71
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 05:14 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
One would almost think in your world there isn't an 11 year sun cycle.
Only a dummy would think that anyone thinks that!

The earth's temperature usually decreases when the sun goes from its high to its low in its sun spot cycle, and the earth's temperature usually increases when the sun goes from its low to its high in its sun spot cycle. However, the earth has gone from high to low to high to low temperatures for reasons not synchronized with sun spot cycles. Look at the available history: ice ages, little ice ages, tropical growth cycles above the arctic circle and below the anarctic circle, and other warm and cold cycles of longer duration than sun spot cycles.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.


THE DISSENTS OF SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

211
Global warming author and economist Dr. Thomas Gale Moore is a former professor at Michigan State University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, and author of the book Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming. "I don't argue that we're having global warming, but I find the effects are going to be small," Moore said according to the September/October 2005 issue of Stanford Magazine. The article explained that Moore "insists that Americans in particular will benefit from a warmer climate in many ways, including longer growing seasons and reduced heating costs."

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
212
Meteorologist Joseph Conklin launched a skeptical website called Climatepolice.com on February 25, 2007. "The goal of the website is to show the public that other research on climate change exists and the debate is not over," Conklin said. Conklin, who specializes in analysis of surface weather observations, also operates NiceWeather.com, a website specializing in monthly weather forecasts. "Scientific research should be apolitical. Extremist groups have promoted global warming as their primary political issue. I want this website to help correct that," Conklin added. (LINK) On August 10, 2007 Conklin wrote: “A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won’t start until 2009.”

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
213
Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University. "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this," Wojick, who specializes in mathematical logic, wrote in a May 2, 2005 commentary. "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates," he explained.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
214
Oxford-educated economist Tony Gilland is the science and society director of the UK based Institute of Ideas. Gilland, who initiated the UK's Science Education Project, declared the debate about global warming far from over in 2007 and lamented the UN's politicization. "The UN's all-powerful climate change panel is no straightforward scientific body. It is a deeply political organization that was born out of disenchantment with progress," Gilland wrote in a June 28, 2007 essay. "The IPCC, an unelected body, holds an unprecedented influence on the lives of everyone on the planet - and any attempt to question this body's legitimacy or actions is shouted down as ‘denial' of the scientific facts," he explained. "It is striking how many in the scientific community have become extremely intolerant of dissent," Gilland added. "The way in which politicians, the media and civil society have come to hang on the latest pronouncements of the IPCC demonstrates how this political failure has allowed a scientific conceptualization of a political problem to become institutionalized across the globe, to the point where conceiving of it differently has become almost unimaginable," he concluded.


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 12:11 pm
INCREASES IN DENSITY OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE SINCE 2005.
Quote:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
YEAR ..... MONTH ........ ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PPM
2003 .......... 10 ............ 376.39
2004 .......... 10 ............ 377.58
2005 .......... 10 ............ 380.07
2006 .......... 10 ............ 382.14
2007 .......... 10 ............ 384.22
2008 .......... 10 ............ 387.80

Net INcrease in CO2 2005 to 2008 = 387.80 - 380.07= 7.73 ppm

DECREASES IN AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES SINCE 2005
Quote:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
year, jan, feb, mar, apr, may, jun, jul, aug, sep, oct, nov, dec, average
2003 0.527 0.438 0.422 0.414 0.435 0.439 0.453 0.523 0.518 0.565 0.428 0.519 0.473
2004 0.505 0.571 0.510 0.495 0.324 0.347 0.371 0.419 0.446 0.477 0.526 0.376 0.447
2005 0.463 0.376 0.493 0.536 0.480 0.512 0.532 0.503 0.507 0.513 0.494 0.371 0.482
2006 0.296 0.443 0.385 0.357 0.338 0.443 0.434 0.488 0.417 0.481 0.441 0.536 0.422
2007 0.632 0.520 0.441 0.472 0.374 0.375 0.406 0.370 0.412 0.368 0.268 0.213 0.404
2008 0.050 0.189 0.446 0.267 0.278 0.312 0.412 0.387 0.371 0.440 0.000 0.000 0.315*
*average of global temperature anomalies jan thru oct.

