Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Rush Limbaugh is completely wrong AGAIN..

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Humans emit MORE CO2 than all the volcanoes combined let alone a medium sized one.

Michigan alone in 1973 put almost 1 million tons of SO2 into the air. Pinatubo in 1991, hardly a medium sized volcano was estimated to have expelled 17 million tons of SO2. Unless the entire human race lived in Michigan for the last 20 years Rush is wrong on SO2.

http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/ctap/sumrepo/chap2/sr2-1.htm

He's also got to tell us how humans are causing the global warming on Mars:

http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09feb_1.htm

The sun going into a warming cycle of course would cause warming on both Earth AND Mars, but that's clearly too clean and simple for the leftwing hypochondriacs and chicken littles, as well as for "scientists" whose grant funding largely depends on how good they are at frightening people.

gunga, we've gone through this argument many pages back. I like your logic, which I have pointed out before, that if other planets are also experiencing warming as Earth is, one would logically first look at factors which would most easily explain both phenomena. For example if two people get sick with the same symptoms, one first looks at factors common to both, such as food poisoning or a virus or bug both were exposed to. As you say, the cycle of the sun is too logical, or too clean and simple for the leftwing hypochondriacs and chicken littles. The main problem is that it does not fit their preconceived notion that Man is causing it and that CO2 is the culprit, because they of course want to see the political spinoffs from such a scenario. If it is the sun's fault, it completely destroys their political agenda.

There is in fact evidence that the solar cycle shows a very good correlation with current perceived warming.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://history.nasa.gov/SP-402/p13.jpg&imgrefurl=http://history.nasa.gov/SP-402/p12.htm&h=766&w=706&sz=95&tbnid=G6kkMW-ECqVZuM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsunspot%2Bcycle&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

The best argument Parados could come up with to debunk the above, as I recall his argument, was that the 11 year cycle does not currently fit exactly the hottest years on record. Obviously, what we are looking at is not a perfect and immediate response to the sun's short term 11 year cycles, but rather a correlation to the longer term cycles.

Yes, it would be best to look at common factors, but the mean total irradiance has only been rising steadily since 1945.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Sci...247..556F

And the pattern of warming does not fit a solely solar irradiance-based picture and fits a model in which there is an increase of greenhouse gas concentrations:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ujxgvmuknjbej5w9/

By stating that solar irradiance is a factor in the warming, does not mean there aren't any other factors. In fact, I think Bernie cited another study similar to this one that actually gave figures that support the fact that the anthropogenic effect was a very dominant cause.

Mr. O"Donnell wrote:

By stating that solar irradiance is a factor in the warming, does not mean there aren't any other factors. In fact, I think Bernie cited another study similar to this one that actually gave figures that support the fact that the anthropogenic effect was a very dominant cause.
end of quote-

Of course, and no one would say that there are no other factors, but the question still remains:

How much of a factor is solar irradiance?
(see Okie's excellent links)

Can we precisely measure the effect of solar irradiance?

If we can, how do we DISENTAGLE its effects from the alleged effects of CO2?

How can we be sure that Solar Irradiance does not act synergistically with the alleged tiny global warming effects from CO2?

And, what do we do about it?

Block out the sun's rays????? LOL

Here is the study on Solar Irradiance's contribution to warming!!



quote
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming

N. Scafetta

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA




B. J. West

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA




Abstract

We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.


Received 19 December 2005; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.

Index Terms: 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1626 Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928); 1650 Global Change: Solar variability (7537); 1699 Global Change: General or miscellaneous; 1739 History of Geophysics: Solar/planetary relationships.
*************************************************************

Okie- I read Parados' irrelevant post on volcanoes. But, tell me, Okie, have you experienced any phenomenon which contributes more hot air than Parados?

It is obvious that Parados is clueless. He has been asked eight questions- I labeled them #1, #2, etc. THEN I ASKED HIM SIX OF THOSE QUESTIONS AGAIN.

If he is such an expert, he should reply.

He did not--an obvious fraud.

Okie- Do you think that Parados actually knows how to read a Scientific Article?

Without trying to actually understand the mathematical calculations attempting to quantify the effect of the sun, Bernard, common sense tells us that perhaps an exact calculation is virtually imposssible because all the factors are so poorly understood, especially in terms of the mathematics. A look at the CO2 factor tells us we hardly know how CO2 exactly affects the climate when you consider the myriad of factors, would any sane scientist attempt to apply mathematics to it?

For me, a correlation is good enough to tell me there is an effect on the earth. To attempt to quantify it and compare it to the effect of CO2 is foolhardy in my opinion. It appears to lend itself more readily to mathematical speculation than CO2 at least, as trying to quantify something like the effect of CO2 that you can hardly prove exists in the first place seems pretty far fetched.

You are correct., Okie. I was hoping that Parados or Username would attempt to explain the unexplainable but you stated it precisely!

