71
   

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

 
 
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 09:21 am
@Ionus,
Institutional inertia is a powerful force - if you read through the lines of the text in the NOAA link you'll see the "consensus" sunspot forecast has had to be modified downwards several times; participants almost came to blows as the mathematicians - who turned out to be right so far - disagreed with the "anthropogenic global warming" crowd. Forecast was lowered yet again from previous 140 sunspots in 2015 to 90 now and the term "consensus" changed to "majority". Meanwhile the sun is shutting down and just sitting there quietly - for all anybody knows it may continue to do so for decades. X-ray pic:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sxi/images/latest_sxi_small.png
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 10:39 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
The huge problem is oceanic pollution by heavy metals, not CO2.
Absolutely ! Poisoning the oceans is going to kill all life on earth (at least most of the higher life) and the fools are worried about CO2 which is at a tenth of previous levels....

The funny thing is that posters arguing for AGW invariably ask for links to scientific articles which they then don't (can't?) read. One more effort:
Quote:
..... strong increases of cloudiness, precipitation (snow)
and declining temperatures as a consequence of solar/
cosmic ray forcing have played a crucial role in the
regularly occurring iceberg discharges as recorded in
North Atlantic deep sea cores and the synchronous
events in the Southern Hemisphere.


.......solar forcing of Holocene and Glacial climatic shifts .... implies.. climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in
solar activity than generally believed.

http://www.ithelps.ch/grosjean/Quaternary_Climates_S7353/Literature%20Chapter%201/Additional%20reading/van%20Geel%20et%20al%201999.pdf
This article (published 1999) has turned out to be the best predictor of results since discovered in ice cores, in solar irradiance, etc etc. I don't bother arguing with AGW supporters any more - if the mathematical projections are correct through 2015 and beyond, they'll have to eat their words.

Meanwhile, with particulates pollution booming in Africa and India and burning of other filthy fuels spreading countless tons of heavy metals on the waters, I've actually started seeing models testing whether limited nuclear wars (India-Pakistan, say, or Iran-Israel, or some combination of both, if the Afghan/Pakistani unrest gets much worse) might actually eliminate some of the overpopulation driving demand for food and other consumer goods in these areas, and so turn out to be beneficial for the planet in the long run. On this cheerful thought, goodbye until early March. Have fun with AGW Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 10:55 am
@High Seas,
HS, I'm not sure how the creator of your graph measured sun spots in the 1600's, but I guess you can find anything on the WWW to show "your side" of any argument.

[url]I found this one[/url]
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 10:59 am
@High Seas,
HS, I'm not sure how the creator of your graph measured sun spots in the 1600's, but I guess you can find anything on the WWW to show "your side" of any argument. Also, did the creator of your graph get measurements from three locations on earth as described in the following article?


Quote:
MEASUREMENTS OF SUNSPOT MAGNETIC FIELDS
IN CRIMEAN ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY

You can see crimean observations of sunspot magnetic fields using the following address:
http://quake.stanford.edu/~crao/Projects/solar/sunspot/DATA/

Radio maps of the Sun with Crimean radiotelescop RT-22:
http://quake.stanford.edu/~crao/Projects/solar/sunspot/RADIO/

Visual measurements of sunspot magnetic fields carried out in the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory from 1955. First two years the line FeI 6173 A was used. Since 1957 observations carry out in the line FeI 6302 A [1].

Maximal distance between sigma-components is measured in the profile of this line splitted in a sunspot magnetic field. Then the measured size is transferred in intensity of a magnetic field. The data of observations of each day are presented in a kind of sketch of the solar disk with all sunspot groups and their temporary numbers. Near each sunspot the sign of magnetic field ( N or S) and intensity in hundreds Gauss is specified.

The moment observation with decimal parts of day, quality of the image (seeing) in five step scale (s) and scintillation (Sc) in arch seconds is specified. The line EW corresponds to a direction of a equator.

Since 1957 Crimean Observatory has become head establishment on observations of sunspot magnetic fields by stations of the Soviet Union. The results of observations of six observatories during the International Geophysical Year ( 1957-1958 ) were published in the catalogue [2]. In different years various observatories participated in a regular Service of magnetic fields.

