Global cooling maybe?

[Wild Cobra]

Notice how e haven't been increasing in global temerature since 2004. Well guess what guys, the sunspot activity is late at arriving. If this continues, next year will be cooler yet.

I know, many of you will not believe me. Just wait till next year is the sunspot activity fails to return for another year.

Solar wind weakest since beginning of space age (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080924193222.3r9aw25a&show_article=1)

The Radiation from our sun is now at record lows since we have had accurate measurements. It is down below to 1365.4 watts. Will it continue to drop? I hope it drops to just below 1365, buit no farther than 1363 watts. This will prove once and for all that the sun, not CO2, is esponsible for global warming.

Please remember my words today if thuis does happen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Where is solar cycle 24?

Where's all that Global Warming?

[Shastafarian]

Global Warming is an unfortunate misnomer. Global Climate Change is the correct terminology. It's funny how many "global warming" deniers there are that have NO IDEA what they're talking about.

[DarrinS]

Global Warming is an unfortunate misnomer. Global Climate Change is the correct terminology. It's funny how many "global warming" deniers there are that have NO IDEA what they're talking about.


Global warming "deniers" -- LOL


Yes, indeed, the climate is changing. Interestingly enough, it will do this with or without the existence of human beings.

[Shastafarian]

Global warming "deniers" -- LOL


Yes, indeed, the climate is changing. Interestingly enough, it will do this with or without the existence of human beings.

Thanks for your opinion professor.

[Yonivore]

Global Warming is an unfortunate misnomer. Global Climate Change is the correct terminology. It's funny how many "global warming" deniers there are that have NO IDEA what they're talking about.
You are new around here, aren't'cha?

[Shastafarian]

You are new around here, aren't'cha?

In a manner of speaking.

[DarrinS]

YEJ5pHVKjiI

[Shastafarian]

YEJ5pHVKjiI

LOL John Stossel oh bastion of science!!!

[DarrinS]

LOL John Stossel oh bastion of science!!!

Al Gore oh bastion of science.

[Shastafarian]

Al Gore oh bastion of science.

Good comeback. I personally trust my former science professors who actually know what they're talking about. Books and scientific studies help too.

[Yonivore]

Good comeback. I personally trust my former science professors who actually know what they're talking about. Books and scientific studies help too.
Really?

Then post the scientific study that proves the theory that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

[Shastafarian]

Really?

Then post the scientific study that proves the theory that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

I'll take a page out of the conservative playbook,

"I'm not doing your homework for you. find it yourself"

[DarrinS]

Good comeback. I personally trust my former science professors who actually know what they're talking about. Books and scientific studies help too.



Or, if you were smart enough, you could read the published articles and draw your own conclusions.

[Yonivore]

I'll take a page out of the conservative playbook,

"I'm not doing your homework for you. find it yourself"
I've done it. There is no such study.

Your newbie is showing...this subject has been hashed and rehashed in this forum on several occasions. Never has anyone, who believes there is anthropogenic climate effects, been able to post a scientific study that proves that theory. Never.

However, there's been plenty of stuff posted in here that says the sun heats this ball up and cools it down.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll take a page out of the conservative playbook,

"I'm not doing your homework for you. find it yourself"

Did you know there is a large payment to be awarded for proof of anthropogenic global warming? Been out there for a year or two, maybe longer. Nobody has yet to claim it!

[Shastafarian]

Or, if you were smart enough, you could read the published articles and draw your own conclusions.

I did. Did ya miss that part where I said, "Books and scientific studies help too"?

[Shastafarian]

I've done it. There is no such study.

Your newbie is showing...this subject has been hashed and rehashed in this forum on several occasions. Never has anyone, who believes there is anthropogenic climate effects, been able to post a scientific study that proves that theory. Never.

However, there's been plenty of stuff posted in here that says the sun heats this ball up and cools it down.

I know. That's why it's a theory. However there is a whole bunch of empirical evidence that global climate change is real and is being caused by us.

[Yonivore]

I did. Did ya miss that part where I said, "Books and scientific studies help too"?
And dictionaries without pictures, apparently.

So, what "books and scientific studies" helped you?

[Yonivore]

I know. That's why it's a theory. However there is a whole bunch of empirical evidence that global climate change is real and is being caused by us.
Really? Cite the empirical evidence.

[Wild Cobra]

I did. Did ya miss that part where I said, "Books and scientific studies help too"?
How old are you?

I'm beginning to think by the way you post and your reasoning skills, that you are between the ages of 11 to 14.