Dr. Lomborg's comment on this problem is illuminating( no pun intended) when he wrote:

"This theory( more intense solar activity) also has the tremendous advantage, compared to the greenhouse theory, that it CAN EXPLAIN THE TEMPERATURE CHANGES from 1860 to 1950 which the rest of the climate scientists WITH A SHRUG OF THEIR SHOULDERS HAVE ACCREDITED TO

" NATURAL VARIATION"


end of quote

Isn' t that nice, Okie--"Natural variation"!!!!

This discussion reminds me of my past life, working in the world of geology, wherein all kinds of theories abounded. As one practiced the science as applied to real world problems, such as siting drill holes for oil and mineral targets, and evaluating prospects, it was amazing the number of theories that one encountered. And I must say some of the most amazingly ridiculous ones were sometimes proposed by the most educated PhDs in the business, and some of the most common sense approaches were possessed by the least educated, but they had acquired a common sense knowledge based on sort of a real world intuition of the science. It has become apparent to me that education accomplishments are not the best measure of reasoning power or comparative logic. Not always, but some of them stick out in my memory to make that impression. And many of the least competent were those that had been in the world of academia their whole career, and perhaps had super degrees, but had no practical experience in the industry.

Geology really is a science requiring much guesswork. I think my experience has tainted my view of meteorology and / or so-called climate science. They can't even predict tomorrow's weather with 100% certainty, but some guy or gal in academia is going to sit there and tell me some of the most outlandish conclusions in regard to CO2 and global warming. Not a chance.

Do you have something to contribute Bernard?

Yes, I think you should do much more research on Volcanos. But don't fall in!!

Why don't you get off your butt and contribute some knowledge to this thread using Scientific studies. Are you allergic to those sources?

Here is an interesting summary, including not only volcanoes, but everything in regard to so-called greenhouse gases. To pull a couple of the most interesting statistics, the man produced portion of all greenhouse gases, including water vapor is about 0.28 percent, in other words only about 1/4 of 1%, leaving 99.72% of all greenhouse gases being natural. If water vapor is not included, the man caused portion is still a pretty minor 5.53%.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Lets see now, my calculator says that if Kyoto reduced man-caused CO2 by 5%, that would reduce CO2 emission by about 0.28% and all greenhouse gases emission by about 0.014 %, or about 1 hundredth of one percent. Wow, I am impressed. Mr. Gore, it must be one heck of a sensitive "tipping point" is all I gotta say.

Monte Hieb (and Harrison Hieb): what is his (their) background in the field of climate science? Why does his/their site(s) link to a whole bunch of fossil-fuel info links/sites?

Why is none of his/their sites ubdated a couple of years? Why last revised in early 2003?

Why are his/their arguments the most valid and the most correct arguments?

Of course. The IPCC and USGS and NOAA are not scientific at all. We should stick to real scientists like Samuelson and Lomborg who have not scientific credentials at all.

This thread stands for all to read Bernard. Your attitude not withstanding, I am happy with what I have contributed. I just see no reason to continue to argue with people that are all over the place and refuse to look at scientific evidence.

Bernard, you have claimed wild numbers that don't exist in any scientific article. You have claimed warming doesn't exist. You have claimed it does exist but is caused solely by solar warming. You have cited articles that directly contradict your own claims. When those contradictions are pointed out you ignore them and continue to post the same crap. At this point I have nothing more to say. Repeat your crap, the rest of this thread is there for all to read. You have now done what you set out to do. You have destroyed this thread. Good luck in your future trolling.

okie,

As Walter has pointed out. You do NOT use the most current evidence. You love to use old evidence when it seems to support your opinion. Several times on this thread you have used evidence from 1998 even though there have been 8 years of research since then disputing the pieces you used. You and Bernard are a lovely little incestuous mutual congratulations society that has little to do with scientific reality.

Proof that the loud cries of the uniformed will eventuall wear out even the patient voice of reality.

I have no clue who Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb are. I do not know what their background is in the field of climate science. Why does it link to whole bunch of fossil fuel info sites? I don't know, perhaps they may think fossil fuel people are credible. You do not? Why are his/their arguments the most valid? I did not say they were, Walter. I simply liked the site because it provides some nice graphs, pie charts, and statistics. It is very likely the statistics may not be exactly the same as all the other websites showing similar information, due to dates of calculation or sources of the information. However, I think the statistics are in the ballpark of what I've seen before, so I thought they were nicely presented and easily understood on this site.

Many pro-global warming sites do not bring out the information in quite this way, Walter. Don't you like to have some balance in the information you consider, or do you only wish to look at one side of the argument? If you can provide sites that dispute the figures given here in a radical way, I would like to see it. Dig it up for me. Instead of pointing out where the message is wrong here, you attack the messenger. That doesn't fly in my opinion. You need to debate the data and discuss them.

Same for you Parados, point out where the information is completely out of the ballpark wrong instead of attacking the source. If you have information that disputes it, I would like to hear it. Quote your statistics, use your calculator, and your head, you have one, Parados, use it.