The observations of magnetic fields were monthly sent by all participants of this service in Crimea. After verification of all observations 3 copies of all observations departed to World Centers of Solar Data ( Moscow, Boulder and Meudon). The Crimean catalogue contains observations of sunspot magnetic fields by stations of Soviet Union per every day since 1965. Summary the data on quantity of observations are submitted in the table. Following designations of stations are accepted:
Crimea Crimean Astrophysical Observatory.
Sayan Mountains Institute of solar-earth physics of Siberian Department of Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)
Kislovodsk Mountain Station of the Main Astronomical Observatory RAS.
Pulkovo Main Astronomical Observatory RAS.
Ussurijsk Solar Service Station in Ussuriysk
Shemakha Shemakha Astronomical Observatory
Ural Astronomical Observatory of Ural State University

References

1. A.B.Severny, V.E.Stepanov. The first experience of observations of sunspot magnetic fields in the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory Izv. Krim. Astrofiz. Obs.,1956, v.16, pp.3-11.(in russian)
2. Solar magnetic fields for the I.G.Y. With analysis and daily maps prepared at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory under the direction of professor A.B.Severny. Ed. M.A.Ellison.-1962. Annals of the International Geophysical Year, v.23, 266 p. Pergamon Press.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 11:15 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

HS, I'm not sure how the creator of your graph measured sun spots in the 1600's,

Cicerone - only long online friendship with you compels me to answer yet another post from you on a subject on which you obviously know less than nothing. The graphs go back so many centuries because the first man to observe sunspots was Galileo - you may have heard of him.

If all else fails and you persist with your baseless opinions, try studying this painting by Breughel the Elder, on The Blind Leading the Blind Smile
http://mitchul.unblog.fr/files/2010/05/pieterbrueghel500.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 01:44 pm
@High Seas,
HS, Thanks for the online friendship; that means a lot to me.

As with most topics on a2k, my opinions are based on my many readings, and not from any scientific background. I was one of the first posters on a2k to question the effects of CO2 on our environment, but have since then changed my opinion based on climate scientists who say that CO2 have caused global warming.

Their latest findings by inspecting the ice in antarctica show the growth of CO2 since the industrial revolution, and the current ice melts there seems to support that conclusion.

Yes, I've heard of Galileo; who hasn't?

You call my opinions "baseless," but as I've said, I arrive at my conclusions from much reading on this subject. If my opinions are baseless, than the many scientist who agree with me are also baseless in their findings.

From pa.msu.edu:
Quote:
How does carbon dioxide cause global warming?
(Lansing State Journal, August 31, 1994)

Fossil fuels such as gasoline, methane and propane contain mostly carbon. When these fuels are burned, they react with oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.

Because of our heavy use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution. The destruction of forests which use carbon dioxide also contributes to the increase in carbon dioxide.

Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.

So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.

Currently, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of about one part per million per year. If this continues, some meteorologists expect that the average temperature of the earth will increase by about 2.5 degrees Celsius. This doesn't sound like much, but it could be enough to cause glaciers to melt, which would cause coastal flooding.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
the many scientist who agree with me
Ahhh...dont you mean the you who agrees with many scientists ?

How did the ice melt before the CO2 theory ?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 12:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone, consider the following;

1. The earth's climate has never been stable over geologic time. There have been repeated glaciations and repeated periods of both warming and cooling far greater than are forecast by the AGW cultists. Indeed we are in an interglacial period now.
2. Your analysis above implicitly assumes that the only (or at least the dominant) variable affecting the global climate will certainly be the manmade release of previously sequestered CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels. Nedither you nor any of the AGW cultists has offered any proof of this usually unstated but critical assumption. The known variability of earth's climate gives the lie to this proposition.
3. The future states of complex, coupled dynamical systems involving many non-linear variabloe interactions cannot be predicted, and the errors in future estimates cannot be evaluated.

I could go on, but that is enough to destroy the conclusions you have parroted above. You need to read some more.
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 01:14 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob wrote:
Quote:
1. The earth's climate has never been stable over geologic time. There have been repeated glaciations and repeated periods of both warming and cooling far greater than are forecast by the AGW cultists. Indeed we are in an interglacial period now.


That used to be my argument against man-made contribution to global warming. However, I have been reading more on this subject for many years, and came to my conclusion based on the conclusions reached by the scientific community. From wiki:
Quote:
The mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it
Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[32]

Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 07:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
Yeah, about all those institutions...you are aware that it is one person who leads each one, arent you ? Are you aware of the large number of eminently respected scientists who have been wrong ? Einstein and Hawking to name two.

