty range). Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range).
Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming.
[...]
Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism.
Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific “consensus”, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?

PDF Copy of the study


(Stephen E Schwartz is in the pay of the well known oil giant, Brookhaven National Lab - Atmospheric Science Division.)
 
Tonington
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

CO2 is not pollution, it is part of the air, and the vast majority of the volume of CO2 in the air is natural. Human activity contributes only a tiny percentage of the total. It is acknowledged by all sides in the debate that if the whole world met it's Kyoto targets, there would be no effect on global temperatures, and that's even acknowledged by those who believe in global warming catastrophism. In fact, being that our contribution is so relatively small, even if we eliminated all human contributions there would be no effect, even if the CO2 alarmism were true. That's what I was referring to when I said minimizing our contributions would have no effect.

Cleaner air? Smog? CO2 is part of the air. Adding it to the air has no effect on it's cleanliness, any more than adding oxygen would. In fact, so far efforts to minimize CO2 have resulted in increased CO2 emissions and dirtier air from real pollutants. Alternative fuels such as biodeisel, ethanol, hydrogen require more energy to produce than they deliver, resulting in more overall energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In the rush to supply the biodeisel market, vast areas of tropical rain forest have been slashed and burned for palm oil plantations resulting in great releases of CO2 from the forests as well as thousands of years of accumulated peat being burned, not to mention massive amounts of pollution in the air in that area.

You want clean air? So do I. Then target the pollutants, not CO2, 'cause you'll only make it worse that way.

Being a constituent of air does not mean it isn't a pollutant. If there is a deleterious effect by releasing a substance, it is pollution, whether or not it is found naturally.

It is not acknowledged by all sides that meeting any reduction, Kyoto or otherwise, will not have an effect on rising temperatures. You brought up climate sensitivities earlier and that is precisely what that statement you just said corresponds to.
 
Extrafire
#106
Yeah, right! Adding oxygen to air is polluting. Adding nitrogen to air is polluting. Adding air to air is polluting. Right. I've already shown that human contributions are minuscule and the tiny reductions such as curly light bulbs or even achievement of Kyoto objectives are too small to make a difference. Al Gore, as VP asked administration scientists to determine what successful achievement of those objectives would do to global warming. The result, assuming that CO2 catastrophism is true - no reduction in global temperatures, not even a stop to global warming, only a reduction in the amount of warming of 7/100ths of 1 degree C over the next 50 years. And that's by people who believe in that nonsense! I've even heard prominent environmentalists admit that. Use a little logic here, if it's as bad as they say it is, nothing we're doing, short of complete elimination of human emissions will have any effect.

And there is no deleterious affect to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is very clear on this.
 
Tonington
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Yeah, right! Adding oxygen to air is polluting. Adding nitrogen to air is polluting. Adding air to air is polluting. Right. I've already shown that human contributions are minuscule and the tiny reductions such as curly light bulbs or even achievement of Kyoto objectives are too small to make a difference. Al Gore, as VP asked administration scientists to determine what successful achievement of those objectives would do to global warming. The result, assuming that CO2 catastrophism is true - no reduction in global temperatures, not even a stop to global warming, only a reduction in the amount of warming of 7/100ths of 1 degree C over the next 50 years. And that's by people who believe in that nonsense! I've even heard prominent environmentalists admit that. Use a little logic here, if it's as bad as they say it is, nothing we're doing, short of complete elimination of human emissions will have any effect.

And there is no deleterious affect to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is very clear on this.

If there is deleterious effects, it is pollution, it really is that simple, by definition. An atmospheric pollutant has more cause and effect relationships than the atmospheric reactions. Soil and water?

Many nitrogen products are found naturally and are even beneficial, but when release of concentrated amounts occurs, it is harmful and thus a pollutant.

There are many deleterious effects associated with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, it raises the pH of the water it dissolves into for one. Find the many effects that has on ecological systems, specifically on our natural and farmed food items.
 
typingrandomstuff
#108
The other truth: if CO2 do not warm the earth, the excess of carbon dioxide in human bodies will kill. Excess of any stuff will kill.

The asian people do need to not burn the biofuels and dung, but I never heard of people burning dung before.
 
typingrandomstuff
#109
To stop: convert excess to something useful and let no excess be untreated.
 
Extrafire
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

If there is deleterious effects, it is pollution, it really is that simple, by definition. An atmospheric pollutant has more cause and effect relationships than the atmospheric reactions. Soil and water?

Many nitrogen products are found naturally and are even beneficial, but when release of concentrated amounts occurs, it is harmful and thus a pollutant.

There are many deleterious effects associated with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, it raises the pH of the water it dissolves into for one. Find the many effects that has on ecological systems, specifically on our natural and farmed food items.

I don't believe you're serious.