[Shastafarian]

And dictionaries without pictures, apparently.

So, what "books and scientific studies" helped you?

Why do you care? If I post any of the studies would it ever even come close to changing your mind? As you said, this has been discussed at great length here. What are the chances I have something new that will make you do a complete 180?

[Shastafarian]

How old are you?

I'm beginning to think by the way you post and your reasoning skills, that you are between the ages of 11 to 14.

Good guess.

[Wild Cobra]

Good guess.
How are your math skills? Consider that the earths average temperature is about 288 degrees kelvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin). What is the temperature change in celcius if the earth would be 55 kelvin with no solar heat, and the sun changes by 0.25%

Now consider this. How stable is the sun over the course of a few hundred years?

[Yonivore]

Why do you care? If I post any of the studies would it ever even come close to changing your mind? As you said, this has been discussed at great length here. What are the chances I have something new that will make you do a complete 180?
If they were reputable, rigorously peer-reviewed by scientists in the field of climatology, and published in reputable scientific journals...like just about every other theory on which global policy-making hinges. Sure...I could be persuaded.

[George Gervin's Afro]

How old are you?

I'm beginning to think by the way you post and your reasoning skills, that you are between the ages of 11 to 14.

Well considering your reasoning skills depend on whether a Republican or Democrat is invlolved I'd refrain from complaining about someone else's..:lol

[xrayzebra]

Notice how e haven't been increasing in global temerature since 2004. Well guess what guys, the sunspot activity is late at arriving. If this continues, next year will be cooler yet.

I know, many of you will not believe me. Just wait till next year is the sunspot activity fails to return for another year.

Solar wind weakest since beginning of space age (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080924193222.3r9aw25a&show_article=1)

The Radiation from our sun is now at record lows since we have had accurate measurements. It is down below to 1365.4 watts. Will it continue to drop? I hope it drops to just below 1365, buit no farther than 1363 watts. This will prove once and for all that the sun, not CO2, is esponsible for global warming.

Please remember my words today if thuis does happen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Where is solar cycle 24?

Where's all that Global Warming?

Hey WC, did you see this little article. It always amazes me how the
media can ignore facts and print BS. And people like Shastafarian
continues to believe the BS and ignore facts. Oh, well.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2008/09/18/oops-nets-wrong-warming-arctic-ice-still-there

[boutons_]

yoni and wc march lock-step ideologicially with whatever businesses/Repugs/neo-c*nts/conservatives' talking points are. The points say 'deny global warming", or Palin is wonderful, and yoni and wc fall right into step.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey WC, did you see this little article. It always amazes me how the
media can ignore facts and print BS. And people like Shastafarian
continues to believe the BS and ignore facts. Oh, well.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2008/09/18/oops-nets-wrong-warming-arctic-ice-still-there



Ray do you think man is contributing to the warming of earth? Is warming bad for planet earth? If man is contributing to something bad to the planet shouldn't they do something about it?

Pretty simple debate.

[Shastafarian]

Ray do you think man is contributing to the warming of earth? Is warming bad for planet earth? If man is contributing to something bad to the planet shouldn't they do something about it?

I gave up after MY GOD MAN asked me a math question. Trying to convince these people is an exercise in futility.

[Yonivore]

Ray do you think man is contributing to the warming of earth?
I don't.


Is warming bad for planet earth?

Not as bad as cooling.


If man is contributing to something bad to the planet shouldn't they do something about it?
Yep.


Pretty simple debate.
And, yep.

[Yonivore]

I gave up after MY GOD MAN asked me a math question. Trying to convince these people is an exercise in futility.

Try facts, sourced and corroborated facts. That's how you convince people.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't.


Not as bad as cooling.


Yep.


And, yep.

SO warming is bad, just not s bad as cooling. If man contributes to warming they shouldn't do anything about it. OK.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Try facts, sourced and corroborated facts. That's how you convince people.

Or a rightwinger's blog..

[Yonivore]

SO warming is bad, just not s bad as cooling. If man contributes to warming they shouldn't do anything about it. OK.
I don't agree man is contributing anything to global climate.

[Shastafarian]

Here you want a relatively layman paper on the matter?

A Slippery Slope: How Much Global Warming Constitutes
“Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”?

by James Hansen

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't agree man is contributing anything to global climate.

And if your wrong?

[Yonivore]

Here you want a relatively layman paper on the matter?

A Slippery Slope: How Much Global Warming Constitutes
“Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”?

by James Hansen
Nope, it's an editorial essay. An opinion, in other words.

