Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather [Archive]

View Full Version : Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather

tlongII

03-19-2009, 10:12 AM

Maybe Al Gore can help?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html

Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.

The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported.

With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team is was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported.

"It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on."

The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May.

phyzik

03-19-2009, 11:05 AM

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/10/2007-10-30GlobalWarming.jpg

Viva Las Espuelas

03-19-2009, 11:10 AM

Don't they already know. It's North America Warming, not Global Warming.:rolleyes
geez

Wild Cobra

03-20-2009, 12:22 PM

If the idiots were paying attention to sites like Cryrosphere, they would have known better.

If they die, that's what they get for believing Al Gore.

The Cryosphere Today (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

peewee's lovechild

03-20-2009, 12:24 PM

It doesn't get cold in the winter?

Mark in Austin

03-20-2009, 02:11 PM

Trainwreck2100

03-20-2009, 02:28 PM

this is why we need Superman

peewee's lovechild

03-20-2009, 02:33 PM

let me ask a question:

Does the fact that Central Texas just got some rain prove that we aren't in a drought?

Using specific weather events to prove/disprove climate is like using the boxscore of one NBA game to predict a team's season.

Nevermind that they're talking about it being cold during winter.

Oh noes!!!

"I'm going to try to make a point about global warming by making fun of people getting caught in the cold during winter!!"

Global warming does not mean it's going to be hot everyday of the year and to hell with the other seasons.

CubanMustGo

03-20-2009, 02:37 PM

let me ask a question:

Does the fact that Central Texas just got some rain prove that we aren't in a drought?

Using specific weather events to prove/disprove climate is like using the boxscore of one NBA game to predict a team's season.

But this is standard neocon/denier tactics. Every effing time there is an isolated cold weather event some idiot (i'm talking about you, tlongII) will post it as "proof" there can be no such thing as global warming.

Then you have crap like Mild Cobra posting a one year cycle to slam Al Gore while not realizing that the chart shows that there is considerably less ice cover this year than in the 20+ years prior.

tlongII

03-20-2009, 03:04 PM

But this is standard neocon/denier tactics. Every effing time there is an isolated cold weather event some idiot (i'm talking about you, tlongII) will post it as "proof" there can be no such thing as global warming.

Then you have crap like Mild Cobra posting a one year cycle to slam Al Gore while not realizing that the chart shows that there is considerably less ice cover this year than in the 20+ years prior.

20 years is no more relevant that an isolated event when talking about global climate changes you dolt!

David Bowie

03-20-2009, 03:08 PM

I think this was posted as an ironic statement.....not a statement about global warming.

peewee's lovechild

03-20-2009, 03:14 PM

I think this was posted as an ironic statement.....not a statement about global warming.

Nope.

Maybe Al Gore can help?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html

CubanMustGo

03-20-2009, 03:23 PM

20 years is no more relevant that an isolated event when talking about global climate changes you dolt!

20 years is a whole lot more relevant than one data point, rube, and there's a lot more than 20 years of observational data.

tlongII

03-20-2009, 03:37 PM

20 years is a whole lot more relevant than one data point, rube, and there's a lot more than 20 years of observational data.

Yes, and the general trend indicates the earth is getting colder, not warmer!

DPG21920

03-20-2009, 04:20 PM

Global Warming would be more credible if this guy pitched it:

QwRISkyV_B8

CubanSucks

03-20-2009, 04:54 PM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

Only 33 years ago. You people really need to chill out...forgive the pun

CubanSucks

03-20-2009, 04:56 PM

Global Warming would be more credible if this guy pitched it:

QwRISkyV_B8

Billy Mays and Shamwow Vince need to just duke it out. It'll be the veteran vs. the rookie

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-20-2009, 11:07 PM

tlong, you are a tool, and your threads are always bullshit. You seriously cite fox news as a source? :lmao

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

Only 33 years ago. You people really need to chill out...forgive the pun

Yeah, except that has already been explained by the aerosols that were being put into the air by industry at the time (1945-75) reflecting enough radiation to delay the onset of enhanced global warming - it's called global dimming, look it up.

As for Arctic sea ice, why don't we look at what happened in 2005 and 2007:

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/ice_compare_550_60216.jpg

As you can see, almost half of the median ice sheet was gone in 2007.

And then let's look at Greenland, and the fact that 96% of the world's glaciers are retreating according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service.

And then how about you non-scientifically trained moneys STFU. I run a class on this stuff, and you could really do with coming along. You might, if you opened your fucking eyes for a second, learn something.

Please explain to me how CO2, a proven GHG responsible for about 25% of atmospheric warming, is at 385ppm, over 80ppm MORE THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST MILLION YEARS (during which time there have been 13 glacial-interglacial cycles), and yet that is not having an effect on the climate. It is simple physics, so please explain to me where that extra trapped heat is going. Please do. You can't, because it isn't going anywhere. The earth is warming, and some of the first obvious signs of that are vastly increased polar and glacial melting rates.

CubanMustGo

03-20-2009, 11:14 PM

Yes, and the general trend indicates the earth is getting colder, not warmer!

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-27_tempA.jpg

I guess that's the new math they teach in Oregon.

tlongII

03-20-2009, 11:56 PM

tlong, you are a tool, and your threads are always bullshit. You seriously cite fox news as a source? :lmao

Yeah, except that has already been explained by the aerosols that were being put into the air by industry at the time (1945-75) reflecting enough radiation to delay the onset of enhanced global warming - it's called global dimming, look it up.

As for Arctic sea ice, why don't we look at what happened in 2005 and 2007:

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/ice_compare_550_60216.jpg

As you can see, almost half of the median ice sheet was gone in 2007.

And then let's look at Greenland, and the fact that 96% of the world's glaciers are retreating according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service.

And then how about you non-scientifically trained moneys STFU. I run a class on this stuff, and you could really do with coming along. You might, if you opened your fucking eyes for a second, learn something.

Please explain to me how CO2, a proven GHG responsible for about 25% of atmospheric warming, is at 385ppm, over 80ppm MORE THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST MILLION YEARS (during which time there have been 13 glacial-interglacial cycles), and yet that is not having an effect on the climate. It is simple physics, so please explain to me where that extra trapped heat is going. Please do. You can't, because it isn't going anywhere. The earth is warming, and some of the first obvious signs of that are vastly increased polar and glacial melting rates.

You see that is just HORSESHIT. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. There is no reliable data to validate your claim of it being responsible for 25% of atmospheric warming. Sloppy science.

CubanSucks

03-20-2009, 11:57 PM

CubanSucks

03-20-2009, 11:59 PM

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 01:05 AM

You see that is just HORSESHIT. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. There is no reliable data to validate your claim of it being responsible for 25% of atmospheric warming. Sloppy science.

...which just shows that you don't even understand the mechanics of global warming.

The fact that CO2 is a trace gas only means that it is a small part of the atmosphere (pre-industrial conc. oscillating between 210-300ppm for last million years, currently 385ppm due to anthropogenic emissions, which have been proven to be from fossil fuels by isotope ratio assays - want to read the seminal paper about that?), and has nothing to do with the mechanics of greenhouse warming.

GHGs are gases which absorb IR radiation, the mechanism by which the planet is kept warm by the atmosphere - the major components of the atmosphere, O2, N2 and Ar (which make up over 99% of the atmosphere), DO NOT absorb IR. Only trace gases (CO2, CH4, N20, halocarbons), and water vapour, absorb IR. Here's the absorbtion spectra for you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

And here's a lovely diagram that will explain for you the mechanics of greenhouse warming:

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/greenhouseeffect.jpg

Only about 25% of total atmospheric warming is derived from incoming solar radiation since it is largely in the UV/visible/near IR, which is not absorbed and re-readiated by atmospheric particles - thus the atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation. So, the other 75% of atmospheric heating comes from heat radiated by the planet: the earth absorbs the UV/visible/near-IR that makes up the bulk of solar radiation and re-radiates it as longwave IR. A large proportion of that IR is then trapped by GHGs like water vapour, CO2, methane and N2O. But then you wouldn't know that because you don't even understand that this statement:

There is no reliable data to validate your claim of it being responsible for 25% of atmospheric warming. Sloppy science.

is utter horseshit. CO2's role as a GHG is completely undisputed in the scientific community, even by deniers, because it is clearly observable. You can't even get the parts of the science which are open to attack correct! :lmao

Here's a concise explanation of the history of GHG research:

"Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.
Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere."

Just so you know, that is from the American Institute of Physics!

