Global cooling hits Al Gore's home

[DarrinS]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5907383/Global-cooling-hits-Al-Gores-home.html




Nashville, the home of leading global warming prophet Al Gore, has enjoyed the coolest July 21 on record, observes Christopher Booker.

It was delightfully appropriate that, as large parts of Argentina were swept by severe blizzards last week, on a scale never experienced before, the city of Nashville, Tennessee, should have enjoyed the coolest July 21 in its history, breaking a record established in 1877. Appropriate, because Nashville is the home of Al Gore, the man who for 20 years has been predicting that we should all by now be in the grip of runaway global warming.

His predictions have proved so wildly wrong – along with those of the Met Office's £33 million computer model which forecast that we should now be enjoying a "barbecue summer" and that 2009 would be one of "the five warmest years ever" – that the propaganda machine has had to work overtime to maintain what is threatening to become the most expensive fiction in history.

The two official sources of satellite data on global temperatures, for instance, lately announced that June temperatures had again fallen, to their average level for the month over the 30 years since satellite data began. By contrast, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, run by Mr Gore's closest ally and scientific adviser, James Hansen – one of the two official sources of global temperature data from surface weather stations – announced that in that single month the world had warmed by a staggering 0.63 degrees C, more than its net warming for the entire 20th century.

In the past few years, Dr Hansen's temperature record has become ever more eccentric, often wildly at odds with the other three officially recognised data sources, all of which showed a dramatic drop in temperatures in 2007 leading to markedly cooler summers and two of the coldest and snowiest winters the world has known for decades. All this has equally made nonsense of the predictions of the computer models that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies on, which are programmed to assume that temperatures should soar in line with rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, but temperatures – apart from those revealed by Dr Hansen – have seriously parted company with them. This has not prevented the propaganda machine's media groupies continuing to peddle a daily stream of stories about how in all directions global warming is already affecting the world for the worse.

Soay sheep are shrinking in size (I am sure they've really noticed the global warming up on that bleak Scottish islet). The tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu, we are yet again told, is pleading for international aid, as it sinks below the rising ocean – even though an expert study in 2001 showed that sea levels around Tuvalu have in fact been falling for 50 years. Even a report on the record number of Painted Lady butterflies in Britain this summer cannot resist ending with a ritual forecast that many butterfly species will soon disappear because of "climate change".

Meanwhile even America's foremost pro-warmist scientific blog, RealClimate – run by, among others, Dr Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame – concedes that global temperatures are not only declining but are likely to continue to do so for at least another decade – after which, of course, they will leap up again higher than ever.

None of this is proving of much assistance to the politicians still desperately hoping to reach agreement on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. With the still-developing countries, led by China, India, Russia and Brazil, all saying that they will only co-operate if rich governments such as the US and the EU compensate them to the tune of trillions of dollars a year, the chances of any meaningful successor to the Kyoto Protocol look like zero. (India's environment minister delights these days in saying that his country has no intention of sabotaging its fast-growing economy by agreeing to curb its CO2 emissions.)

But we are already committed, in any case, to paying out barely credible sums for our blind faith in global warming (quite apart from the £100 billion Gordon Brown wants us to spend on 10,000 more useless windmills, most of which he hasn't got a hope of seeing built).

A new study by an Australian analyst, Joanne Nova, based on official figures (available at the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute), shows that since 1991 US federal spending alone on climate change has been $79 billion. The cost of international carbon trading in 2008 was a staggering $126 billion, and is soon likely to run into trillions, making buying and selling the right to emit CO2 "the largest single commodity traded" in the world. Yet for all that money (along with countless billions more spent in Britain and elsewhere), "no one is able to point to a single piece of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global climate".

Are we all missing something – apart from all that money, of course?

[Wild Cobra]

I love it that God has a sense of humor.

How many times have Global Warming conferences been too cold to attend?

And Hansen is certifiable.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

GGA joining in on the fail. fail bus is now full.

[George Gervin's Afro]

GGA joining in on the fail. fail bus is now full.

So you didn't want the answer the question. And I failed..:lmao I guess that makes you a coward.

[Oh, Gee!!]

so, how cool was it?

[DarrinS]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?


No. According to theory, when CO2 rises, temperature is supposed to rise. Current trends are just the opposite.


BTW, what are the "norm" climate variations?

[George Gervin's Afro]

No. According to theory, when CO2 rises, temperature is supposed to rise. Current trends are just the opposite.


BTW, what are the "norm" climate variations?

My understanding of the issue is more about overall climate change than specifically warming. Is that true or not?