[Yonivore]

And if your wrong?
We don't go bankrupt while we watch the growing seasons increase globally.

[Shastafarian]

Nope, it's an editorial essay. An opinion, in other words.

Yes but he cites several studies and their findings.

[Yonivore]

Yes but he cites several studies and their findings.
And opines on them. If the studies he cites prove your point, post them. I already know Hansen's position.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey WC, did you see this little article. It always amazes me how the
media can ignore facts and print BS. And people like Shastafarian
continues to believe the BS and ignore facts. Oh, well.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2008/09/18/oops-nets-wrong-warming-arctic-ice-still-there

Nice article. Here is the computer composite of daily satellite readings on the Actic cap:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg

[Frankie]

You guys sound like my father

[Yonivore]

You guys sound like my father
One of us might be.

[Shastafarian]

Global surface temperature increased in the past century by 0.5°C (1, 2). This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate-forcing agents (3).

A climate forcing is an imposed, natural or anthropogenic, perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (4, 5). Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause the largest positive (warming) forcing. Aerosols are also a major climate forcing, but they are not well measured. Aerosols are increasing in some regions but decreasing in others (3, 6), so continued growth of GHGs is likely to provide the predominant global anthropogenic climate forcing in the 21st century.

[Cry Havoc]

Global surface temperature increased in the past century by 0.5°C (1, 2). This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate-forcing agents (3).

A climate forcing is an imposed, natural or anthropogenic, perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (4, 5). Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause the largest positive (warming) forcing. Aerosols are also a major climate forcing, but they are not well measured. Aerosols are increasing in some regions but decreasing in others (3, 6), so continued growth of GHGs is likely to provide the predominant global anthropogenic climate forcing in the 21st century.

You know how to say a whole lot of nothing in a big paragraph. Thanks for the definition of global warming.

[Yonivore]

Global surface temperature increased in the past century by 0.5°C (1, 2). This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate-forcing agents (3).

A climate forcing is an imposed, natural or anthropogenic, perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (4, 5). Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause the largest positive (warming) forcing. Aerosols are also a major climate forcing, but they are not well measured. Aerosols are increasing in some regions but decreasing in others (3, 6), so continued growth of GHGs is likely to provide the predominant global anthropogenic climate forcing in the 21st century.
An unproven assertion.

Again, no one -- NO ONE -- has shown anthropogenic climate changes have, or even, could occur.

[Shastafarian]

You know how to say a whole lot of nothing in a big paragraph. Thanks for the definition of global warming.

The "paragraph" claims we are at least partially responsible for the warming. You would rather I post the entire article?

[Wild Cobra]

Global surface temperature increased in the past century by 0.5°C (1, 2). This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate-forcing agents (3).

A climate forcing is an imposed, natural or anthropogenic, perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (4, 5). Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause the largest positive (warming) forcing. Aerosols are also a major climate forcing, but they are not well measured. Aerosols are increasing in some regions but decreasing in others (3, 6), so continued growth of GHGs is likely to provide the predominant global anthropogenic climate forcing in the 21st century.
Please humor me. Do the math on the numbers I gave a few posts back.

[Yonivore]

You know how to say a whole lot of nothing in a big paragraph. Thanks for the definition of global warming.
Now, ask him to explain why the climate has been cooling since 1998.

[Frankie]

One of us might be.



UUUUGGGHHHHHHH FATHER!!! FFAAAATTTTTHHHHEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

[Yonivore]

The "paragraph" claims we are at least partially responsible for the warming. You would rather I post the entire article?

Alot of people make claims

[Yonivore]

UUUUGGGHHHHHHH FATHER!!! FFAAAATTTTTHHHHEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

Shut up, Frankie and eat your peas.

[Shastafarian]

Alot of people make claims

It's a fucking theory you asshat! Of course if people knew for sure we wouldn't be having this debate. There is evidence we are causing all of this and the change is negatively effecting the planet. "Show me the evidence" you'll say. I say blow me. Nothing will ever be good enough.

[Shastafarian]

How are your math skills? Consider that the earths average temperature is about 288 degrees kelvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin). What is the temperature change in celcius if the earth would be 55 kelvin with no solar heat, and the sun changes by 0.25%

Now consider this. How stable is the sun over the course of a few hundred years?


Please humor me. Do the math on the numbers I gave a few posts back.

I guess I'm an idiot. What does this even mean, "the sun changes by 0.25%"? The sun changes what? 0.25% of what?