Air is 4/5 nitrogen and you're trying to say nitrogen can be a pollutant if released into the air? Or are you talking about nitrogen fertilizer? Yes, concentrated amounts of it can be harmful. But then that applies to anything. Everything is a poison, and nothing is a poison, it's a matter of degrees, or dosage. Water is necessary for human life, yet drinking too much can result in death. Same with salt. And radiation. Drinking a little alcohol is beneficial, but too much is harmful, even fatal. Thus following your logic, everything is pollution, which makes any argument for fighting pollution null and void.

As for CO2 in water, well the oceans have more CO2 in them than the atmosphere by far, and they release and absorb it depending on whether the temperature rises or falls. Doesn't seem at all to be harmful, and the effect on food items is only beneficial, as it enhances growth. In fact it is vital for any and all plant growth.
 
Extrafire
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by typingrandomstuff View Post

The other truth: if CO2 do not warm the earth, the excess of carbon dioxide in human bodies will kill. Excess of any stuff will kill.

The asian people do need to not burn the biofuels and dung, but I never heard of people burning dung before.

I don't know about the excess of CO2 in human bodies. I do know that at 6000 ppm in the atmosphere it becomes toxic to human life.

My father grew up in Europe nearly 100 years ago, son of a peasant farmer, and burning dung was a major source of heat, especially for cooking. Wood was scarce and was reserved for heating during the worst cold of winter.

The winter's accumulation of manure (dung) from the barns was hauled to the village square in the heat of summer, mixed with water into a slurry, spread out over the square and allowed to dry in the hot sun. Then it was cut into squares and rectangles and stacked under shelter in lieu of firewood. Couldn't have been a pleasant job, but they did what they had to do.
 
Extrafire
#112
A couple points I haven't commented on yet,

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

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........ It is a matter of public record. I only hesitate to bring it up because I don't like conspiracy theories,

Problem is, legitimate associations can easily be misrepresented as something entirely different. I recall back in the 1990's when the environmentalists were waging a global war on BC's forest industry. The industry, unions, businesses and individuals got together and formed the BC Forest Alliance in order to counter the misinformation, and they were quite effective at it. Of course they were portrayed by the environmentalists as merely a tool of the forest industry, financed by their billions, and not to be believed. It's true that the forest industry was a major financier, but they didn't have billions available (billions in revenue does not equal billions available to spend. Profits are quite small.) and they made certain to always tell the truth, something the environmentalists rarely did on this topic. I suspect the organization you are referring to has been similarly slandered, and was a legitimate disseminator of factual evidence.

If you abandon logical debate based on facts and evidence in favor of character assassination or smear tactics (even if legitimate) you greatly lessen your credibility. Even Exon can have the correct evidence on their side.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

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.


No, the absorption of heat takes place near the surface. In fact, something like 80% is absorbed within the first 30 feet of the earth's surface.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

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.

Yes, by proportion water is 97% of greenhouse gas. And yes, it is less effective, accounting for only 60 - 70% of total greenhouse effect, which still makes it by far the most effective. And it also has other effects on temperature, such as cloud formation in conjunction with cosmic rays and the sun's magnetic field which have a huge impact on climate. The feedback loops are purely hypothetical attempts to bolster the argument for CO2 induced climate change and don't show up in experiments. And the vast majority of escaping infrared is captured in the first 30 feet of the earth's surface.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Models which by the way are also being used to forecast the global warming on Mars.

Due, of course, to Martians excessive use of fossil fuels.
Quote:

BC may have a glut of timber product, but global timber stocks are declining.

I guess I wasn't specific enough. The glut of timber is in the global market, which is why lumber prices are so low. If it was only an overabundance of timber on the part of BC we could name our price. Tropical forests may be in decline (along with all the flora and fauna particular to them) due to clearing for palm oil plantations to satisfy the skyrocketing demand for biofuel, but overall, world forests are not.
Last edited by Extrafire; Aug 31st, 2007 at 11:52 PM..
 
Extrafire
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

There you have it: many more extreme events, a predicted consequence of warming..

Problem with these predictions is they so often fail. The only reason more extreme events were predicted was because the predicted increases in temperature failed to materialize, and they needed something to scare us with. And there seems to be a considerable amount of cherry picking involved.

Remember after Katrina, when they told us the disaster was because of global warming (not levee failure) and they said that's what we could look forward to from now on, and worse? Remember at the beginning of last year's hurricane season they predicted a worse one than the previous year? And then when it didn't appear to be happening, when instead it looked like a much milder than normal season, they issued a statement that global warming could produce a lower than normal season too. And then when it looked like it might be an average season, just to be sure their prediction would come true, they also issued a statement declaring that an average hurricane season could be caused by global warming. Kind of like the "leader" who watches to see which way the mob is going and then rushed to the front and shouts, "Follow me!"

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

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.

I'm wondering; just what are those changes clearly attributable to human activities? Not at all clear to me.
 