[DarrinS]

I love it that God has a sense of humor.

How many times have Global Warming conferences been too cold to attend?

And Hansen is certifiable.


The Gore effect.

[DarrinS]

My understanding of the issue is more about climate change than specifically warming. Is that true or not?



Not

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?
One piece of strong evidence that CO2 does not drive temperature is the last 11,000 years of ice data:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/800px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolati.jpg

Please note that once CO2 was up to about 264 ppm 11,000 years ago, there was normal climatic changes ranging +/- 2 C ever since. The increase to past 280 ppm in the last few thousand years had no change on centering of the +/- 2 C temperature range.

[TheProfessor]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?
Yes. There is a big difference between "global warming," as in surface warming, and resulting "climate change." But a cool day in Nashville is likely not explained by "climate change," nor is it evidence that Gore is wrong. This is just something intellectually dishonest people can point to and laugh about as they revel in their ignorance.

[Wild Cobra]

The Gore effect.
He needs a better Algorithm, doesn't he? His predictions suck.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes. There is a big difference between "global warming," as in surface warming, and resulting "climate change." But a cool day in Nashville is likely not explained by "climate change," nor is it evidence that Gore is wrong. This is just something intellectually dishonest people can point to and laugh about as they revel in their ignorance.
Yea right. Look closely at the graph I just posted, and tell me I'm wrong.

Tell me, staying withing +/- 2 C for 11,000 years now, from 264 ppm, to 280+, and now 380+ ppm... Why haven't we exceeded that +2 high point?

[TheProfessor]

Yea right. Look closely at the graph I just posted, and tell me I'm wrong.
Right. I'll just let the majority of the world's scientific community know you've solved this issue.

And this thread was about a cool day in Nashville, not your graph.

[DarrinS]

Yes. There is a big difference between "global warming," as in surface warming, and resulting "climate change." But a cool day in Nashville is likely not explained by "climate change," nor is it evidence that Gore is wrong. This is just something intellectually dishonest people can point to and laugh about as they revel in their ignorance.



Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution to the whopping 0.74 degree C increase of the last 100 years.


Problem is, no such piece of evidence exists.

[TheProfessor]

Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution to the whopping 0.74 degree C increase of the last 100 years.


Problem is, no such piece of evidence exists.
If you wanted this thread to be a springboard for another drawn-out discussion on climate change, I'm not biting. You posted about a cool day in Nashville, which is an intellectually lazy way to attack Gore's theories. That's all.

[DarrinS]

If you wanted this thread to be a springboard for another drawn-out discussion on climate change, I'm not biting. You posted about a cool day in Nashville, which is an intellectually lazy way to attack Gore's theories. That's all.



If you think it's only about one record-breaking day in Nashville, then your reading comprehension skills suck.


About the one piece of objective evidence (or lack thereof) -- that point is not debatable -- it is a fact.

[Shastafarian]

Are air quality days just bullshit? How about the severity of overfishing? Ever been to Los Angeles or any major city in China? Ever looked into the Hudson River? Is that normal? Eh, those things are probably nothing to worry about. Carry on.

http://www.personneltoday.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=4678

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes. There is a big difference between "global warming," as in surface warming, and resulting "climate change." But a cool day in Nashville is likely not explained by "climate change," nor is it evidence that Gore is wrong. This is just something intellectually dishonest people can point to and laugh about as they revel in their ignorance.

That's kind of what I was getting to. Most of these nuts only tell you the portion of a problem that suits their agenda but we already know how intellectually dishnoest they are.

[TheProfessor]

If you think it's only about one record-breaking day in Nashville, then your reading comprehension skills suck.


About the one piece of objective evidence (or lack thereof) -- that point is not debatable -- it is a fact.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

But hey, I'm sure all that is conspiratorial in some way, right? Just a bunch of academics that want their grant money.

[angrydude]

Are air quality days just bullshit? How about the severity of overfishing? Ever been to Los Angeles or any major city in China? Ever looked into the Hudson River? Is that normal? Eh, those things are probably nothing to worry about. Carry on.

http://www.personneltoday.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=4678

what does that have to do with global warming? Co2 isn't a pollutant. Plants need it to breathe.

Pollution is a legit gripe, co2 causing global warming isn't.

[Wild Cobra]

Right. I'll just let the majority of the world's scientific community know you've solved this issue.

And this thread was about a cool day in Nashville, not your graph.
The few dozen that finally agreed with the IPCC is small compared to the 31,478 signing the Oregon Petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/).