[Yonivore]

It's a fucking theory you asshat! Of course if people knew for sure we wouldn't be having this debate. There is evidence we are causing all of this and the change is negatively effecting the planet. "Show me the evidence" you'll say. I say blow me. Nothing will ever be good enough.
If it's just a theory, Kyoto and the IPCC are shams. But we already knew that.

[Frankie]

MMMMMM Peas!!!

[Yonivore]

Here, Shastafarian...learn something:


xzSzItt6h-s

XDI2NVTYRXU

[Shastafarian]

You act as if you can't possibly be wrong.

[Yonivore]

You act as if you can't possibly be wrong.
No, I act as though I'm not willing to see the Country spend trillions in an effort to comply with Kyoto -- and whatever fool protocol the idiots come up with -- on the basis of a very, very, very flawed theory.

A theory, that the proponents won't even admit to having had some of it's core underpinnings (such as CO2 rises preceding temperature rises) soundly disproven.

Do you have any earthly idea what the Kyoto protocol would cost this country...and, what the proponents admit would be the benefits -- if we enacted every single item?

[Wild Cobra]

I guess I'm an idiot. What does this even mean, "the sun changes by 0.25%"? The sun changes what? 0.25% of what?

The intensity of its solar output. It's simple. The earth's change in heat is proportion with the sun's heat. It is nearly linear in small changes like under 1%.

It's simple math. First of all, the solar output has increase by at least 0.2% since 1900, and probably by 0.25% since the industrial revolution. This is verified by the science of paleoclimatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology).

The global average temperature is about 288 K.

The earth would be near absolute zero if there was no external heat, that our sun provides. Since we have gravitational forces keeping the molten core, the earths temperature would be about 55 K with no external heat source.

288 - 55 = 233

0.25% of 233 = 0.58825 k

The Kelvin scale and Celcius scale share the same slope. Just subtract 273.15 from kelvin to get celcius. 288 - 273.15 = 14.85 C, the approximate global average.

The alarmists say we have increased between by 0.6 to 0.7 C during the industrial revolution. I will say that with the possible errors in science, we can count on the suns output changing buy at least 0.2%. This number means a 0.466 C change rather than 0.588 C.

0.7 - 0.466 = 0.234 C would be the maximum warming caused by mankind. Using 0.25% and 0.6 C would mean only a 0.012C change. I would say that the range of temperature change by mankind is somewhere between 0.012 C and 0.234 C. That's a rather minimal impact. I personally agree it is between 0.1 and 0.2 C.

[Shastafarian]

It's simple math


I know. Learn how to write the question better next time. You gave no indication of what the last part of the question (0.25%) was.

[DarrinS]

I don't know if anyone's seen the Global Warming debate videos with Michael Chrichton et. al., but they are pretty good.


Here's one. This guy is hilarious.

KtPDuZzfzhw

[Wild Cobra]

I know. Learn how to write the question better next time. You gave no indication of what the last part of the question (0.25%)
was.

How are your math skills? Consider that the earths average temperature is about 288 degrees kelvin. What is the temperature change in celcius if the earth would be 55 kelvin with no solar heat, and the sun changes by 0.25%
You didn't understand that?

OK.

I was speaking of heat. Did you suddenly think I changed to poodles, or something else?

Nice try avoiding the subject.

Do you agree that the sun cause more heat changes than mankind?

[Shastafarian]

What is the temperature change in celcius if the earth would be 55 kelvin with no solar heat If the earth would be? Again learn how to write a question


and the sun changes by 0.25%
You left out a direct object in this part of the sentence.

[Wild Cobra]

If the earth would be? Again learn how to write a question


You left out a direct object in this part of the sentence.

Stop the nit-picking, you twitt.

I guess you cannot answer my last question. Does your partisanship and belief in the global warming dogma prevent you from speaking like a heratic?

[Shastafarian]

You didn't understand that?

OK.

I was speaking of heat. Did you suddenly think I changed to poodles, or something else?

Nice try avoiding the subject.

I'm answering your dumb math question


Do you agree that the sun cause more heat changes than mankind? No

[Yonivore]

BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html)

Oh, pish posh, that could never happen.

[DarrinS]

A pretty good exchange between John Stossel and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. starting at about 4:55 in this video.

