How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Extrafire]

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.

Nonsense. If that were the case, the stratosphere would be hot, but the atmosphere down here wouldn't. It's the CO2 throughout the atmosphere that provides the mitigating effect of temperature extremes that makes life possible on earth.

 

[Extrafire]

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?

:lol:It's called the sun, you know, that big fiery ball in the sky? When it warms a little, the oceans warm too, and release huge amounts of CO2. Human contribution sounds immense, but it's a tiny fraction of what nature emits.

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.

Actually, we aren't losing it, it's increasing. Sea ice in the arctic is decreasing (just like it did in the 1930's, and during the medieval climate optimum) but land ice over the bulk of Greenland is increasing, and ice over the Antarctic continent is increasing in depth by about 2" per year - it's adding cubic miles of ice. One characteristic about air, the colder it is, the less water it can hold, so since it's warmed a bit, it's carrying more water, which means more snow at Antarctica.

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.

Yes there is evidence of solar cycles, several of them. Stop being a Chicken Little and check out the science rather than the alarmism.

 

[Extrafire]

George Carlin - The Planet Is Fine :lol: It's people who are f'cked

 

[Walter]

George Carlin - The Planet Is Fine :lol: It's people who are f'cked

Carlin gets it.

 

[CDNBear]

George Carlin - The Planet Is Fine :lol: It's people who are f'cked

Dear gawd...I think I love you!!!

 

[Tonington]

Nonsense. If that were the case, the stratosphere would be hot, but the atmosphere down here wouldn't.

Nonsense indeed. What scientific principle did you take that from EF? Perhaps you know better than the climate scientists working on this, they'd love it if you could show them their mistakes, in fact I'd kinda like to see that myself. The globe is warming, ie. more heat being trapped, where do you suppose the extra heat is being capped or bottled in?

 

[CDNBear]

Nonsense indeed. What scientific principle did you take that from EF? Perhaps you know better than the climate scientists working on this, they'd love it if you could show them their mistakes, in fact I'd kinda like to see that myself. The globe is warming, ie. more heat being trapped, where do you suppose the extra heat is being capped or bottled in?

I believe he is saying that there is an unprecidented increase in solar activity Ton...You don't need to trap it, to have the temps rise, when there is more of it.

 

[Tonington]

Which phenomena is it? Increased solar activity, does that mean it is irradiance, or is it sun spots?

 

[CDNBear]

Which phenomena is it? Increased solar activity, does that mean it is irradiance, or is it sun spots?

I gave up on following it long ago, so I'm a tad rusty on which, but rest assured, I will get that answer for ya...

 

[Extrafire]

Nonsense indeed. What scientific principle did you take that from EF? Perhaps you know better than the climate scientists working on this, they'd love it if you could show them their mistakes, in fact I'd kinda like to see that myself. The globe is warming, ie. more heat being trapped, where do you suppose the extra heat is being capped or bottled in?

The heat is "trapped" in all matter that's affected by the increased solar activity, and oceans are the biggest reservoirs of heat. While CO2 mitigates severe temperature swings, increasing it, even doubling it has little effect on global temperatures.

Climate scientists? Really, you want climate scientists, not activists?

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Mar. 20, 2003
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum."
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

Link for rest of article.

The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years

Science Daily — The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.
Since the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century, astronomers have observed sunspots on a regular basis. These are regions on the solar surface where the energy supply from the solar interior is reduced owing to the strong magnetic fields that they harbour. As a consequence, sunspots are cooler by about 1,500 degrees and appear dark in comparison to their non-magnetic surroundings at an average temperature of 5,800 degrees. The number of sunspots visible on the solar surface varies with the 11-year activity cycle of the Sun, which is modulated by long-term variations. For example, there were almost no sunspots seen during the second half of the 17th century.
For many studies concerning the origin of solar activity and its potential effect on long-term variations of Earth's climate, the interval of time since the year 1610, for which systematic records of sunspots exist, is much too short. For earlier times the level of solar activity must be derived from other data. Such information is stored on Earth in the form of "cosmogenic" isotopes. These are radioactive nuclei resulting from collisions of energetic cosmic ray particles with air molecules in the upper atmosphere. One of these isotopes is C-14, radioactive carbon with a half life of 5730 years, which is well known from the C-14 method to determine the age of wooden objects. The amount of C-14 produced depends strongly on the number of cosmic ray particles that reach the atmosphere. This number, in turn, varies with the level of solar activity: during times of high activity, the solar magnetic field provides an effective shield against these energetic particles, while the intensity of the cosmic rays increases when the activity is low. Therefore, higher solar activity leads to a lower production rate of C-14, and vice versa.

Link for full article

I can give you lots more info from real climate scientists.

 

[#juan]

Extrafire wrote:

Actually, we aren't losing it, it's increasing. Sea ice in the arctic is decreasing (just like it did in the 1930's, and during the medieval climate optimum) but land ice over the bulk of Greenland is increasing, and ice over the Antarctic continent is increasing in depth by about 2" per year - it's adding cubic miles of ice. One characteristic about air, the colder it is, the less water it can hold, so since it's warmed a bit, it's carrying more water, which means more snow at Antarctica.

Where do you get your information from? The Ice is melting at both poles and greenland. First you say the warming is caused by solar cycles and now you say we are adding ice to Antarctica....which is it?

 

[Tonington]

Yes Extra, the article says if the increase during the minimums were to persist for decades, there then would be a trend worth following. But that isn't happening and as far as I know, there has never been an extended minimum with exception to the Maunder minimum, which is irrelevant to the current interglacial epoch we find ourselves in. This hardly counts as increased solar activity...

although your second article does talk of increased solar activity, it also says this:

Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time.

Kinda throws that correlation out with respect to current conditions don't you think?