Don't tell me they aren't Climatologists either. A climatologist is just a glorified meterorologists. How many time do they get the weather wrong? You need people who understand more of the geosciences to get proper appraisals from. Physicians who understand blood gasses also understand CO2 absorption of the oceans for example. A climatologist is not required to learn gas solubility equations. The ocean contains about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. As it warms, it releases it. As it cools, it absorbs it. If it were in equilibrium already, not changing temperature, we would only be able to increase the atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm every 12 years at the current rate highest estimate we expel it at. If we expelled 8 GigaTons of carbon annually, it would take just over 12.5 years to add 100 gigatons to the carbon cycle. With the ocean absorbing more than 98% of that, we are left with less than 2 gigatons. Since 750 gigatons in the atmosphere = 380 ppm, we add less than 1 ppm in 12.5 years. That means it would have taken, worse case scenario, 1250 years at our modern output levels, to increase the CO2 to where it is today.

That's absolutely impossible.

Study the simplicity of the Carbon Cycle and equilibrium of gasses in fluids, and you will understand.

Even the IPCC agrees that solar activity has increased by 0.3% since the 1700's. Then elsewhere, they cite radiative forcing only, and as the small number it is for climate feedback. They totally ignore the fact that the sun is the source for more than 99% of the earth heat! That means, at a 15 C global average, it is a 288 K global average. The kelvin scale is used for such calculations. 0.3% of 285 K (99% of 288) is 0.86 C. Yes, than means the direct effect of the sun increasing by 0.3% in the last 300 years has increased global temperature by that much. Myself, I stay conservative with the numbers normally. I claim a 250 range rather than 285 and 0.2 to 0.25% rather than the IPCC's 0.3% and claim I'm certain the sun has raised the Earths temperature by at least 0.5 C. But if you like the IPCC, I'll claim at least 0.7 C from the sun.

[Shastafarian]

what does that have to do with global warming? Co2 isn't a pollutant. Plants need it to breathe.:lol


Pollution is a legit gripe, co2 causing global warming isn't.
I'll wait to respond until you realize what CO2 really is...

[Wild Cobra]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

But hey, I'm sure all that is conspiratorial in some way, right? Just a bunch of academics that want their grant money.
Extrapolating that CO2 drives temperature from that article is as accurate as saying the sun revolves around the Earth.

Perception does not always equal scientific fact.

[101A]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?


Well, it does now.

It is becoming more and more apparent that "Global Warming" isn't going to work - so it is morphing into "Climate Change" - more ambiguous/harder to disprove.

[101A]

If you wanted this thread to be a springboard for another drawn-out discussion on climate change, I'm not biting. You posted about a cool day in Nashville, which is an intellectually lazy way to attack Gore's theories. That's all.

Well, with every Hurrican/Monsoon/large rain or snowfall - it seems somebody brings up climate change, or global warming.

Tit for Tat.

[101A]

:lol


I'll wait to respond until you realize what CO2 really is...

What is it?

[Shastafarian]

Well, with every Hurrican/Monsoon/large rain or snowfall - it seems somebody brings up climate change, or global warming.

Tit for Tat.

And every time there's a cooler than average day ANYWHERE morons like DarrinS bring up how "global warming" is bullshit. It's all getting really old.

[TheProfessor]

Well, with every Hurrican/Monsoon/large rain or snowfall - it seems somebody brings up climate change, or global warming.

Tit for Tat.
And they are equally foolish.

[Shastafarian]

What is it?

It's a gas man.

[Shastafarian]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916&highlight=global+warming

Oh look, a Global Warming thread

[101A]

It's a gas man.

Got it.

[Spurminator]

This is just something intellectually dishonest people can point to and laugh about as they revel in their ignorance.

Which is why there are 100 of these threads every year.

[DarrinS]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

But hey, I'm sure all that is conspiratorial in some way, right? Just a bunch of academics that want their grant money.


I don't deny that CO2 concentrations have increased -- up to a whopping 383 parts per million or 0.0383% (gasp!) :sleep.


What I didn't read on that page, was ONE piece of objective evidence that shows how much humans have contributed to the 0.74 degree Celcius increase over the past century.


Keep looking.

[DarrinS]

And every time there's a cooler than average day ANYWHERE morons like DarrinS bring up how "global warming" is bullshit. It's all getting really old.


Strangely enough, calling me a moron won't change the last 10 years of temperature and CO2 measurements.


BTW, your post about pollution on the first page of this thread is quite brilliant and very relevant to the OP.