Net DEcrease in Average Global Temperature Anomalies 2005 to 2008 = 0.482 - 0.315 = 0.167 Celsius
0.8676 - 0.567 = 0.3006 Fahrenheit
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 12:30 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
One would almost think in your world there isn't an 11 year sun cycle.
Only a dummy would think that anyone thinks that!


So then you are being intentionally misleading by only posting the 5 years from high to low in the 11 year cycle and proclaiming that as evidence we aren't warming.

So, you aren't a dummy ican. You are just a common liar. Thanks for clearing that up.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:12 pm
@parados,
Only six more years to go!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 02:16 am
Quote:
The man who compared fear of global warming to a "Stone Age religion", and poured scorn on renewable energy, has decided that he wants to make the capital "the world's leading city in delivering carbon reductions and capturing the benefits of the new energy economy".


Source and full report from the Independent on Sunday: Greenbasher Boris relaunches himself as an ecowarrior
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 02:37 am
Quote:
[...] Solar advocates estimate that households can generate about half of their hot-water needs from the sun's power, even on a gloomy day. Indeed, using solar panels for electricity " photovoltaics " can reduce a typical household's CO2 emissions by 1.2 tons, according to the Energy Saving Trust.
...
Ikea executives have suggested that the company's skills in designing low-cost products, along with its economies of scale, could halve the cost of solar electricity from its current rate of around €2 (£1.70) per kilowatt hour of generating power to about €1/kWh. Josefsson, however, declines to give exact figures, not least because Ikea GreenTech has only been fully operational for about six months.
[...]


Source: Independent on Sunday: It chucked out chintz. Now for carbon. Here comes IKEA's flatpack solar panels.l
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 07:36 am
@Walter Hinteler,
It's about flogging more junk Walt.

The money saved, if there is money saved, will be used for more goodies and, generally, superficial ones which will be advertised in the Independent on Sunday. So no money saved and no carbon saved. Possibly greater expenditures of both.

Load of bollocks.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 04:44 pm
@parados,
All the while the CO2 density in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing. One might think CO2 density in the atmosphere is not a major cause of earth warming.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
year jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec avg (yearly average)
1986 0.114 0.082 0.049 0.036 0.017 0.045 -0.006 -0.005 0.013 0.038 -0.041 0.011 0.029
1987 0.116 0.269 0.021 0.069 0.135 0.122 0.256 0.221 0.256 0.173 0.187 0.325 0.179
1988 0.348 0.199 0.259 0.241 0.178 0.207 0.163 0.157 0.157 0.125 0.018 0.107 0.180
1989 -0.002 0.095 0.081 0.081 0.052 0.068 0.164 0.176 0.135 0.145 0.052 0.191 0.103
1990 0.198 0.245 0.466 0.302 0.241 0.234 0.208 0.226 0.165 0.285 0.284 0.196 0.254
1991 0.227 0.280 0.177 0.313 0.255 0.286 0.290 0.240 0.181 0.134 0.080 0.079 0.212
1992 0.279 0.252 0.204 0.120 0.110 0.104 -0.021 -0.018 -0.090 -0.083 -0.120 -0.003 0.061
1993 0.220 0.170 0.212 0.101 0.151 0.132 0.080 0.060 0.014 0.060 -0.033 0.096 0.105
1994 0.153 -0.092 0.180 0.175 0.241 0.216 0.153 0.171 0.157 0.236 0.244 0.218 0.171
1995 0.357 0.469 0.292 0.231 0.169 0.287 0.301 0.317 0.207 0.245 0.279 0.152 0.275
1996 0.064 0.252 0.129 0.094 0.167 0.150 0.184 0.183 0.091 0.082 0.076 0.174 0.137