By the way, RFK Jr.'s voice sounds like Catherine Hepburn _OR_ like he's trying to hold in a hit from a joint (Mouse can confirm).


ldXRB4U3vW0

[Yonivore]

Speaking of Kennedy...should an environmentalist ski?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a column that the Capital Times in Wisconsin published. It began: “I was water-skiing with my children in a light drizzle off Hyannis, Mass., last month when a sudden, fierce storm plunged us into a melee of towering waves, raking rain, painful hail and midday darkness broken by blinding flashes of lightning.”

Then he went on to declare that a sudden thunderstorm in the summer along the coast of Massachusetts is a new phenomenon that proves global warming.

Seriously.

The man is that stupid.

He wrote: “Those odd climatological phenomena led me to reflect on the rapidly changing weather patterns that are altering the way we live.”

He goes on and on.

His purpose is not to promote environmentalist but to bash Republican Sarah Palin as a pawn of Exxon, even though she raised taxes on Big Oil to the point where Alaska eliminated its state gas tax and gave everyone a rebate of $1,200.

But back to my question, if the planet is in such poor shape that the carbon dioxide from my next exhalation will cause storms off the coast of Hyannis in the summer, why is RFK Jr. out there burning up fossil fuel for sport?

The column is here (http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/306533).

[Phenomanul]

Is our sun the proverbial 'Elephant in the livingroom'.... you don't say....

[Wild Cobra]

A pretty good exchange between John Stossel and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. starting at about 4:55 in this video.

By the way, RFK Jr.'s voice sounds like Catherine Hepburn _OR_ like he's trying to hold in a hit from a joint (Mouse can confirm).


ldXRB4U3vW0
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a medical condition of his vocal cords. I don't recall what it is called. It used to be on the wiki link about him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr), but my scan of it missed it, or it was edited out.

I haven't lisened to Air America for a few weeks now, but I used to hear him regularly on his show "Ring of Fire". I have a hard time listening though with that wierd voice.

[byrontx]

Instead of Faux News try Science news:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/32122/title/Climate_clues_in_ice

Even if scientists never find ice more than 800,000 years old, the new findings confirm that Earth’s atmosphere today is unusual, Brook says. “Modern levels of greenhouse gases have no natural analogue in the ice record,” he notes.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/31717/title/A_Feverish_World

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been climbing to where today it is 30 percent greater than 650,000 years ago. That rise in carbon dioxide “is essentially entirely due to the burning of fuels,” Susan Solomon says. She’s a senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in Boulder, Colo., and studies factors that affect climate.

Go and do a little reading for yourself. The jury is not out, and the question is not whether or not the earth has cycles. The issue is whether human activity is having an impact on the cycles and there is general consensus among scientists that is the case.

[2centsworth]

Go and do a little reading for yourself. The jury is not out, and the question is not whether or not the earth has cycles. The issue is whether human activity is having an impact on the cycles and there is general consensus among scientists that is the case.

wake me up when they discover a carbon footprint.

[sabar]

This has always been my personal view on the matter, but it is difficult for me to believe that you can burn a crap load of material, cut down a crap load of trees, and pave over a crap load of land without it having any affect on the climate.

New York City (and most urban areas) are 1-2 degrees warmer than the surrounding areas. So obviously human activity does do something to the planet.

However, as I have said many times, this entire "Debate" is just something to waste your breath on. No matter what you view is, we are going to cut down every tree, burn every drop of oil, make every species extinct, and pave over every square inch of land eventually. If an affluent country DOES somehow implement a way to preserve these things, then poorer countries are going to do them for you and get rich from it.

Humanity is on its course and nothing our opinions say can change it. Our laws mean nothing to china and rural africa. They will use every last resource they have, and then when they run out, import it from those who have it left.

So yeah, the whole "debate" is moot. The real debate are the economic impacts of laws that are passed in relation to these things. That is what most people argue but just dont say they argue it.

[Wild Cobra]

This has always been my personal view on the matter, but it is difficult for me to believe that you can burn a crap load of material, cut down a crap load of trees, and pave over a crap load of land without it having any affect on the climate.

Yes, these heat islands do have an effect on the area. However, these areas affected are very small compared to the size of the earth. There is no doubt, a small effect. The question is how much is the global effect. I would say it's insignificant. However, it does effect the monitoring stations used to measure temperatures!



Even if scientists never find ice more than 800,000 years old, the new findings confirm that Earth’s atmosphere today is unusual, Brook says. “Modern levels of greenhouse gases have no natural analogue in the ice record,” he notes.

There are problems with this assessment. Primarily that CO2 and other gas levels really aren't accurate in deep ice cores. The actual CO2 levels are likely higher because of out gassing when the samples are released from the pressures of the deep. I think they attempt to compensate for this effect, but they just make educated guesses in that regard. Their mathematical model, like others, puts their perception of what should be into the equation.