Tonington
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

I don't believe you're serious.

Air is 4/5 nitrogen and you're trying to say nitrogen can be a pollutant if released into the air? Or are you talking about nitrogen fertilizer? Yes, concentrated amounts of it can be harmful. But then that applies to anything. Everything is a poison, and nothing is a poison, it's a matter of degrees, or dosage. Water is necessary for human life, yet drinking too much can result in death. Same with salt. And radiation. Drinking a little alcohol is beneficial, but too much is harmful, even fatal. Thus following your logic, everything is pollution, which makes any argument for fighting pollution null and void.

As for CO2 in water, well the oceans have more CO2 in them than the atmosphere by far, and they release and absorb it depending on whether the temperature rises or falls. Doesn't seem at all to be harmful, and the effect on food items is only beneficial, as it enhances growth. In fact it is vital for any and all plant growth.

For the very last time, a pollutant is anything we release which has a deleterious effect, regardless of what compound it is. Regardless of whether or not it is a naturally found compound.

To illustrate your absurd point, a hypothetical ecosystem can sustain a certain threshold of toatal ammonia. Ammonia is part of the nitrogen cycle, and a huge component which must be closed off by bacteria in the soil. Normally, ammonia would be controlled by the fairly constant flows in and out of the natural nitrogen cycles. Animals wouldn't excrete as much ammonia, if they were left to grow on natural forages and feeds. In the agri-food industry now, we have firms feeding well above basal metabolic requirements for growth, amounts to ensure maximum growth rates ensue. The excess ammonia produced by the animals we rear is more than the farmer can accommodate. This is what is known as waste disposal problems. We put too much into feed, to ensure maximal growth, and end up with more fertilizer than we can use. If we leave that waste lying around, even though it is natural ( sure, cows love living in conditions like a feedlot...), the ecosystem cannot accommodate the excess load, and there is damage to the ecosystem.

I was specifically insinuating the oceans when I made the comment about CO2. The phylum Mollusca, specifically the class Bivalvia, rely on a carbonate equilibrium in the water to maintain the shell growth. When the pH of the oceans is lowered, as accounted by increased forcings due to the increase in carbon dioxide, the carbonate equilibrium is disrupted from natural levels, and the shellfish cannot maintain the shell density. As they grow larger, the shell becomes thinner relative to body mass, and increased mortality will follow. This is but one example in a field of many....corals are another matter, which provide the basis for many marine ecosystems...

P.S.
Of course anything can be considered a pollutant, but only when there is an obvious harmful effect. Judging by your limited comprehension of this definition, 5 extra milliliters would be pollution....but you would be wrong.
Last edited by Tonington; Sep 1st, 2007 at 01:55 AM..Reason: post script
 
CDNBear
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

Michael Crichton is trying to sell his book. A book, a work of fiction, that contradicts the evidence of global warming.

The scientific method of research is exactly that. A majority of Climatologists have produced results that others in the field have reproduced. Consensus is not some evil word......it simply means that a majority of scientists in the field have agreed that global warming is a threat. They have agreed that according to the best evidence, the global temperatures are rising and human produced greenhouse gasses are causing it.

That concensus is falling apart as fast as AlBore's house of cards juan...

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

Well thomaska, are you saying the global temperatures are not rising? Are you saying that man has not pumped 8 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution? These are facts that are irrefutable. You can dissagree that man is causing it I suppose, but who else is there? How do you explain the fact that we are losing cubic miles of ice in both poles and Greenland....ice that has taken thousands of centuries to form. How do you explain the fact that there is bare ground in the arctic that has been covered in ice for thousands of years? There is no evidence of any cycle or increased solar heat that would explain these things. I see no hysteria.....just hard, cold, facts.

Facts that have been slowly dismantled by laymen and people who want open debate on the issue. Something of which the proponents of the AGW theory have no interest in.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

I've flown a lot over the Arctic and I have seen the change. I understand there is more impressive evidence of global warming in the Antarctic and Greenland but the Arctic is what I've seen.

I've done more then fly over it juan, I've driven on it, mined in it, trained on it...

Ya it's melting, just like it's been doing for thousands of years. True enough, it has sped up, but then again we are seeing an unprecidented increase in solar activity as previously unseen by mankind or in recorded history, but don't let those facts get in your way...Oh ya and what about the Polar Bear's??? Well their numbers have been on the rise since the 70's and are still climbing...
Quote:

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.
The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

The National Post

Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Al Gore's movie was anything but cold, hard facts. It is mostly about what might happen in the extreme, distant future.

And don't forget the fact that most of it is pure fiction!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by Twila View Post

Extreme distant future? What about the unprecedentad hurricanes? What about the flooding going on all over the world? What about the change in the ocean temperature? Extreme distant future....your in it....it ain't later....it's now.