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

:lmao ...but no, there's no proof that CO2 is a GHG... we've only accepted it as fact for around 150 years! :lmao :lmao :lmao

Sorry, WHO doesn't understand the science again?

Still haven't explained to me how we can push a system (ie. greenhouse gas concentrations and consequent warming) far beyond limits it hasn't seen in 1,000,000 years and expect no result. Still haven't explained to me where the extra heat trapped by the extra GHGs is going. Please, enlighten me with your genius, and I will show you just how little you know about this subject.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 01:19 AM

WOWOWO! Watchout, he runs a class on this topic

And what do you do for a living, place your foot in your mouth? Well done, idiot. Tied your horses up to the Titanic. :rolleyes

I actually know my shit and can't stand pig-ignorance, so going with the ignoramus probably wasn't the way to make yourself look good on this one, you cheer-leading little piece of shit.

Trainwreck2100

03-21-2009, 01:20 AM

those people are gonna die and ya'll are debating global warming?

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 01:44 AM

Awwwwwww, shucks, where have the ignoramuses gone? I want to tear some more holes in their ignorance!

Nbadan

03-21-2009, 02:10 AM

Global warming deniers tend to also be creationists for a reason...

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 02:22 AM

Global warming deniers tend to also be creationists for a reason...

Yeah, and the earth is flat and goes on forever so we'll never run out of land, natural resources are infinite and will never run out, ecosystem services are perfectly resilient to any perturbation, and pollution, regardless of volume, has no effect... or is that fairyland? :lmao

CubanSucks

03-21-2009, 02:33 AM

And what do you do for a living, place your foot in your mouth? Well done, idiot. Tied your horses up to the Titanic. :rolleyes

I actually know my shit and can't stand pig-ignorance, so going with the ignoramus probably wasn't the way to make yourself look good on this one, you cheer-leading little piece of shit.

Awwwwwww, shucks, this 'ignoramus' just got schooled by the professor! Congratulations, you just pwned a freshman in college who is most definately NOT majoring in any sort of science. Isn't it so cute when someone with no friends (judging by the way you look in your avatar) has the opportunity to spit out all their knowledge outside the classroom?
Well shucks, since you've convinced me you know more about the environment, gosh darnit, the only question I have is HOW THE FUCK DOES THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AFFECT ME?

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 02:47 AM

Awwwwwww, shucks, this 'ignoramus' just got schooled by the professor! Congratulations, you just pwned a freshman in college who is most definately NOT majoring in any sort of science. Isn't it so cute when someone with no friends (judging by the way you look in your avatar) has the opportunity to spit out all their knowledge outside the classroom?
Well shucks, since you've convinced me you know more about the environment, gosh darnit, the only question I have is HOW THE FUCK DOES THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AFFECT ME?

Well why jump on the denier bandwagon then? A modicum of research would tell you that the science is rock-solid (and you're in college for fucksake - expand your mind a little!), but instead you believe what the uninformed tell you? :rolleyes

And anyway, I wasn't schooling you, I was just giving shit to you for jumping on tlong's bandwagon - I was schooling tlong for his blatant ignorance. He spouts off on this topic every month or so yet shows absolutely no understanding of it. I tend to keep my mouth shut if I don't understand something, or I go away and learn about it until I do understand it, but he prefers to reveal his idiocy and spread lies and misconceptions about something he doesn't even understand, so I call him on it.

To answer your question, what do you think our societies are based on? They are based on a very stable set of conditions, change those conditions and societies become stressed and can collapse.

Let's look at climate change and global food supply for an example. Currently, the globe produces about enough food to support its 6.8bil people - that population will climb to between 9 and 10 billion by 2050, whilst agricultural productivity per hectare is steady or falling (depending on the part of the world), and there is no more of the earth left to crop. Also, our agricultural infrastructure is set up to farm where it is, so changes to rainfall and temperature which mean you can't farm certain regions are not easily adjusted for (especially when, as we are experiencing in SE Australia, 30% of your rainfall has moved offshore over the ocean! This is already happening across the planet).

So, global temperature changes --> climate change --> rainfall patterns and temperature regimes change --> ability grow crops declines --> social conditions change (ie. poverty, war, disease, famine, refugees, etc. etc. - all things that affect YOU!)

What we are seeing is places we used to grow food turning into deserts, and water resources used to supply massive areas of irrigated agriculture (eg. the Hamalayan glaciers, or closer to home for you, rainfall patterns in California) dry up. That means less food can be produced. That means higher prices, starving people and armed conflict, etc.

And that is just one example. Get it? This affects every single person and living thing on the planet. We live in a globalised world - what we do affects everyone else.

If you are in college you'd better start to actually think, or you ain't gonna be any good to anyone.

As for friends, son, I've got more stalwart friends than you'll probably ever know in your life. Oh, and I look like a dork in that photo because of hat-hair (I was wearing my cap for hours).

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 03:08 AM

Global warming deniers tend to also be creationists for a reason...

Actually, I've read a lot about "deniers" and they are a common human social phenomonon - whenever people are confonted by a big, nasty idea that shocks them their first response is generally to deny it exists. It's a psychological protection mechanism typified by phrases like "no, that couldn't be!" which you hear in relation to all kinds of things all the time (basically, things that shock us).

Once we do accept that what we don't want to believe is actually true, we often become maudalin and defeatist - "if the world is screwed, fuck it, I'm gonna go get drunk".

The next stage is generally to get angry about it and look to cast blame - "who did this?" and "how dare they!".

Finally, we ask ourselves what we can actually do about it.

Denial-self-pity-anger-acceptance, the typical cycle of grieving. It fits perfectly. Unfortunately, morons like tlong are still in the denial stage.

CubanSucks

03-21-2009, 03:37 AM

As for friends, son, I've got more stalwart friends than you'll probably ever know in your life.

:lmao
The fact that you used the word stalwart in a serious manor proves that you really don't have any friends who are in fact stalwart. It's ok though, you have plenty of friends on here.

Oh, and I look like a dork in that photo because of hat-hair (I was wearing my cap for hours).

:lol
I guess you'll need as many stalwart friends as possible to cure your obvious insecurity. And who the fuck mentioned your hair? Sorry but I found humor in way more than just your hair.

balli

03-21-2009, 10:39 AM

I used a knife in the kitchen this morning without cutting myself. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that knives can't cut people.

balli

03-21-2009, 10:40 AM

I took my dog for a walk a few days ago and we weren't hit by a car. Therefore traffic accidents don't exist.

balli

03-21-2009, 10:41 AM

I went swimming and didn't drown. Therefore drowning is a figment of the liberal media's imagination.

balli

03-21-2009, 10:42 AM

I turned on my 360 this morning and it fired right up. I can only conclude that the three red rings are also, a figment of the liberal media's imagination. Just made up to ruin microsoft. Why are those libtards so hell-bent on destroying capitaism?

balli

03-21-2009, 10:44 AM

Cuban Sucks, you fucking suck. You're not master chief, you're master bater.

balli

03-21-2009, 10:45 AM

Two days ago, the temperature in Columbia MO was 2 degrees warmer than normal. Therefore Global Warming is unequivically real.

Jekka

03-21-2009, 11:22 AM

Wild Cobra

03-21-2009, 11:37 AM

As for Arctic sea ice, why don't we look at what happened in 2005 and 2007:

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/ice_compare_550_60216.jpg

As you can see, almost half of the median ice sheet was gone in 2007.

It's really easy to draw such incorrect conclusions when you ignore other relevant facts. Like black carbon (soot,) from the growing number of coal fired power plants in Asia. You know. The winds carry that soot right over the northern ice. Soot is a very effective way of accelerating the melting of ice. Isn't it funny how the ice has retreated far more between Russia and Alaska, where the jet stream carries the Asian soot...

And then let's look at Greenland, and the fact that 96% of the world's glaciers are retreating according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service.

Source for the 96% please. I don't buy it. My understanding is that there is a complicated set of factors going on. Ice in general however is increasing rather than decreasing as a world wide average.

And then how about you non-scientifically trained moneys STFU. I run a class on this stuff, and you could really do with coming along. You might, if you opened your fucking eyes for a second, learn something.

If you run a class on this stuff and preach this bullshit, then your part of the problem with propaganda in the country.

Do you teach at the University of Indoctrination?