 

[Extrafire]

Which phenomena is it? Increased solar activity, does that mean it is irradiance, or is it sun spots?

Guess you missed this little quote a few posts back:

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.

It's both. Solar activity variance includes sunspot variance, which delivers more energy to the earth as well as affecting the sun's magnetic field which in turn affects incoming cosmic rays which have a huge impact on gobal climate, and fluctuations of irradiance as well.

 

[karrie]

So, the thread's too long for me to read all the way back. I'll simply ask this question of those I trust...

Juan, Tonington, have either one of you heard even ONE argument yet that would indicate we shouldn't start conserving resources and stop belching out toxins and CO2 into the environment? ONE argument that would indicate climate change is a myth?

 

[Extrafire]

Where do you get your information from? The Ice is melting at both poles and greenland. First you say the warming is caused by solar cycles and now you say we are adding ice to Antarctica....which is it?

You weren't paying attention. The colder the air, the less able it is to hold water, which means less snowfall. Warmer air holds more water, meaning more snowfall in Antarctica. Of course, warming from -45 to -40 means it still doesn't melt, but the additional accumulating snow turns to more ice.

Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Balance

Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635. What was done
The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet.""
What was learned
Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."
What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.

Is the Recent Greenland Temperature Increase Evidence of Man-Induced Global Warming?
Volume 9, Number 26: 28 June 2006​

Chylek et al. (2006) recently studied the characteristics of two century-long temperature records from southern coastal Greenland - Godthab Nuuk on the west and Ammassalik on the east, both close to 64°N latitude - concentrating on the period 1915-2005. What did they find? As they describe it, "although the whole decade of 1995-2005 was relatively warm, the temperatures at Godthab Nuuk and Ammassalik were not exceptionally high," as "almost all decades between 1915 and 1965 were warmer than, or at least as warm as, the 1995 to 2005 decade, suggesting that the current warm Greenland climate is not unprecedented and that similar temperatures were [the] norm in the first half of the 20th century." They also note that "two periods of intense warming (1995-2005 and 1920-1930) are clearly visible in the Godthab Nuuk and Ammassalik temperature records," but that "the average rate of warming was considerably higher within the 1920-1930 decade than within the 1995-2005 decade." In fact, they report that the earlier warming rate was 50% greater than the most recent one.
In comparing the southern coastal Greenland temperature record with that of the entire globe for the same time interval, Chylek et al. note that "while all the decadal averages of the post-1955 global temperature are higher than the pre-1955 average, almost all post-1995 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower than the pre-1955 temperature average," which observation causes us to wonder how that can be, if CO2-induced global warming is supposed to be earliest and most strongly expressed at high northern latitudes, as claimed by climate alarmists on the basis of a long history of climate modeling. This canary in the coal mine concept of theirs is seen to be even more perverse, when, as noted by the three researchers, "the summer temperature at the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet shows a decreasing tendency since the beginning of the measurements in 1986 (Chylek et al., 2004)."
In light of these several observations, Chylek et al. say: "An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming?" In answering this question, they note that "the Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for [a] period of warming to arise," and that "the observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within [the] natural variability of Greenland climate." In addition, they say that "a general increase in solar activity (Scafetta and West, 2006) since [the] 1990s can be a contributing factor, as well as the sea surface temperature changes of [the] tropical ocean (Hoerling et al., 2001)."
With respect to an important implication of their findings, Chylek et al. say that "glacier acceleration observed during the 1996-2005 period (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006) has probably occurred previously," and that "there should have been the same or more extensive acceleration during the 1920-1930 warming as well as during the Medieval Warm Period in Greenland (Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998; DeMenocal et al., 2000) when Greenland temperatures were generally higher than today."
To summarize, as Chylek et al. put it, "we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide."
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
References
Chylek, P., Box, J.E. and Lesins, G. 2004. Global warming and the Greenland ice sheet. Climatic Change 63: 201-221.
Chylek, P., Dubey, M.K. and Lesins, G. 2006. Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL026510.
Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnsen, S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. 1998. Past temperatures directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 282: 268-271.
DeMenocal, P., Ortiz, J., Guilderson, T. and Sarnthein, M. 2000. Coherent high- and low-latitude variability during the Holocene warm period. Science 288: 2198-2202.
Hoerling, M.P., Hurrell, J. and Xu, T. 2001. Tropical origins for recent North Atlantic climate change. Science 292: 90-92.
Rignot, E. and Kanagaratnam, P. 2006. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 311: 986-990.
Scafetta, N. and West, B.J. 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2005GL025539.
Vinther, B.M., Andersen, K.K., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R. and Cappelen, J. 2006. Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006810.

Greenland Temperature Increase

I can link more info for you if you want.

 

[Tonington]

Karrie,

Not one that hasn't been debunked. Earth is for all intents and purposes a closed system. If I grow some salmon in a closed system, and begin to increase pollutants, the system will crash. You start with an equilibrium and further pressure stresses the entire living system. We're upsetting an equilibrium which gave rise to our species and many others, now we're seeing many ecosystems being taken over by ancient species as the species we target dwindle, ancient species which have been able to survive large scale changes. There are too many independent streams of evidence to discount what we do. We're all downwind from one another...

Also, theres a predictable pattern here. Skepticism is good when it isn't downright deceitful. But the pattern has gone as such deny global warming, oops, we can't. Deny humans cause warming. Oops we can't. Deny how much our contribution adds, well you get the picture. There is a quote I like particularly

Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost.

 

[karrie]

As I suspected Tonington, thanks for your input.

 

[Extrafire]

As I suspected Tonington, thanks for your input.

Tonington's mind is made up. Confusing him with the facts won't change that!:lol:

 

[karrie]

I suspect that statement applies very well to someone in this thread, yes.

 

[Tonington]

Happy to help m'lady.