Don't forget global warming is only ONE problem we have currently. Assuming we will survive the pandemics and epidemics coming our way and avoid any nuclear altercation global warming is sure to be our undoing. Although....maybe if half the worlds population kicks it from avian flu or a new plague global warming will not be a problem.

Yes it is a problem, it needs to be addressed, but lets not cut the head off the world over junk science and hysterical nonsense posted and reposted by those who believe every lil thing they read, without wanting further proof.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

There is so much evidence that the world is warming up it is hard to see how even the reddest neck could avoid seeing it.





The

I see insulting those that disagree with you is still the bulk of your arguement...From rednecks to pics of Liberal supports...tsk tsk...
 
Zzarchov
#116
" No, the absorption of heat takes place near the surface. In fact, something like 80% is absorbed within the first 30 feet of the earth's surface."

This made me laugh.


Yes heat is absorbed, but then it is released. And it goes AWAY from the planet, unless it hits something (like CO2) that bounces it back.

Like a laser in a room of funhouse mirrors, the more "mirrors" the longer it takes the heat to leave, the warmer it gets as new heat comes in at the same speed.
 
Tonington
#117
Just to add to Zzarchov's post, it is not the near surface absorption which is important, it is the upper atmosphere where the heat does escape that is the real problem. Less heat is radiating back into space now because of the greenhouse gases up there.
 
typingrandomstuff
#118
More or less. Yup. That's the situation.
 
Extrafire
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

For the very last time, a pollutant is anything we release which has a deleterious effect, regardless of what compound it is. Regardless of whether or not it is a naturally found compound.

To illustrate your absurd point, a hypothetical ecosystem can sustain a certain threshold of toatal ammonia. Ammonia is part of the nitrogen cycle, and a huge component which must be closed off by bacteria in the soil. Normally, ammonia would be controlled by the fairly constant flows in and out of the natural nitrogen cycles. Animals wouldn't excrete as much ammonia, if they were left to grow on natural forages and feeds. In the agri-food industry now, we have firms feeding well above basal metabolic requirements for growth, amounts to ensure maximum growth rates ensue. The excess ammonia produced by the animals we rear is more than the farmer can accommodate. This is what is known as waste disposal problems. We put too much into feed, to ensure maximal growth, and end up with more fertilizer than we can use. If we leave that waste lying around, even though it is natural ( sure, cows love living in conditions like a feedlot...), the ecosystem cannot accommodate the excess load, and there is damage to the ecosystem.

Actually, we could use all that fertilizer. It would be great on the fields where the feed is grown, but the costs of transporting it back is prohibitive. Thus, a useful commodity (high value organic fertilzer) becomes a waste disposal problem. Like you I don't like feed lots, or concentrations of manure where it shouldn't be. All you've done is illustrate and support my absurd point, that it's a matter of degrees, or dosage, and that anything can be a poison or pollutant, which is irrelevant to the global warming debate.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

I was specifically insinuating the oceans when I made the comment about CO2. The phylum Mollusca, specifically the class Bivalvia, rely on a carbonate equilibrium in the water to maintain the shell growth. When the pH of the oceans is lowered, as accounted by increased forcings due to the increase in carbon dioxide, the carbonate equilibrium is disrupted from natural levels, and the shellfish cannot maintain the shell density. As they grow larger, the shell becomes thinner relative to body mass, and increased mortality will follow. This is but one example in a field of many....corals are another matter, which provide the basis for many marine ecosystems...

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Since the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is totally dependent on the temperature of the water, and since global warming includes the warming of the oceans, at which time it releases it into the atmosphere and during global cooling it absorbs it from the atmosphere, and since this has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years (just ask Al Gore) it would seem that natural levels are naturally fluctuating. And natural fluctuations have greatly exceeded what we're experiencing today (which appears to be the result of the warming of 800 years ago) and they survived just fine. Seems like a big concern over nothing.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

P.S.
Of course anything can be considered a pollutant, but only when there is an obvious harmful effect. Judging by your limited comprehension of this definition, 5 extra milliliters would be pollution....but you would be wrong.

Rather confusing. 5 extra milliliters of what? In what situation?
 
Extrafire
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

" No, the absorption of heat takes place near the surface. In fact, something like 80% is absorbed within the first 30 feet of the earth's surface."

This made me laugh.


Yes heat is absorbed, but then it is released. And it goes AWAY from the planet, unless it hits something (like CO2) that bounces it back.

Like a laser in a room of funhouse mirrors, the more "mirrors" the longer it takes the heat to leave, the warmer it gets as new heat comes in at the same speed.

Well, duh, that's what the whole debate is about, the absorption of infrared heat by CO2 that is radiated out away from the planet. And it isn't about bouncing back (aka - reflecting). If that were the case, increased CO2 in the atmosphere would result in global cooling, as it would reflect the sunlight away before it reached the earth.
 

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