Please explain to me how CO2, a proven GHG responsible for about 25% of atmospheric warming, is at 385ppm, over 80ppm MORE THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST MILLION YEARS (during which time there have been 13 glacial-interglacial cycles), and yet that is not having an effect on the climate. It is simple physics, so please explain to me where that extra trapped heat is going. Please do. You can't, because it isn't going anywhere. The earth is warming, and some of the first obvious signs of that are vastly increased polar and glacial melting rates.
You're right. It is simple physics and chemistry. Why is it so hard to understand? The warming due to CO2 is generally logarithmic. At 280 ppm, it is almost at nearly maximum of it warming potential.

Look at this:

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

If CO2 is such a driving force, then why has temperature remained within a +/- 2 C range over the last several thousand years as CO2 raised from 244 ppm to 284 ppm? With no average increase for that 40 ppm, why should we see an increase now?

How about that logarithmic relationship:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/ppmCO2.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/CO2vstemperature2line.jpg

Al Gore's extreme incorrect example in "An Inconvenient Truth" plotted in Excel doesn't have any dangerous increase in temperature.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-27_tempA.jpg

I guess that's the new math they teach in Oregon.

Convenient how you use a chart that ends at 2003 or 2004 without showing the continuing decline in temperature to date. The sun is the driving force for the heat we have. The sun has been weaker for a few years now.

Now think about this please. Why is it so hard to find data that extends to 2008 or 2009? Could those studying it be in the position to refuse to publish it due to their agenda?

The fact that CO2 is a trace gas only means that it is a small part of the atmosphere (pre-industrial conc. oscillating between 210-300ppm for last million years, currently 385ppm due to anthropogenic emissions, which have been proven to be from fossil fuels by isotope ratio assays - want to read the seminal paper about that?), and has nothing to do with the mechanics of greenhouse warming.

There is no facts to your statement regarding isotopes. It is a known fact that some isotopes are chemically converted faster than others in various processes. There is not enough understanding in the system to claim any reasonable fact to your statement. What you claim is based on the fact that fossil fuels lack carbon 14. Carbon 12 and carbon 13 are relatively constant. This is complicated by the 60 year rolling average to measure C14, nuclear testing skewing readings, and the fact that natural conversion of N14 to C14 varies with solar activity.

GHGs are gases which absorb IR radiation, the mechanism by which the planet is kept warm by the atmosphere - the major components of the atmosphere, O2, N2 and Ar (which make up over 99% of the atmosphere), DO NOT absorb IR. Only trace gases (CO2, CH4, N20, halocarbons), and water vapour, absorb IR. Here's the absorbtion spectra for you:

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

Ever analyze the chart you provided, or do you just repeat propaganda text book material to indoctrinate your students? I like how you almost left out H2O, or at least failed to say that it is the primary cause of the greenhouse effect.

And here's a lovely diagram that will explain for you the mechanics of greenhouse warming:

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/greenhouseeffect.jpg

Only about 25% of total atmospheric warming is derived from incoming solar radiation since it is largely in the UV/visible/near IR, which is not absorbed and re-readiated by atmospheric particles - thus the atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation. So, the other 75% of atmospheric heating comes from heat radiated by the planet: the earth absorbs the UV/visible/near-IR that makes up the bulk of solar radiation and re-radiates it as longwave IR. A large proportion of that IR is then trapped by GHGs like water vapour, CO2, methane and N2O. But then you wouldn't know that because you don't even understand that this statement:

"Only about 25% of total atmospheric warming is derived from incoming solar radiation"

Excuse me...

Nearly 100% of the atmospheric warming is due to the sun. The greenhouse effect is a feedback of solar and tidal energy. Any changes in the suns radiation have a proportional effect on the direct heat, and greenhouse effect. Normal variations in the suns energy have a minimum of a 0.4 C change using very conservative estimates. If you use the IPCC numbers on the increase of solar radiation since (I think they say) 1700, the simple mathematical relationship provides for more than a 0.5 C increase if memory serves. I'd have to look that up again.

How about this:

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

This is real GISS solar data. The 7.5 year lag represents accepted seasonal temperature lag effects. You guys like to talk about temperature increases from 1900 to now. The increased solar radiation increase accounts for at least 0.2 C of warming over this 100 years.

Now this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/solarradiation1600to2100.jpg

Somewhere around a 75 year rolling average is more acceptable to account for the time lag of the heating of the oceans as well. The above example accounts for a 0.4 C (0.2% solar increase x 200 k) increase in temperature since 1700, using a conservative 200 K warming from the sun. If we base this on an global average 15 C, that is 288 kelvin. That means that tidal energy would have to account for 88 K, which is way too high. I don't know the exact value, but the best information I found has the tidal energy accounting for 5% of our heat. That would be 5 or 6 K leaving at least 282 K due to the sun. With that 0.2% solar intensity increase, that means the sun accounts for 0.56 C of warming since 1700.

Tell me. Do you expect the solar output not to fluctuate by 0.2%? Just how constant is the suns energy?

CubanSucks

03-21-2009, 01:44 PM

Cuban Sucks, you fucking suck. You're not master chief, you're master bater.

:king only on lonely nights

CubanSucks

03-21-2009, 01:48 PM

Well since you can't dispute the science I guess the natural progression would be to attack vocabulary. While misspelling "manner". Which online dictionary did you use to check your understanding of the world "stalwart" before making that post? You don't happen to go to UTSA do you?

...pretty much

TDMVPDPOY

03-21-2009, 06:17 PM

so whats the point of trainin flying sharks if you cant use them to deliver the goods?

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 07:32 PM

:lmao
The fact that you used the word stalwart in a serious manor proves that you really don't have any friends who are in fact stalwart. It's ok though, you have plenty of friends on here.

I guess you'll need as many stalwart friends as possible to cure your obvious insecurity. And who the fuck mentioned your hair? Sorry but I found humor in way more than just your hair.

No, I used the word "stalwart" because they are people I have known for 20+ years and who I have stood by through hard times as they have for me. As a freshman at college, you wouldn't have a fucking clue what I'm talking about because you haven't lived long enough yet.

As for insecurity, replying to your abuse is insecurity? I have a few issues, but insecurity is not one of them. As for the hair, you said "(judging by the way you look in your avatar)", and I assumed you were referring to the hair. If you were referring to the fact that I'm grinning like an idiot as I was meeting one of my heroes, well, I don't think that's anything to worry about.

You oughta stop picking fights you can't win, and concentrate on learning to think.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-21-2009, 08:52 PM

Responses to Wild Cobra.

1) soot. I didn't ignore soot at all, and its effect is far smaller than CO2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png

And anyway, how do you then explain the warming observed last century before the Chinese economy underwent its growth spurt? You can't because soot on ice is a minor player in warming where CO2 is the featured artist, and aerosols (including soot) actually cool the earth more than soot on ice warms it (i.e global dimming).

Soot is also a major player in global dimming - the increased reflectivity of the atmosphere due to aerosols. So, the surge in soot coming out of Asia may well be masking the worst of enhanced global warming by increasing global dimming - when those industries clean up their particulate emissions and the sky becomes clearer again, we may well see a surge in heating due to less global dimming effect.

Also, the major acceleration of ice melting comes from albedo change - you melt ice and it turns to water, which doesn't reflect as much radiation, which thus heats further and melts more ice - a classic feedback loop. If Asian soot is the main culprit here, why are we seeing the same thing in Greenland, Antarctica, and in glaciers across the planet? Because the soot is not the story here, it's elevated CO2 levels causing warming.

2) Glaciers. I gave you the source: the World Glacier Monitoring Service i.e. the people who know most about glaciers in the world: http://www.geo.uzh.ch/wgms/ Take a read, you might learn something.

3) Indoctrination, ha! That's rich coming from a propogandist who ignores the science and instead spreads misconceptions and half-truths. I studied SCIENCE, so I teach SCIENCE.

What makes the mainstream scientific view - as supported by every major university and scientific institution on the planet, from transparent, peer-reviewed data - propaganda, and the purposely confusing, pop-junk psuedo-science you purport, truth? :lol

4) CO2 absorbtion and saturation - basically, you are considering the atmosphere to be one unitary whole when it is in fact multi-layered. A lovely explanation of why you have swallowed the old orthodoxy without actually looking deeply enough to understand why you are wrong, in 2 parts:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

In summary: "... the 'saturation' argument against global warming, all you need to say is: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models." (that's from part 1)

I cite realclimate because it is staffed by professors in climatology from all over the world who explain these very complex concepts well, and they allow open, uncensored debate of every topic.

