Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

You don't believe me ? Very simple, just send them a resquest email asking for these publicly funded research datas and see for yourself their answer. Hey, that's climate "science".

Foxfyre wrote:

Ignoring that Blatham posted a Salon.org piece after excoriating me for my choice of sources, I did find this little tidbit in Dr. Pachuri's bio:

Quote:

In January 1999, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed as Director, Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (a Fortune 500 company) for a period of 3 years.

Now how is it that somebody so intimately associated with the petroleum industry is so extolled as a person of principle and virtue while anybody on the other side, even reputable climatologists/educators who are indirectly associated with the petroleum industry, are to be disqualified as any kind of authority?

That surely can't be a serious question?

Scenario one: a scientist who has worked within or received funding from large tobacco corporations speaks and writes FAVORABLY about tobacco

Scenario two: a scientist who has worked within or received funding from large tobacco corporations speaks and writes UNFAVORABLY about tobacco.

miniTAX wrote:

You don't believe me ? Very simple, just send them a resquest email asking for these publicly funded research datas and see for yourself their answer. Hey, that's climate "science".

I've been there personally.

blatham wrote:

Scenario two: a scientist who has worked within or received funding from large tobacco corporations speaks and writes UNFAVORABLY about tobacco.

For scenario 2, it's called a traitor (courtesy Bob F. Kennedy for all climate "deniers")

Oh I understand now your campus map.

Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."....

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."....

More than 18 scientists told the AP that they were surprised by the level of ice melt this year.

"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so big, particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What is going on here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed Abdalati, NASA's chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a watershed year."

By Noel Sheppard | October 5, 2007 - 09:36 ET
Assume for a moment that a new study by NASA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade global warming was indeed responsible for the recent ice melts in the Arctic. Think media would have reported it?

In reality, that's a bit of a trick question, for in the past several weeks, television newscasts, papers, and magazines have been filled with hysterical assertions about decreasing Arctic ice levels destined to cause imminent flooding to coastal regions around the world.

As such, it certainly was no surprise when NASA released a report Monday claiming "the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds," virtually no media outlets shared the information with the citizenry, and those that did still blamed the melting ice on - you guessed it - global warming.

The largely boycotted announcement out of NASA stated no such thing (emphasis added):
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/05/unusual-winds-caused-arctic-ice-melts-not-global-warming

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
Evaporated surface water can NOT contain CO2. Gases do NOT contain other gases.

Gases form mixtures with each other. In gaseous mixtures of H2O molecules and CO2 molecules, the number of H2O molecules usually far exceeds the number of CO2 molecules. In that sense, in a mixture of molecules of H2O vapor and molecules of CO2 gas, the H2O molecular mixture contains the CO2 molecules .

I guess if you want to pretend that N2 and O2 and all the other gases don't exist, you could claim that.

As NASA seems to be the authority de jour, ...

Interesting graphic:

Foxfyre - nice to see you're back; was away for a long time myself. NASA is too busy with the new theory of everything - preparing a test for that one and for the older string theory, involving 2 satellites on the other side of the sun - to worry too much about climatology right now.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml

"This is an impressive achievement," said Hermann Nicolai, Director of the Albert Einstein Institute in Potsdam, Germany. "While mathematicians have known for a long time about the beauty and the uniqueness of E8, we physicists have come to appreciate its exceptional role only more recently - yet, in our attempts to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces into a consistent theory of quantum gravity, we now encounter it at almost every corner," he said, referring to efforts to combine the theory of the very big (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

Solar activity
Sunspots


Graph showing proxies of solar activity, including changes in sunspot number and cosmogenic isotope production.

Sunspots are relatively dark areas on the surface of the Sun where intense magnetic activity inhibits convection and so cools the surface. The number of sunspots correlates with the intensity of solar radiation. The variation is small (of the order of 1 W/m² or 0.1% of the total) and was only established once satellite measurements of solar variation became available in the 1980s. Based on work by Abbot, Foukal et al. (1977) realised that higher values of radiation are associated with more sunspots. Nimbus 7 (launched October 25, 1978) and the Solar Maximum Mission (launched February 14, 1980) detected that because the areas surrounding sunspots are brighter, the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun.

There had been some suggestion that variations in the solar diameter might cause variations in output. But recent work, mostly from the Michelson Doppler Imager instrument on SOHO, shows these changes to be small, about 0.001% (Dziembowski et al., 2001).

Various studies have been made using sunspot number (for which records extend over hundreds of years) as a proxy for solar output (for which good records only extend for a few decades). Also, ground instruments have been calibrated by comparison with high-altitude and orbital instruments. Researchers have combined present readings and factors to adjust historical data. Other proxy data - such as the abundance of cosmogenic isotopes - have been used to infer solar magnetic activity and thus likely brightness.

Sunspot activity has been measured using the Wolf number for about 300 years. This index (also known as the Zürich number) uses both the number of sunspots and the number of groups of sunspots to compensate for variations in measurement. A 2003 study by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland found that sunspots had been more frequent since the 1940s than in the previous 1150 years.[10]

Reconstruction of solar activity over 11,400 years. Period of equally high activity over 8,000 years ago marked. Present period is on left. Values since 1900 not shown.

Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

Cycl - yes, and if the new theory pans out with NASA's and CERN's experiments it will be really, really exciting!

Quote:

"This is an impressive achievement," said Hermann Nicolai, Director of the Albert Einstein Institute in Potsdam, Germany. "While mathematicians have known for a long time about the beauty and the uniqueness of E8, we physicists have come to appreciate its exceptional role only more recently - yet, in our attempts to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces into a consistent theory of quantum gravity, we now encounter it at almost every corner," he said, referring to efforts to combine the theory of the very big (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/03/19/ecpattern19.xml

Btw I did post the link to the original article some pages ago, but nobody paid any attention - sniff, sob, WAAAAHH