How about well respected theories like the bottom of the oceans is dead flat ? Or life could not live at the bottom of the oceans ? Or if man goes faster than 60 km/h it will destroy his internal organs ? Or smoking is good for you, because it makes you cough up phlegm ? Or the safety razor and trouser belt will destroy manliness ? Or the womb moves around the body and a visit to the doctor is necessary to get clitoral stimulation to make it go back in place ? (some poor afflicted women had to visit the doctor several times a week) !! Otherwise women get hysterical.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 08:51 am
@Ionus,
I don't think that's right Io. I think the hysteria, which can be fun to watch as long as no blood is shed, or not much, is caused by the wo----the er-er--er----thingy--you know--having too many outposts. In a bureaucratic sense it might be thought unwieldy. Contradictory messages.

Are there any openings for a doctor who specialises in that kind of work in Australia?
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 03:15 pm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
CO2 Density Trend 1958-2008

IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED ABOUT 1°C (1.8°F)
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.
Quote:

409
Hydrologist and geologist Mike McConnell of the U.S. Forest Service is a professional Earth scientist who has studied atmospheric pollution, post-wildfire mitigation planning, and groundwater surface water modeling. In 2007, McConnell dissented from the view that mankind has created a climate crisis. “Climate change is a climate system that we have no real control over,” McConnell wrote on December 27, 2007. “Our understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun are still quite limited. Scaring people into submission is not the answer to get people to change their environmental ways,” McConnell explained. He also dismissed claims that the human race was “the cause of our global warming.” McConnell wrote, “There is no real basis for this. There is a growing body of scientific literatures outlining that this not to be the case.” He concluded, “Now, if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons do not support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2. We ought to see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time, especially over the last several years. But we're not.” (LINK) & (LINK) [Updated 12/30/2007]

cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 03:25 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, You are a slave to charts that you have no idea what's being posted. Mr McConnell is a Hydrologist, an expert on water. Most scientists who study climate, earth's changing temperatures, and the current rise in CO2, all agree that man-made hydro-carbons are affecting the earth's temperature.

If, as he states that
Quote:
Our understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun are still quite limited
, how can he then conclude "McConnell dissented from the view that mankind has created a climate crisis."

He contradicted himself.

You need to study logic.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 05:19 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Are there any openings for a doctor who specialises in that kind of work in Australia?
If there was I would be too busy to reply.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 05:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
how can he then conclude "McConnell dissented from the view that mankind has created a climate crisis."
Because there is not enough evidence. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
He contradicted himself. You need to study logic.
Very Happy No. He didnt.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 06:19 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
He contradicted himself. You need to study logic.


Look Io--if ci. says he contradicted himself and that you need to study logic it must be true. If his assertions of that nature are not true then there is a lot of bullshit on the evolution threads.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 04:15 am
@spendius,
Good point Spendi.....I will enroll first thing tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 01:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, You are a slave to charts that you have no idea what's being posted. Mr McConnell is a Hydrologist, an expert on water. Most scientists who study climate, earth's changing temperatures, and the current rise in CO2, all agree that man-made hydro-carbons are affecting the earth's temperature.



In the mid 19th century, most scientists flatly rejected the initial findings of geologists suggesting that the earth was billions of years old. This included the esteemed Lord Kelvin who reasoned that the sun couldn't have continued releasing energy that long by any process then known or conceived. It turns out that "most scientists" were wrong.

The argument that manmade release of previously sequestered carbon might have an observable effect on climate is fairly easy to make. However the proposition that it will continue without limit, or that it will dominate other natural factors, or that its consequences can be predicted with enough confidence to justify an enormous reallocation of resources and processes supporting our economic activity
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 02:40 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob, Looking hindsight at science doesn't prove what is being articulated today by all scientists. You must know what "science" means; it corrects itself when new and verifiable information out-dates old information.

So the question for you is to show evidence that refutes today's scientists on climate change.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 06:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
So the question for you is to show evidence that refutes today's scientists on climate change.
ci, the fact that global warming is mostly a politically driven science provides enough proof for me to conclude that this entire issue is more political than scientific at its foundation. As far as I am concerned, it is incumbent on the so called scientists that claim this crisis is real, to show undeniable proof of their so-called consensus being supported by good science, not upon the rest of us to disprove their conclusions. Most of us are smart enough to see that good science must start with good sound collection of data, and the global warmers have even failed to do that so far. If they could ever achieve that, then they might be able to take the next step or two down the road to doing something reliable in a scientific way.

When I say they have failed to even demonstrate good collection of climate data, if you doubt that, here is one website that I can refer you to. There is a wealth of information there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:08:46