5) Why keep bringing up Gore? I don't give a fuck about Gore or his movie, and yes, he made a number of slight factual errors. Please leave him and his movie out of this. Politicisation of this topic is the reason nothing is really being done about it.

6) As for global temperatures, they peaked during the severe 1998 El Nino event (hottest year on record) and have remained at about the same level for the past decade. 22 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1980. However, 2008 was the coolest year recorded since 2000, and guess why - a La Nina event cooling the southern hemisphere. Temperatures are not declining, they have been trending relatively stable for a few years. This could very well be related to increased global dimming from all the extra soot due to the explosion of dirty industry in the developing world, as you mentioned.

The point remains that we are currently experiencing the hottest world we've known, and that we've pushed the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere far beyond limits it's known for over 1,000,000 years... but you think that won't have an effect because the atmosphere's ability to absorb IR is already 'saturated', something disproven in the 1950s... :lmao

7) Isotopes. No, wrong, real climate also does a nice, concise job of explaining why: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Also, have a read of Ghosh's 2007 paper: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

8) Water vapour - I "almost left it out". Bullshit I did, it was the thing tlong thought he'd picked up on but got completely incorrect - around 75% of natural atmospheric warming is due to water vapour, the other 25% due to GHGs. I clearly stated that from the beginning. Don't accuse me of duplicity.

9) Solar warming. As I clearly explained, about 25% of atmospheric warming is due to INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION, because most incoming radiation is UV/visible/near-IR which are not absorbed by GHGs, and the other 75% is a result of incoming solar radiation WARMING THE EARTH which RE-RADIATES this absorbed energy as IR. I explained that very clearly, and if you don't even know that you don't know much about the subject. Of course 100% of atmospheric warming is due to radiation from the sun (where else would it come from?), but a large chunk of the warming is not directly from solar radiation but indirectly from its absorbtion and re-radiation by the earth.

10) Who said solar output doesn't fluctuate? I certainly didn't. But even if it does, it cannot be attributed to 0.7C over a century (as you admitted, it might be responsible for up to 0.2C), which is what has been observed.

Links to your GISS data please, as it is different from what I've seen.

Wild Cobra

03-22-2009, 02:32 PM

Responses to Wild Cobra.

1) soot. I didn't ignore soot at all, and its effect is far smaller than CO2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png

That chart you take from the IPCC has been revised. The IPCC has since raised their assessment of both soot and solar irradiance. There is also someplace that assigns confidence on each chart from the IPCC, and most of the various factors have a real low confidence. There are arguments in a thread in Politics, but I don't have the time to find the data or links right now. I'll try to remember to find it when I have time. I simply laugh every time I see that chart. It6 might be a link in the thread I post in the bottom of this posting. I stopped looking for now.

And anyway, how do you then explain the warming observed last century before the Chinese economy underwent its growth spurt? You can't because soot on ice is a minor player in warming where CO2 is the featured artist, and aerosols (including soot) actually cool the earth more than soot on ice warms it (i.e global dimming).

11 year average solar radiation is known to have increased from between just before 1900 to about 1950. There are other factors as well, but the sun is the source for about 95% of the earths heat.

Are you telling me that we should not see proportional change from the suns delta temperature?

As for the soot on ice, it has very little direct effect. What it does, is melt the ice by trapping about 90% + of the solar radiation rather than reflecting that much. Then, with the added melt of ice, exposing more ocean, the water then absorbs most the radiation a warmer ocean. This in fact cause warmer water and less CO2 retention, and can actually be a reason (rather probable) that this is why we see increased CO2. Normally, what we add to the atmosphere, is so small, it should be sinked. However, the warmer the water, the less CO2 it can maintain in equilibrium.

Soot is also a major player in global dimming - the increased reflectivity of the atmosphere due to aerosols. So, the surge in soot coming out of Asia may well be masking the worst of enhanced global warming by increasing global dimming - when those industries clean up their particulate emissions and the sky becomes clearer again, we may well see a surge in heating due to less global dimming effect.

Soot has since been discovered to respond differently than other aerosols. Yes, it blocks direct solar radiation, but by absorbing it. Not reflecting it like other aerosols. Therefore it does not contribute to cooling. The heat is maintained in the lower troposphere rather than reflected back out to space.

Also, the major acceleration of ice melting comes from albedo change - you melt ice and it turns to water, which doesn't reflect as much radiation, which thus heats further and melts more ice - a classic feedback loop. If Asian soot is the main culprit here, why are we seeing the same thing in Greenland, Antarctica, and in glaciers across the planet? Because the soot is not the story here, it's elevated CO2 levels causing warming.

Glaciers, as I said, are complicated. For one thing, they flow faster when there is more precipitation from past years, and slower with less. There is a time lag. Changes in flow rates change breakup rates. You cannot reasonable assume that glacier changes are due to warming or CO2. Besides, as many glaciers are retreating in both Greenland and Antarctica, the snow and ice thickness in the interior of both are actually increasing!

I don’t claim to know allot about glaciers, but I know enough to know that those arguments are too weak.

At least you agree with the lack of reflecting radiation!

Albedo is a natural factor.

2) Glaciers. I gave you the source: the World Glacier Monitoring Service i.e. the people who know most about glaciers in the world: http://www.geo.uzh.ch/wgms/ Take a read, you might learn something.

Thanks, I'll look it over as I have time. I doubt it will change anything since ice densities in most places are increasing.

You know those pictures comparing timelines like 1920 to present day of glaciers? Funny how the majority of their melt occurred in the 30’s. Not recently.

Just look for “Before” glacier pictures in the late 30’s or 40’s…

3) Indoctrination, ha! That's rich coming from a propogandist who ignores the science and instead spreads misconceptions and half-truths. I studied SCIENCE, so I teach SCIENCE.

Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.

What makes the mainstream scientific view - as supported by every major university and scientific institution on the planet, from transparent, peer-reviewed data - propaganda, and the purposely confusing, pop-junk psuedo-science you purport, truth? :lol

Sorry, but the science consensus you are supporting is more and more being shown to be wrong. Besides, look at all the agendas you have at universities.

4) CO2 absorbtion and saturation - basically, you are considering the atmosphere to be one unitary whole when it is in fact multi-layered. A lovely explanation of why you have swallowed the old orthodoxy without actually looking deeply enough to understand why you are wrong, in 2 parts:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

In summary: "... the 'saturation' argument against global warming, all you need to say is: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models." (that's from part 1)

I cite realclimate because it is staffed by professors in climatology from all over the world who explain these very complex concepts well, and they allow open, uncensored debate of every topic.

I have read those articles and more in Real Science, and have disputed some rather well. The upper atmosphere CO2 does not matter. Look at your own radiation spectrum charts. The CO2 band that absorbs solar radiation is so tiny, then half is radiated up, half down. It's the blackbody radiation coming from the surface that matters. That's what the greenhouse gasses trap.

Real Science caters to the ignorant rather well. If you lean more about black body radiation and how cold the atmosphere gets past 10 km, you would realize any IR radiative forcing in the upper atmosphere is pitifully small.

Real Science is a propaganda site, cherry picking information. Even their CO2 tube example doesn't follow what the IPCC and Al Gore things is going on. If I reverse their chart:

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

This is the farthest the alarmists are willing to say, Al Gores chart. Compare 2x between the two:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/ppmCO2.jpg

Here is a more complete spectral assessment:

Spectrum:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/CO2spectra.jpg

Now broken down for detail:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/CO215umexpanded.jpg

Carefully look at what Real Science gives you, and tell me, just how much do any of them allow for 2x and 4x increases in radiative forcing? They all acknowledge little increase for doubling or quadrupling.

5) Why keep bringing up Gore? I don't give a fuck about Gore or his movie, and yes, he made a number of slight factual errors. Please leave him and his movie out of this. Politicisation of this topic is the reason nothing is really being done about it.

The chart Gore uses is IPCC approved. I didn't bring up any of the real corny stuff he said.

6) As for global temperatures, they peaked during the severe 1998 El Nino event (hottest year on record) and have remained at about the same level for the past decade. 22 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1980. However, 2008 was the coolest year recorded since 2000, and guess why - a La Nina event cooling the southern hemisphere. Temperatures are not declining, they have been trending relatively stable for a few years. This could very well be related to increased global dimming from all the extra soot due to the explosion of dirty industry in the developing world, as you mentioned.

1998 was not the hottest year. Didn't you get the memo? the data was being tweaked at NASA by an employee with an agenda. The hottest year on record was in the 30's, after the records were properly updated.

