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

You are correct, sir! As my previous posts made clear, even the IPCC's reports noted that the predicted rise in sea level was lessening with the publication of each new report.

And your point about co2 being a following indicator is re-iterated by Dr. Fred Singer in--"Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1,500 years". I have never seen a persuasive rebuttal of the thesis concerning co2 being a following indicator.

Okie- Parados insists that only his 400,000 table can be accepted. (He still has not given a source for it). Why must we stop at 400,000 years? Why not 500,000 years or a million years or 500 million years? Co2 was present then. Man was NOT an agent in producing it. According to Parados, there were no people producing co2 at 400,000 or 300,000 or 250,000.

That is like saying that since man has only been on the earth for 200,000 years, we must not study man's evolutionary progenitors. Or we must only go back 400,000 years. That is a ridiculous proposition based only on the fact that it fits the thesis of the global warming hysterics.

It is certainly procrustian.

Cyclops wrote:

Similarities, of course; but there's no evidence that they utilized fire or other activities which would have increased CO2 levels, the way that later man did.
end of quote
If man utlized fire and other activities, there were so human beings that any activity on their part would have done almost NOTHING to increase c02.


But what caused the spike during the Jurassic?

Note:




Global Warming and Solar Activity -2/1-2007


Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, has written an op/ed piece for the Times of London in which he says the orthodoxy of CO2-forced global warming must be challenged.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adlie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
This is not a new theory, either. It has been propounded upon at length by Sallie Baliunas (among others), the Harvard astrophysicist who is the Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory. It also has gotten some converts recently, such as astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, who no longer subscribes to the CO2 theory.
He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence " only speculation " that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming " is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
Dr. Shaviv's work looks at solar activity, rather than solar radiance, and the effect that cosmic ray flux has on the atmosphere. Along with the work of Henrik Svensmark in Denmark, which Calder has an upcoming book about, experiments indicate that cosmic rays stitch together sulfuric acid and water to begin the condensation and cloud formation process.

This is not a particularly new experiment, either.
But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
Yet the IPCC report barely even acknowledges this astronomical work, and the implications for climate change. By concentrating on irradiance, the IPCC has essentially dismissed the sun as a major player in climate change. But irradiance isn't the mechanism that astrophysicists have identified.

A cynical observer would say that, if solar activity is the culprit, there's essentially nothing that can be done to change it, which means there would be no reason to fund the modeling studies so beloved by global warming scientists.

If the sun's magnetic field blocks cosmic rays that increase cloud formation, then the effect of CO2 is such a minor factor that it can be safely ignored. Naturally, climatologists are resistant to an explanation that makes their research irrelevant.

Assuming, of course, that they're even aware of it.

The bottom line is that we've had much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the past. Currently, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 378 parts per million (PPM). During the Jurassic period, CO2 concentration was at 1800 PPM. During the Cambrian, it was 7000 PPM.

And yet, despite CO2 concentrations 7 to 20 times current, there was no runaway greenhouse effect that threatened all life. Indeed, the main cause of the mass extinction at the Cambrian/Ordovician boundary period appears to have been global cooling.

So, if the CO2 problem is the danger the environmentalists tell us it is, then we need to know why massively higher concentrations of CO2 in the Cambrian and Jurassic periods didn't result in a runaway greenhouse effect then, but will now.

*******************************************************************

THE LAST THREE PARAGRAPHS ARE MOST PERTINENT TO THE DATA FROM THE JURASSIC.


SO WHY, DIDN'T THE MASSIVE C02 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CAMBRIAN AND JURASSIC PERIOD RESULT IN A RUNWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT T H E N BUT W I L L N O W?

Nature may be cyclical but the cycles have lengths. Man changing something doesn't change some of nature's cycles. Other cycles it can throw off badly.

The reason the earth wasn't warmer when CO2 was much higher is because of the cycle of life for a star. But then, you knew that, didn't you?

By the way okie, do you know how they figured out the temperature in your chart?

Hint - They used models similar to what they use for global warming predictions.

Okie, pleease describe your technique for copying and pasting your chart from
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

In case Okie is off doing more productive stuff than playing on A2K:

1. Right click on the chart/photo and then on "properties" on the bottom of the screen that comes up.
2. You'll see a URL next to ADDRESS on that screen. If that URL ends with a JPG or GIF it is transferrable to A2K. Copy the URL
3. Paste the URL into your buffer on A2K, highlight it like you're going to copy or enlarge it, and click on IMG in the BBC Code editor at the top of the buffer.
4. Click on Reply and A2K will go get the chart or photo and post it for you.

If the picture doesn't have a JPG or GIF in the address, you'll probably have to copy it to your computer, then transfer it from your computer to a site like PhotoBucket from which you can use Steps 1 through 4 to transfer it to A2K.

Thanks Foxfyre. Say, I have yet to figure out how to embed videos. I think I do it like it should work, copy the video code, then enclose it according to the code button, but it hasn't worked yet. I have noticed you do this from time to time. Any suggestions?

I only know how to post youtube video....but to do that

You put [youtube] followed by the URL for the youtube video and then close the URL with [/youtube] Don't leave any spaces between the code and the URL address. Then hit reply and it should post the video. (The code doesn't have to be red of course.)

The URL youtube address has to have youtube in it someplace, and sometimes an imbedded youtube video from another site won't load here. Not sure why.

Here's a little Youtube video re global warming. If you click on 'quote' as if you were going to respond to it, you'll see how it was coded to post it here. Robert says he'll eventually provide a button to do this like is provided for quotes and images, but there currently isn't room on the toolbar.

rosborne 97 9 raised a very good point--note below-- it was not rebutted:

Rosborne 979 raised two more great questions--They were not answered or rebutted.

Parados did not rebut my post below--THEREFORE IT STANDS.

genoves never told us why he hasn't stopped beating his wife. - THEREFORE IT STANDS.

Parados has not rebutted the post below--Therefore it stands.

Monterey Jack--You and Parados appear to be assidulously avoiding any attempt at rebuttal of my post in which I showed that the IPCC( you do know what that is, I hope, has been lowering its estimate of sea level rises with each new investigation. Don't make yourself look like a fool by avoiding this.
I challenge you to explain the IPCC's findings on sea level. Perhaps you are avoiding this because it puts the lie to part of the global warming hysteria.

Parados wrote:

genoves thinks humans existed during the Jurassic 200 million years ago.

Please find the sentence in which I wrote this. If you can't please put away your meds until we finish this thread.

Thanks, Foxfyre, for the tip on embedding the video from youtube.

Wow, unbelievable video, ya sure have convinced me.

Parados wrote:

The reason the earth wasn't warmer when CO2 was much higher is because of the cycle of life for a star. But then, you knew that, didn't you?

Really? Do you have a scientific paper which gives that explanation exactly as you have written it? If you havn't I do not accept it since I know of no scientific papers which show that "the reason the earth wasn't warmer when co2 was much higher is because of the cycle of life for a star"