1997 0.151 0.248 0.264 0.195 0.244 0.377 0.372 0.410 0.455 0.494 0.468 0.533 0.351
1998 0.489 0.749 0.547 0.641 0.593 0.604 0.671 0.644 0.392 0.418 0.353 0.447 0.546
1999 0.368 0.545 0.290 0.312 0.233 0.264 0.271 0.235 0.266 0.226 0.211 0.330 0.296
2000 0.206 0.358 0.328 0.450 0.239 0.232 0.256 0.338 0.319 0.192 0.152 0.169 0.270
2001 0.324 0.285 0.488 0.430 0.392 0.415 0.454 0.508 0.402 0.378 0.505 0.320 0.409
2002 0.600 0.612 0.607 0.445 0.441 0.475 0.477 0.420 0.410 0.359 0.395 0.329 0.464
2003 0.527 0.438 0.422 0.414 0.435 0.439 0.453 0.523 0.518 0.565 0.428 0.519 0.473
2004 0.505 0.571 0.510 0.495 0.324 0.347 0.371 0.419 0.446 0.477 0.526 0.376 0.447
2005 0.463 0.376 0.493 0.536 0.480 0.512 0.532 0.503 0.507 0.513 0.494 0.371 0.482
2006 0.296 0.443 0.385 0.357 0.338 0.443 0.434 0.488 0.417 0.481 0.441 0.536 0.422
2007 0.632 0.520 0.441 0.472 0.374 0.375 0.406 0.370 0.412 0.367 0.267 0.220 0.405
2008 0.050 0.189 0.446 0.269 0.277 0.309 0.414 0.384 0.371 0.440 0.000 0.000 0.315*
*Average for January thru October
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 03:00 pm
While Bush's much-criticized climate policies were praised by chief U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson at the UN's climate talks in Poznan ....

... it's getting "cold":

http://i38.tinypic.com/2zdodih.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/1zvfntj.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 04:18 pm
As I sit here shivering and resisting turning up the thermostat, I tried to find the original of this article, but found a copy on another website. I liked the closing line and wonder if anyone would venture to answer the question?

"How many years of declining world temperature would it take now"in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998"to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?"

Quote:
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
Tue, 6 May 2008
Dennis Avery
Canada Free Press
May 6, 2008

Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year"but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.

For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.

Researchers discovered the PDO only recently"in 1996"while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer"shifting Pacific Ocean currents. The PDO favors the salmon from the Columbia for about 25 years at a time, and then the salmon from the Gulf of Alaska, but the two fisheries never thrive at the same time. Something in the PDO favors the early development of the salmon smolts from one region or the other. Other fish, such as halibut, sardines, and anchovies follow similar shifts in line with the PDO.

The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic"but we don’t know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year “double sunspot cycles” have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States’ far southwest as well. These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth’s temperatures.

Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s recent experiments at the Danish Space Research Institute seem to show that the earth’s temperatures are importantly affected by the low, wet clouds that deflect more or less solar heat back into space. The number of such clouds is affected, in turn, by more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth. The number of earthbound cosmic rays depends on the extent of the giant magnetic wind thrown out by the sun.

All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration"and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.

The Jason satellite is an updated and more-accurate version of the Poseidon satellite that has been monitoring the oceans since 1992, picking up ocean wind speeds, wave heights, and sea level changes. Jason is run by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.

How many years of declining world temperature would it take now"in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998"to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?
http://faxanadu.gnn.tv/blogs/28173/New_Jason_Satellite_Indicates_23_Year_Global_Cooling
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 05:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
"How many years of declining world temperature would it take now"in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998"to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?"
1998 + 23 = 2021
So in 2021 the earth will again begin to warm, and a new "climate change consensus" will be at it again telling us to stop burning petroleum products. In the meantime the old consensus can continue to have fun scaring the naive by blaming global cooling on global farting and meat eating. Neither makes any sense, but what the hell!
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 05:10 pm
@ican711nm,
Actually I think in the article they were counting the 20+ years from now, so we won't begin to see significant global warming again until around 2030. What will be interesting is that when the scientific community can no longer avoid the inevitable that we are in a long term cooling trend, will they then start blaming humans for the global cooling?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 05:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
..., will they then start blaming humans for the global cooling?

The answer is predictably yes, Foxfyre.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 05:46 pm
@Foxfyre,
What science is being used to make the claim there has been no warming since 1998? Cherry picking the year 1998 is not science. It is cherry picking.