The point remains that we are currently experiencing the hottest world we've known, and that we've pushed the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere far beyond limits it's known for over 1,000,000 years... but you think that won't have an effect because the atmosphere's ability to absorb IR is already 'saturated', something disproven in the 1950s... :lmao

Sorry, evidence says otherwise when you learn more of the geosciences than just meteorology.

7) Isotopes. No, wrong, real climate also does a nice, concise job of explaining why: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Also, have a read of Ghosh's 2007 paper: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Yes, the good 'ol Suess Effect. Hypothisis, and plenty of data to look at, but too many unknown variables to consider. One big one is that with warming is more CO2 being expelled by the equatorial oceans. There is such a dynamic relationship, C13 is too hard to consider. C14 is a better indicator since fossil fuels have none, but content there varies as well with solar irradiation and nuclear testing.

I wonder how many samples of the worlds oil supply the propagandists at Real Science actually measured the isotopic ratios of? They will vary allot, I'm sure. They even acknowledge plants take up different amounts of C13/C12. What they don't do, is show the real relationships of the carbon cycle. They don't say what the percentage of C13 is in fossil fuels. Shouldn't they give us some information to verify rather than trust their assessment? Of course not. Propagandists don't do that.

You should do some math and see if their assessments can be justified. First of all, C13 is about 1.1% of carbon. Ever consider how much of a change it would have to be in fossil fuels to make such a change, considering the carbon cycle sources 211.6 Giga-tons of carbon (GtC) naturally and only 5.5 GtC from fossil fuels and cement production. Sinking is 213.8 GtC for a net annual increase of 3.3 GtC by the below Carbon Cycle chart. With less than 2.5% of the sourced CO2 being from fossil fuels, there would have to be a very big isotopic difference to make such a claim valid.

Again, Real Science is a propaganda site.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg

8) Water vapour - I "almost left it out". Bullshit I did, it was the thing tlong thought he'd picked up on but got completely incorrect - around 75% of natural atmospheric warming is due to water vapour, the other 25% due to GHGs. I clearly stated that from the beginning. Don't accuse me of duplicity.

I was being a bit a shit about that. Just the way you structured that one sentence. It was as if it was an inconvenient fact you had to mention.

Look at the volume in your added chart of what CO2 and H2O cover. Notice that 25% can be a maximum under certain conditions. What condition? Remove all the water vapor out of the air. That just isn't going to happen. CO2 if actually accounts for 11% to 13% of the greenhouse effect. There is overlap with water, and the water will always dominate. CO2 percentage is highly dependent on the blackbody temperature.

Look at the spectral chart you supplied again. At the 210 K blackbody for severe Arctic conditions, if you go to spectral calc and determine the various powers at each band and temperature, you get 11.3% for CO2 vs. 88.7% for H2O. That is excluding all other greenhouse gasses, assuming the two are 100%. That makes CO2 under 11%. At 260 K they are 11.8% and 88.2%. At 310 K, hot desert, they are 13.1% and 86.9%. If we go outside any of the three curves listed, at 288 K (15 C, 59 F global average,) CO2 is now 13.2% and H2O is 86.8%.

Want to look this data up yourself? Go here:

Spectral Calc Black Body Calculator (http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php)

Now...

If we agree with the assessment that the greenhouse effect is 33 degrees, then 13% of that is only 4.3 degrees from CO2. The IPCC claims between 6 to 7 degrees, but you have to discount the effect of H2O overlap to get that. Remember, the H2O effects are here to stay. It’s CO2 than man is changing the quantity of.

Really now. Since CO2 is logarithmic, even Real Science agrees, how much more can CO2 cause in warming?

9) Solar warming. As I clearly explained, about 25% of atmospheric warming is due to INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION, because most incoming radiation is UV/visible/near-IR which are not absorbed by GHGs, and the other 75% is a result of incoming solar radiation WARMING THE EARTH which RE-RADIATES this absorbed energy as IR. I explained that very clearly, and if you don't even know that you don't know much about the subject. Of course 100% of atmospheric warming is due to radiation from the sun (where else would it come from?), but a large chunk of the warming is not directly from solar radiation but indirectly from its absorbtion and re-radiation by the earth.

Yes, the greenhouse effect. Just the same, there is little real change in the heat the gaseous blanket retains with changes in CO2. All solar changes are about 100% proportional.

10) Who said solar output doesn't fluctuate? I certainly didn't. But even if it does, it cannot be attributed to 0.7C over a century (as you admitted, it might be responsible for up to 0.2C), which is what has been observed.

First of all, I am claiming 0.2 C or more. Not as much as.

I am not assigning 0.7 C over a century. there are so many other variables that cause known changes over time. What is ridiculous is that alarmists like yourself want to attribute most of that 0.7 to CO2 changes. Again, how can you justify that when changes from the 260's to the 280's in ice core samples show no change attributed to that 20 ppm? However, natural variabilities have a 4 degree spread.

What I claim is that solar variations are a minimum of 0.2 degrees per 0.1%. I firmly believe the change is 0.3 degrees per 0.1%, but I would stake my life on the 0.2. Not the 0.3.

Links to your GISS data please, as it is different from what I've seen.

I made the charts myself in Excel, from their data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/solar.data.txt). You might like this too:

Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/)

Now, back to black carbon. From a previous posting (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2903700):

Black Carbon rather than CO2 I will claim to be the major anthropogenic warming on the Earth.

Black Carbon is simply soot. It is expelled into the atmosphere by the incomplete burning of fuels. In small quantities, we see it in the USA from older cars tailpipes, and from diesel trucks when they accelerate hard. It’s the black smoke we see. Since the 70’s, here in the USA we have regulated pollution to the point that we generate very little of it in the global picture. The real culprit is Asia. They have been building and using coal power plants, without implementing the pollution controls we do. We are seeing the jet streams carry this soot to both the Arctic region, and causing occasional smog in the Pacific Northwest, which otherwise would have no smog. A few articles and some info contained within:

Wiki: Black Carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon):

Black carbon contribution to global warming
Black carbon is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.

Estimates of black carbon’s climate forcing (combining both direct and indirect forcings) vary from the IPCC’s conservative estimate of + 0.3 watts per square meter (W/m2) + 0.25, to the most recent estimate of 1.0-1.2 W/m2 (see Table 1), which is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”

In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of black carbon on melting snowpack and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2. Black carbon emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, which is critical because “nothing in climate is more aptly described as a ‘tipping point’ than the 0°C boundary that separates frozen from liquid water—the bright, reflective snow and ice from the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.” Hence, reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”
OK, for those of you who error on the side of caution. The first paragraph says “reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.” The second paragraph has the IPCC increasing it’s estimated impact from 0.3 to 0.55 watts of warming to 1 to 1.2 watts. Shouldn’t this most easily controlled measure be attempted first before regulation CO2 emission levels?

If warming from soot increases, then what did they say before is decreasing… I’ll bet they don’t, but I’d say they are seeing CO2 isn’t the culprit they claim it is. Considering on the below graph, they gave CO2 something like a 1.5 to a 1.8 watt range, that would now be reduced to maybe 0.8 to 1.5 watts! However, the below graph must be older yet. It shows soot at 0 to 0.2 watts. Correcting to the higher soot figure drops CO2 to even more. Because of the way the range these, I won’t attempt to quantify a valid change. Just that it’s even farther. Along with the truth that solar irradiance changes should be higher than the approximate 0.1 to 0.3 watts the give, you can see that CO2 can easily be getting smaller. Solar irradiance by official NASA and other agencies than monitor the sun clearly increase by at least 0.3 watts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/250px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg )

Second article, by MSNBC; Soot may speed up melting of Arctic ice (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7318240/):

Using computer models and information from NASA satellites, scientists located significant accumulations of black carbon soot in the Arctic region. This soot may contribute to the warming of a region that has already seen rapidly increasing temperatures in recent years.

"This research offers additional evidence black carbon, generated through the process of incomplete combustion, may have a significant warming impact on the Arctic," said Dorothy Koch of Columbia University and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Funny thing is that CO2 doesn’t produce the right calculation to be the primary reason for warming that has been observed. Climate models have been made since the 80’s on the assumption greenhouse gasses were the primary cause of warming. What almost any article I see on the subject fails to do is acknowledge that if we are seeing other factors contributing to warming, then CO2 must not be warming the earth as much as first assumed. They refuse to see past the Flat Earth mentality.