The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been climbing to where today it is 30 percent greater than 650,000 years ago. That rise in carbon dioxide “is essentially entirely due to the burning of fuels,” Susan Solomon says. She’s a senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in Boulder, Colo., and studies factors that affect climate.

Yes, according to the data if we trust it. It is still important to note that in the past, CO2 levels follow temperature. Not temperature following CO2. Then if you look at long term data, we also see there is no long term average increase in global temperature once the CO2 reaches about 265 ppm.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/BondEvents.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/800px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolati.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation-wit.jpg



Go and do a little reading for yourself. The jury is not out, and the question is not whether or not the earth has cycles. The issue is whether human activity is having an impact on the cycles and there is general consensus among scientists that is the case.
True, but the alarmists claim far more than possible for the human equation. Consider this article (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/), and one graph from it:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2.png

I didn't read the article in full yet. I copied and saved it in Word. Anyway, three experts different opinions of the doubling of CO2 from before the industrial revolution. The highest of the three values is still less than the IPCC estimates of 1.5 to 4.5 C. I see the lowest of the three to be an accurate representation for several reasons. First of all, the greenhouse effect is about 33 C and the CO2 aspect of it is maybe 12% from my studies. That's really hard to pinpoint though because it changed with humidity and latitude. You see values as high as 36% and as low as 9% or lower. I think if you look around, but that is where it is already really cold with almost no greenhouse warming in the polar regions. It is so cold that water vapor is less prevalent making CO2 a higher part of the little warming effect that exists. The shift of the black-body radiation makes the spectra different too. You cannot simply take the 9% and average with the 36% for 22.5% because of the total heat values differing at each latitude. That's why I settle for 12%, but I will agree to as much as 16%. According to the clear sky lower graph, the CO2 effect is about 15.7%. I think putting in average clouds gives us about the 12% number I like, but there are experts out there that say it's only 10% too!

According to the lower graph, it starts at about 5.2 C for the CO2 effect at pre industrial levels and about 5.8 C for today. That 0.6 C is about what scientists claim our warming effect is today, but these are clear sky charts. There is always a large amount of cloud cover someplace. The alarmists like to mix facts together and use linear calculations rather than logarithmic to instill fear, then they completely leave out the sun's aspect of warming.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/org_comp2_d41_61_0804.png

I threw this chart in to show the varying measured solar intensity by satellites. It changes about 3 watts from an average just below 1367 watts. Notice that the lows in the 90's was about 0.3 watts higher than the lows in the 80's Mathematically:

Global average in Kelvin: 288

Global average with no solar radiation: 55 K

Solar Warming in K: 233

3 watts is 0.22% (change between high and low average)

0.3 watts is 0.022% (change in 80's low to change in 90's low)

0.22% of 233 is 0.51 K, warming potential from low to high solar radiation. Change in K is equal to change in Celsius)

0.022% of 233 is 0.05 Celsius. This is a measurable change from the 80's to the 90's, and can be attributed to changes in solar activity.

Here is another graph, and it's from NASA, on irradiance from the sun:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/SIchange.gif

There is a clear 1.5 watt average increase from 1900 and earlier to 1950 to present. That is a clear 0.11% increase, or 0.26 C increase just provable from 1900 to 1950 in global warming by the solar intensity. The alarmists like to take a low point to a high point rather than a rolling average to claim global warming is higher than it is too.

I will automatically dismiss any claims from alarmists that do not recognize solar forcing properly. Any reputable scientist cannot dismiss the effects of the output of our sun.

[Wild Cobra]

Global surface temperature increased in the past century by 0.5°C (1, 2). This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate-forcing agents (3).

A climate forcing is an imposed, natural or anthropogenic, perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (4, 5). Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause the largest positive (warming) forcing. Aerosols are also a major climate forcing, but they are not well measured. Aerosols are increasing in some regions but decreasing in others (3, 6), so continued growth of GHGs is likely to provide the predominant global anthropogenic climate forcing in the 21st century.

"This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate-forcing agents"

LOL... OK, so if 0.0000000000001% of global warming is man made, that qualifies. Right?

Please do some solid research that adds elements not in the Alarmists models. Like solar forcing and black carbon. I would say, that at best, maybe 25% of the warming is antropogenic. My bet is that it is about 5% to 15%.

[Wild Cobra]

Bump