The question is based on a false premise of there being science showing no increase in temperature since 1998. My understanding is you need at least 30 years before you can argue any trend in climate science. The trend for the last 30 is up. The trend for the last 100 is up. There is no downward trend in climate science.

I guess this shows that ignorant people can ask dumb questions and others will repeat their dumb questions thinking they might have validity.

So, Fox.. why do you think the question has any validity?

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 06:07 pm
This is obviously a much more complicated matter than a lot of people are able to grasp. In view of developing nations pouring into the atmosphere increasing amounts of carbon dioxide our efforts at reducing our's, which are pitiful anyway, are beside the point. And we know it.

It seems to me more a question of our dependence on imports and persuading the public to invest, at great cost (pain) in alternatives, even inefficient ones at today's prices, so that we cannot be held to ransom in a few years.

Lord Turner, the UK Government's chief adviser on GW, who is also boss of the Financial Services Authority (don't laugh) was on Newsnight tonight outlining the latest expert thinking on the matter.

At one point he said that we might have to place constraints on the aviation industry.

Now--when I do my little bit on A2K to do just that I get slagged off from pillar to post. So I hope all the remarks that have been addressed to me are copied and pasted on his Lordship's eyeballs.

It is my view, for what it's worth, that carbon neutrality by 2050, is code for telling our overseas energy suppliers to shove their oil and gas up their arse.

He is projecting a 2 degree plus(sic) increase in temperature by that date. The green spokesperson claimed a 6 degree rise. The boss of electricity generation laughed and Mr Paxman said "What difference does it make as we're all dead anyway if China carries on in the manner to which it is growing accustomed.

Reducing baby production is an alternative they didn't consider.

Edit-- Don't forget the peat bog in Siberia which is bigger than France and showing signs of methane emissions as it warms which is miles worse than carbon dioxide I gather.








okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 10:46 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

This is obviously a much more complicated matter than a lot of people are able to grasp.

Agreed, spendius, that is a brilliant observation.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 01:02 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

spendius wrote:

This is obviously a much more complicated matter than a lot of people are able to grasp.

Agreed, spendius, that is a brilliant observation.

But recognizing the brilliance of spendi doesn't seem to stop many from grasping. For instance, the claim that the globe has been cooling since 1998 is nothing more than grasping at anything just so they don't have to believe facts.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 02:01 pm
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
year avg (yearly average global temperature anomalies in degrees Celsius)
1986 0.029
1987 0.179
1988 0.180
1989 - 0.103
1990 0.254
1991 0.212
1992 0.061
1993 0.105
1994 0.171
1995 0.275
1996 0.137

1997 0.351

1998 0.546
1999 0.296
2000 0.270
2001 0.409
2002 0.464
2003 0.473
2004 0.447
2005 0.482
2006 0.422
2007 0.405
2008 0.315*
*Average for January thru October
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 02:22 pm
@ican711nm,
Yup, which isn't all that complicated a concept to grasp. Of course if we know how the averages were compiled and who compiled them, it would be more conclusive to the anti-global warming skeptics--you know, those who desperately WANT to believe in global warming--but nevertheless, there seems to be a growing consensus among climate experts that the max for this group of decades occurred in 1998. Meanwhile, everybody, pro-global warmings and the skeptics re global warming, pretty much agrees that there has been little or no abatement in the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

At least some newly acquired skeptics agree that there is room to question whether CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary cause of global warming, and even more importantly, whether reducing the relatively puny amounts produced by human activity will have any significant effect whatsoever.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 02:23 pm
@ican711nm,
INCREASES IN DENSITY OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE SINCE 2005.
Quote:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
YEAR MONTH ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PPM
1986 12 347.82
1987 12 349.90
1988 12 352.16
1989 12 353.56
1990 12 355.15
1991 12 355.91
1992 12 356.27
1993 12 357.59
1994 12 359.65
1995 12 361.29
1996 12 362.78
1997 12 364.89
1998 12 367.62
1999 12 368.59
2000 12 370.33
2001 12 371.83
2002 12 374.45
2003 12 376.71
2004 12 378.24
2005 12 380.80
2006 12 382.58
2007 12 384.63
2008 10 386.25
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 09:17:29