Is soot, not CO2, to blame for the loss of Arctic ice? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/05/is-soot-not-co2-to-blame-for-the-loss-of-arctic-ice/):

The Arctic is especially vulnerable to pollution. In recent years the Arctic has significantly warmed, and sea-ice cover and glaciers have diminished. Likely causes for these trends include changing weather patterns and the effects of pollution. Airborne soot also warms the air and affects weather patterns and clouds.
Black carbon has already been implicated as playing a role in melting ice and snow. Basically, when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would, just as wearing a black shirt in the summertime makes you feel hotter than if you wore a lighter color. Dark colors absorb heat and light, and lighter colors reflect it keeping surfaces cooler.
From ABC News; Can We Save the Polar Bears? (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/TenWays/story?id=3618049):

Scientists are discovering that what appears to be pristine, white snow may be more polluted than it seems. They're finding tiny particles of black carbon — too small for the naked eye to see — from forest fires and human pollution.

Under a microscope, scientists can see black carbon particles by the trillions. Those black carbon particles cause the snow to melt faster.

"Black carbon absorbs sunlight and it causes warming," said Stephen Warren, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington.

Scientists have traced soot blown into the Arctic region to industrial sources in North America, Europe and now Asia, but there's still hope.

"I think we can still save the Arctic," said NASA's James Hansen. "Our calculations are that we could keep the sea ice in the Arctic from melting much more than it has already."

That can only happen if emissions cuts include greatly decreasing black carbon from smokestacks and tailpipes, according to Hansen and other scientists. That's an effort everyone has to strive for, from China to the United States.

A few more links:

Soot Could Hasten Melting of Arctic Ice (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050328_arctic_soot.html)

IGSD/INECE Climate Briefing Note: 9 June 2008 (http://www.igsd.org/docs/BC%20Summary%20June%2010.pdf), A must read. Nice data. Has the most recent BC estimates of forcing at 1.0 to 1.2 watts.

Study: Black Carbon Pollution Major Factor in Global Warming, 23 March 2008 (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/study-black-car.html)

Global Warming Hoax (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.66):

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/black_carbon_heating_per_country.jpg

Notice how out closest source of Black Carbon emissions at high levels is Mexico City? I know that from a better map of this I've seen. Somewhere, I have a few NASA links that cover the BC levels better. I think I covered enough here. Threads getting a bit big already.

Wild Cobra

03-22-2009, 02:53 PM

The point remains that we are currently experiencing the hottest world we've known...

What do you call this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/edited420kchart.jpg

The earth has been warmer several times in history than recently. It was even warmer in known history, as proven by tax records during the Roman Empire. Grapes use to grow in England. Too cold today for grape crops. Buried Viking mines and farms are being discovered in Greenland as the glaciers retreat. Looks like the glaciers were gone before as well.

tlongII

03-22-2009, 06:09 PM

C'mon Ruff! Bring it!

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-22-2009, 06:31 PM

It's not real science, its realclimate, and it's not a propaganda site, it's staffed by PhDs in climatology from across the world, and allows unmoderated debate of the topics. That is not propaganda, that is open debate.

I'm too busy to respond to you right now, and really, what's the point? I'm not going to convince you, and nor are you going to convince me. I question many of your arguments and figures, and could spend a few hours dissecting all the spurious and contradictory stuff you said in your last post, which you would disagree with, and vice versa ad nauseum - your answers do not satisfy me, and nor do mine satisfy you, so we are at an impasse... what a surprise.

One thing though - I think it is laughable that you think scientists have more of an agenda here than a multi-TRILLION dollar industry, namely fossil fuels. I also think it's laughable that you seem to believe that humans can significantly perturb the earth's carbon cycle from its natural equilibrium without consequences, and that you ignore observations in the physical, chemical and biological world which prove it.

tlongII

03-22-2009, 06:32 PM

I think he's going through his texts currently and constructing a rebuttal. Has to do the screen captures and save them as jpg's as well.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-22-2009, 06:55 PM

C'mon Ruff! Bring it!

I think he's going through his texts currently and constructing a rebuttal. Has to do the screen captures and save them as jpg's as well.

You are such a pathetic, cheerleading little bitch. Do you bend over for Cobra after the game too? You don't even know what the fuck we are talking about, so fuck off back to your gimp box. At least Cobra has a clue and asks good questions, even if the he misreads the evidence.

And no, I'm not going to bother with rebuttal because it's Monday morning, this will go on forever to absolutely no purpose, and I actually have a life to lead.

Go on believing what you like. Nothing in the political or economic world is changing significantly anyway, so the theory will be proven without doubt over the next century as we slowly cook the earth and destroy our ability to maintain these wonderful societies we have built, and it will be your kids and grandkids that suffer. Celebrate that.

Fuckwits like you seem to think this is a big game of right vs left or blue vs red, but it couldn't be less the case. I would love the scientific community to be wrong about EGW because it would mean that we could go on abusing the planet however we like without repercussions, but from my reading of it the science is overwhelmingly and depressingly spot on, and this century we are going to pay the piper.

But no, you go on with your cheerleading ignorance, and leave other, smarter people to debate things you couldn't understand if you tried.

Cobra - I'd like to rebut a number of your points but I don't have time. I am going to look at the black body radiation numbers again (although I don't know why you think you can simply discount the upper atmosphere, which makes no sense), and the isotope studies again (although what exactly are you arguing there? that the increased CO2 concentration is coming from natural sources? it's clearly not, since humans put about 8Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere each year right now (not 5.5Gt as in your diagram), 321Gt since 1750, and about 160Gt of that since 1970 according to the CDIAC), with a critical eye and see if I can poke any holes in them, but I doubt they are there because I have been over and over this stuff time and again.

tlongII

03-22-2009, 07:04 PM

It must suck having spent all that time studying, coming to a conclusion, then dedicating your life's work to a premise that turned out to be bullshit.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-22-2009, 07:41 PM

It must suck having spent all that time studying, coming to a conclusion, then dedicating your life's work to a premise that turned out to be bullshit.

Why do you think that? I can rebut all of his points because they have already been addressed in peer-reviewed science, I just don't have time to do it right now. You seem to think he's a genius coming up with stuff no-one has ever considered before - actually, it's already been addressed long ago.

Perfect example, for Cobra:

"The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) The most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate."

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Please, read the whole article. So, America's peak body for physicists are wrong about CO2 saturation and you are right, Cobra? You dismiss realclimate's take, but it is based on what the American Institute of Physics says. Are they also part of the grand conspiracy? :lmao

I think I'll trust the physicists on this one.

EricB

03-22-2009, 10:40 PM

baseline bum

03-22-2009, 11:16 PM

Slydragon

03-22-2009, 11:26 PM

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a967/a967_bm.gif

RuffnReadyOzStyle

03-23-2009, 01:51 AM

Hey come on, Cap and trade will fix it!

I mean, alot of businesses will go out of business and the economy will get even worse,

but hey, what the hell! Were doing drastic things all over something that some scientists believe in.

Global Warming is NOT a damn scientific FACT.

There is no such thing as scientific FACT, or fact of any kind - there is only levels of confidence that something is true, and the theory of enhanced global warming is at least as strong as the link for smoking causing cancer (actually, there's far more evidence to support EGW, which is saying something).

There is no doubt that the climate is changing and changing rapidly - that is clearly observable from ground level and satellite temperature measurements, shifting rainfall patterns, ice melting rates, poleward species migrations, earlier plant flowering cycles, oceanic warming, upward treeline movement on mountains, significantly more big (category 4 and 5) hurricanes than before (not more hurricanes in total though - that has not been proven... just a higher proportion of BIG ones), unprecedented firestorms, increased incidence of drought and flooding, etc. There is no other way to interpret what we are observing all around us than that the climate system is changing, and doing so very rapidly (unlike anything in the fossil record - 10-100x faster).

Cobra is not disputing that the earth is warming, he has admitted that it is (given that it is clearly observable, a good move), no, he is disputing the source of the warming - he is suggesting that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere does not affect the temperature of the planet, and instead that increased solar output is the culprit, and I will address his last post when I have time (it is based in old conundra that have been cleared up).

As for capping and trading, I am skeptical that that is the whole answer, as it is being touted. I'd rather see massive investment in sustainable energy and water infrastructure, massive investment in education about the impacts of consumption, and a societal shift towards services as the driving economic force rather than throughput of goods. Climate change is only one problem we are facing this century - just as serious are problems like resource depletion (particularly water, soils, oil and phosphorus), toxic pollution (from both industrial production and waste disposal), overpopulation (there were 1bil people in 1890, now there are 6.8bil and there will be 9-10bil by 2050), the collapse in biodiversity (we are all part of the food web, and if it collapses so do we), etc.

The environmental crisis facing humanity is very much akin to the financial crisis - we have all been living far beyond our means for too long, and sooner or later the ecosystem services we rely on for survival will collapse if we keep pushing them far beyond their natural equilibria.

Wild Cobra

03-23-2009, 01:42 PM

It's not real science, its realclimate, and it's not a propaganda site, it's staffed by PhDs in climatology from across the world, and allows unmoderated debate of the topics. That is not propaganda, that is open debate.

Ooops... My bad on the name.

Still, a climatologist is only a course requirement above a meteorologist for the BS degree. We all know how accurate weathermen are...

Climatology is just one of several of the geosciences that one must understand to see all the aspects of global warming.

And yes. Real Climate is a propaganda site run by a guy with an agenda.

One thing though - I think it is laughable that you think scientists have more of an agenda here than a multi-TRILLION dollar industry, namely fossil fuels.

I would say they both have agendas. I look at the data myself and come to my own conclusions. I don't care what others say. I listen and look for their data.

How many alarmists provide complete data?

I also think it's laughable that you seem to believe that humans can significantly perturb the earth's carbon cycle from its natural equilibrium without consequences, and that you ignore observations in the physical, chemical and biological world which prove it.

Actually, I think we cannot upset nature as much as you seem to. The ocean as a sink should be able to sink nearly all the CO2 we add because of equilibrium. Just think about the simple chemistry of temperature vs. the quantity of CO2 dissolved in water, and apply it to the volume of the ocean. The ocean contains about 50 times the carbon in various states in equilibrium. Man's annual output of CO2 is about 1% of the quantity in the atmosphere, and only about .02% of what the ocean contains. Because of the way equilibrium works, IF other factors were static, and the equilibrium tells us the ocean should absorb 98% of anthropogenic CO2, how does 2% of 7.5 or 8 GtC annual amount to anything? It should take over 1200 years to change the atmospheric content from 560 GtC to 750 GtC at that rate.

Temperature is the key. As the oceans warm, they expel CO2. The equilibrium is changed. Temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

Cobra - I'd like to rebut a number of your points but I don't have time. I am going to look at the black body radiation numbers again (although I don't know why you think you can simply discount the upper atmosphere, which makes no sense),

I discount the upper atmosphere because it is so cold, it has little blackbody radiation to warm any greenhouse gasses. At the surface, the air is about 270 Kelvin or warmer in most places. The average global temperature is about 288 Kelvin. The temperature rapidly drops to under 220 Kelvin by the time you get to 10 km. At 90 km, it is about 175 Kelvin.

Do you know what that means for black body radiation?

016.9 watts at 175 Kelvin
042.3 watts at 220 Kelvin
095.9 watts at 270 Kelvin
124.2 watts at 288 Kelvin

Notice that at 10 km the blackbody radiation is only 34% of that at the global average surface. Only about 17% when you get to 90 km. The 4 to 4.5 micron band is almost gone. The 13 to 17.5 micron band is still prevalent.

Now, the power that CO2 can absorb at complete saturation using the two above mentioned ranges:

02.9 watts at 175 Kelvin 17.2% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap
09.0 watts at 220 Kelvin 21.2% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap
20.5 watts at 270 Kelvin 21.4% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap
26.0 watts at 288 Kelvin 20.9% of the spectrum radiation with no H2O overlap

Percentage of the 288 global averages are now 11.2% at 90 km and 34.5% at 10 km.

and the isotope studies again (although what exactly are you arguing there?

I am arguing that the subject has so many variables, that no accurate assessments can be made from it.

that the increased CO2 concentration is coming from natural sources?

Actually, yes. Back to the sinking ability of the oceans under static conditions. If there were no changes to the oceans temperature and PH, they would absorb nearly all the anthropogenic CO2 into equilibrium.

it's clearly not, since humans put about 8Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere each year right now (not 5.5Gt as in your diagram), 321Gt since 1750, and about 160Gt of that since 1970 according to the CDIAC), with a critical eye and see if I can poke any holes in them, but I doubt they are there because I have been over and over this stuff time and again.
I don't dispute the numbers you give. I have seen a wide variety of Carbon Cycle models that include even higher numbers. I'll go with any because I'm arguing equilibrium chemistry. The magnitude is less important the the carbon cycle function. Now consider the 50:1 equilibrium of carbon content between the atmosphere and oceans. That 321 GtC since 1650 would add 314.7 GtC to the ocean sink and 6.3 GtC to the atmosphere when you consider how the equilibrium of the carbon cycle works. It's actually more to the ocean and less to the atmosphere when you consider the other carbon equilibrium factors. Remember now, temperature has a dramatic effect on how much CO2 the ocean can absorb. If temperature reduced the oceans sinking ability by 1%, then we have over 38000 GtC time 1%, or 380 GtC added to the atmosphere. It doesn't take much warming of the ocean to reduce CO2 solubility by that range. A 1% change in solubility only takes about a 0.3 degree change in average ocean temperature if I remember right. Study up on Henry's Law. and other gas solubility equations. With the norther cap melting, and the water warming, how much less CO2 do you think it can retain?

Cobra is not disputing that the earth is warming, he has admitted that it is (given that it is clearly observable, a good move), no, he is disputing the source of the warming - he is suggesting that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere does not affect the temperature of the planet, and instead that increased solar output is the culprit, and I will address his last post when I have time (it is based in old conundra that have been cleared up).

Close. I do accept that CO2 has a minor role in increasing the temperature. My dispute is that I disagree with how much others are saying. I say that solar changes have played the largest role in temperature changes, followed by the black carbon on ice, indirectly adding heat to the increased area of the uncovered Arctic Ocean. CO2 changes are likely in third place for driving temperature places.

I am not claiming that the direct temperature absorption of soot is increasing the temperature, rather the havoc it has on the Northern ice. More sea water is exposed collecting solar radiation, warming the oceans, and expelling CO2. More precipitation, and energy changes there as well.

Think about it. If we accept a 33 degree greenhouse effect, a dead earth would average about -18 C, or about 255 kelvin. If we attribute about 10 kelvin of warming to tidal forces, that means 245 kelvin is due to solar radiation. For ever 0.1% change in solar radiation, there is a 0.245 degree change, by those numbers.

Do you agree with the IPCC? How about this...

Page 108 of the IPCC (WG1 AR4) report:

These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).

Now if you think about it, I am rather conservative on my assessments. I use a 200 degree range rather than what is likely a 245 degree range for the 100% solar range of heat. I use 0.2% rather than the IPCC’s above assessment of 0.24% to 0.3%. Now consider if I want to be as extreme as alarmists are. I would claim the 0.3% increase and a 245 degree range for the global warming cause by increased solar irradiation to be 0.735 degrees!

Lets assume my conservative 200 degree range and the lower value of 0.24. That would imply that 0.48 degrees of warming are directly solar related. I now have with rather high confidence, a range of 0.48 to 0.73 degrees of warming due to the sun.

How much is the warming claim? Around 0.7 degrees give or take a little. Right? 0.7 – 0.48 = 0.22 degrees left over for soot and CO2.

Wild Cobra

03-23-2009, 02:31 PM

Here's something I found with a quick search related to solubility of CO2 in Sea Water:

The global ocean as a carbon sink - The effect of a warming climate (http://ww2.coastal.edu/msci302/carbon.htm)

Here is a nice chart within the article:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/CO2inSeaWater.jpg

Now notice it has values of carbonic acid in sea water related to temperature and salinity. Most of the ocean is at the colder range of freezing to 5 C. There is more that a 25% change in CO2 absorption over that 6 degrees. We can safely say 4% per degree, or about 1% per 1/4 degree. If we want to consider warmer ocean temperatures, fine. There is still an 18.8% increase in absorption from 10 C to 5 C, or about 1% per 1/3 degree minimum. I just want you to consider the magnitude of minor temperature changes in the ocean. How it relates to the equilibrium of the carbon cycle.

Really, just how should that equilibrium change atmospheric CO2 levels.

Again. Temperature drives CO2 changes. CO2 does not drive temperature.

tlongII

03-23-2009, 02:39 PM

Wild Cobra FTW!

Wild Cobra

03-25-2009, 09:00 PM

R&R...

Where are you?

Cant find anything to dispute me?

sabar

03-25-2009, 10:28 PM

Wild Cobra is doing pretty well. The NASA hottest-year rebuttal is particularly concerning for someone that teaches the subject.

http://samanoontheissues.blogspot.com/2008/01/nasa-1934-hottest-year-on-record.html

The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century.

The world should just forget about climate change, it is now purely political and everyone has an agenda, even supposed non-biased researchers and scientists. The wheels are in motion and nothing can be changed anyways.

Even if global warming was proven beyond a doubt, you think countries like China/India and places like the middle east and Africa are going to stop burning coal? :lol They will use up every last ounce because of the economics of it. Nothing is going to change until the market makes scarce fossil fuels more expensive than renewables. And government intervention or socialism or whatever isn't going to change that. 3rd world countries don't have the money or the talent to build expensive nuclear reactors and solar farms. The people are too poor to tax and subsidize the energy.

What's the solution? Country to country welfare? :stirpot:

Don Quixote

03-25-2009, 10:59 PM

Maybe Al Gore can help?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html

Funny. There were no reports of Al Gore being anywhere near the North Pole that day. The source of this blizzard, then, is a complete mystery to me. :lol

Don Quixote

03-25-2009, 11:03 PM

Wild Cobra

03-26-2009, 12:30 PM

R&R...

Where are you?

Cant find anything to dispute me?

tlongII

03-26-2009, 02:33 PM

I think he went back to school...

Wild Cobra

03-27-2009, 10:24 AM

I think he went back to school...

Well, here he was the expert on the subject, or so he said...

I want to know what's wrong with the solubility of CO2 in sea water and rates of accumulation. Why is it that CO2 drives temperature rather than temperature driving CO2.

Does 1200 years sound about right to you for the preindustrialized levels of about 280 ppm to today's levels of just over 380, assuming ocean temperatures were static?

CubanSucks

03-27-2009, 08:43 PM

Well, here he was the expert on the subject, or so he said...

I want to know what's wrong with the solubility of CO2 in sea water and rates of accumulation. Why is it that CO2 drives temperature rather than temperature driving CO2.

Does 1200 years sound about right to you for the preindustrialized levels of about 280 ppm to today's levels of just over 380, assuming ocean temperatures were static?

I know, that's exactly what I was thinking. :king

Wild Cobra

03-28-2009, 05:20 AM

I know, that's exactly what I was thinking. :king
Yep, like I said earlier, those who know, do, those who don't, teach...

I don't know about you, but I'm rather pissed at this dumbing down of America.

Wild Cobra

03-29-2009, 10:10 AM

R&R...

Where are you?

Cant find anything to dispute me?R&R...

Where are you?

Cant find anything to dispute me?R&R...

Where are you?

Cant find anything to dispute me?

Wild Cobra

04-07-2009, 06:56 PM

R&R...

Where are you?

Marcus Bryant

04-07-2009, 07:23 PM

Wild Cobra

04-07-2009, 07:58 PM

Basically. This guy (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html) feels the same way. Climate change is a rich man's concern. Or the left's "War on Terror". In any event, it's amusing watching left wing nuts get all fundamentalist about it.
Maybe you'd be curious to out this thread:

Yes, Back to Global Warming (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121532)

Wild Cobra

04-08-2009, 10:51 PM

Some interesting articles I just read. Quotes are only part of the linked material:

American Meteorological Society Insults Members (http://www.iceagenow.com/American_Meteorological_Society_Insults_Members.ht m)

19 Mar 09 - Professor emeritus William Gray is appalled at the American Meteorological Society's decision to honor James Hansen with its highest award - the Rossby Research Medal.

"I am appalled at this decision," says Gray, because of Hansen’s "long record of faulty global climate predictions" and "irresponsible alarmist rhetoric." "This award is an insult to the large number of AMS members who do not believe human activities are causing a significant amount of the global temperature increase."

“Having little experience in practical meteorology, Hansen apparently does not realize the extraordinarily complex nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system cannot be accurately reproduced by numerical climate model predictions. Thus Hansen’s modeling efforts are badly flawed."
It’s the Sun, stupid!
By Willie Soon, solar and climate scientist (http://www.iceagenow.com/Its_the_Sun_stupid.htm)

5 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) "The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for 5000 years.
"Between 1645 and 1715, sunspots were very rare and temperatures were low. Then sunspot frequency grew until, between 1930 and 2000, the Sun was more active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years. The oceans can cause up to several decades of delay before air temperatures respond fully to this solar “Grand Maximum.” Now that the Sun is becoming less active again, global temperatures have fallen for seven years.
"In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.

"The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.

"There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.

"I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
"It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

"Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
The Enemy within:
Controlling Carbon a Bureaucrat’s Dream
By Dr. Tim Ball (http://www.iceagenow.com/Controlling_Carbon_a_Bureaucrats_Dream.htm)

9 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) “In the battle for proper climate science free from politics there are two levels at which bureaucracy is a modern form of despotism. In most countries it is in departments of meteorology, weather, climate or environment. At the global level it is in the United Nations. Regardless of location it is essentially unaccountable and represents the enemy within.

“Instead of working for the people by being apolitical and identifying all sides of an issue so people and politicians can make informed decisions, they have pushed an unproven hypothesis and defended it in the face of contradictory evidence. As a result governments everywhere are introducing or entertaining completely wrong policies. …A perfect example of the pervasiveness of climate-based policy across all parts of a society is cap and trade in the Obama stimulus package and budget.

“Most of the 2500 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are bureaucrats appointed by their governments to push a political agenda. As MIT professor Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC said, “It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.”
Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life
Japanese Refute IPCC: Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology' (http://www.iceagenow.com/Japanese_Refute_IPCC-Theory_Like_Ancient_Astrology.htm)

25 Feb 09 – “Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth,” says an article published today on Newsmax.

“Three of the five researchers involved in the report disagree with the view of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recent warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and say it is instead driven by natural cycles.”
The global warming that occurred up until 2001 and the subsequent “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity,” the report concludes.
Scientist forces Al Gore to back down (http://www.iceagenow.com/Scientist_forces_Al_Gore_to_back_down.htm)

The slide has since disappeared from the show, reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
Congress told that Increase in CO2 will be
Good for Mankind
(http://www.iceagenow.com/Congress_told_that_Increase_in_CO2_will_be_Good_fo r_Mankind.htm)

27 Feb 09 - Princeton University physicist Dr. William Happer told a congressional committee hearing on Wednesday that global warming fears are "mistaken" and that the earth is currently in a "CO2 famine now" when you look at carbon dioxide (CO2) levels through geological time.
"The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide."

"The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth’s temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?"
'Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period'
says Dr. Jim Buckee, PhD Astrophysics (http://www.iceagenow.com/Earth_set_to_enter_20-year_cooling_period.htm)

10 Feb 09 - Excerpts: "Dr. Jim Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic.

"During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period.
In the lecture, Dr Jim Buckee will put forward the idea that solar activity is responsible for changes to the climate. He will say the climate of the past few hundred years is a continuation of a normal process of gradual warming since the ice age 10,000 years ago. During that time, he argues, there have been constant fluctuations. He believes those fluctuations are caused by varying solar activity."
Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Climate Fears "Embarrassed NASA"
(http://www.iceagenow.com/Hansens_Former_NASA_Supervisor_Declares_Himself_a_ Skeptic.htm)

28 Jan 09 - NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon explained.
Another prominent scientist ridicules global warming theory (http://www.iceagenow.com/Another_prominent_scientist_ridicules_global_warmi ng_theory.htm)

12 Jan 09 - Princeton University physics professor William Happer, director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush, has put himself on the record dissenting on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theories. He has asked to be added to a list of over 650 global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report.

Dr. Happer was fired from his government post by Al Gore, reportedly over his refusal to support Warmist doctrine. The Daily Princetonian reports some of the good professor's caustic comments:

Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
All these and more links are found here:

Climatologists Who Disagree (http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm)

Wild Cobra

04-12-2009, 06:47 PM

R&R...

Where are you?

Does the truth scare you?

CubanSucks

04-12-2009, 09:04 PM

Holy shit dude. Even though I'm on your side, can't we just let this thread go? It's getting fucking old :wakeup

Wild Cobra

04-13-2009, 10:14 AM

Holy shit dude. Even though I'm on your side, can't we just let this thread go? It's getting fucking old :wakeup
Sorry, R&R claims to be an expert on the subject. Maybe he can show me why I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I want to know, but I have never met anyone that can show me I am.

If you don't like a thread, don't read it. I probably skip more than 90% of the threads myself. You have the freedom to skip it...