[Shastafarian]

BTW, your post about pollution on the first page of this thread is quite brilliant and very relevant to the OP.

If you don't see how it is then you really are a moron.

[DarrinS]

If you don't see how it is then you really are a moron.


Go research what a catalytic converter does and then we can discuss the difference between pollution and a naturally occuring trace gas that plants need for photosynthesis.

[sabar]

I'll give props to WC, he is pretty well versed in climate change as far as actual science goes. Everyone else just parrots the party line with no actual debate or data or anything.

Either way, global warming at this point is a political platform and a way to hamper the economy, nothing more. Any climate change, if true, will change the temperature for hundreds of years before reversing, even if we stopped all forms of human contribution. Climate change, real or imagined, would occur anyways as long as countries like China get a free pass under the lopsided kyoto protocol to throw out as much crap in the air as they want.

People trash the U.S. for not signing that crappy treaty, but we have increased our carbon emissions by 20% in the same time China has increased theirs 150%. Funny thing is that China ratified the treaty.

Unless people advocate invading other nations in the name of the environment, pollution is going to get in the atmosphere no matter what. The entire argument is nothing but a sham to gain votes and government subsidies towards certain industry, depending on who lobbys more.

[Wild Cobra]

And every time there's a cooler than average day ANYWHERE morons like DarrinS bring up how "global warming" is bullshit. It's all getting really old.Except we aren't moore-ons like those who believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's just fun to rub in peoples faces that they don't know what their lemming minds are repeating from their agenda driven masters.

Learn about the sciences involved and stop looking like an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll give props to WC, he is pretty well versed in climate change as far as actual science goes. Everyone else just parrots the party line with no actual debate or data or anything.Thank-You. I may differ on opinions than others on the various subjects we discuss, but science is fact based. There is very little that can be interpreted wrong if you actually look at the facts.

Either way, global warming at this point is a political platform and a way to hamper the economy, nothing more. Any climate change, if true, will change the temperature for hundreds of years before reversing, even if we stopped all forms of human contribution. I think politicians are using it to control us. Funny how government never gets smaller. Just bigger, one program at a time.

Climate change, real or imagined, would occur anyways as long as countries like China get a free pass under the lopsided kyoto protocol to throw out as much crap in the air as they want.I agree. I will also say I am convinced that China is the only primary source of any measurable anthropogenic warming occurring. They don;t use clean coal burning technology, and the soot carried by the winds deposit on the northern ice. The sun, then heats it up rather than reflecting off the ice, causing rapid melting of the ice.

People trash the U.S. for not signing that crappy treaty, but we have increased our carbon emissions by 20% in the same time China has increased theirs 150%. Funny thing is that China ratified the treaty.But China is not required to clean up their act in the treaty!

Unless people advocate invading other nations in the name of the environment, pollution is going to get in the atmosphere no matter what. The entire argument is nothing but a sham to gain votes and government subsidies towards certain industry, depending on who lobbys more.

Agreed.

[Shastafarian]

Except we aren't moore-ons like those who believe in anthropogenic global warming. It's just fun to rub in peoples faces that they don't know what their lemming minds are repeating from their agenda driven masters.Can you find me one scientific article that claims global "warming" doesn't exist that isn't backed by/funded by oil companies or any large donor who has an interest in saying global "warming" doesn't exist?


Learn about the sciences involved and stop looking like an idiot.
hilarious coming from the guy who basically made "I don't remember where I read it..." his own on this forum.

[rjv]

i love internet science.

[baseline bum]

No. According to theory, when CO2 rises, temperature is supposed to rise. Current trends are just the opposite.


BTW, what are the "norm" climate variations?

So how's the current trend in San Antonio?

[word]

It's a commie plot and I mean that. The three biggest power generation companies in China, pollute more than all companies and industry in Great Britain, combined.

We get chinese air pollution on the west coast if the weather is right. Do they get ours ?

Nope.

They damn near had to cancel the track and field in the last olympics till the Chinese gov shut down and I mean SHUT DOWN manufacturing plants, travel by car, bus, air...the whole shabang....3 months before the games started, just to avoid the embarrassment and let the 'games begin'.

The Soviet Union fell, but communism didn't die. It was just rebranded and is working full force in the green movement.

[Jacob1983]

What will all the global warming followers say when NYC isn't under water in 50 years? Will they admit they were wrong or at least that the situation was deeply exaggerated? I think global warming exists but not to the degree that Al Gore preaches. I've always thought it was funny how Al Gore uses worst case scenarios and end of the world scenarios when it comes to global warming. How the fuck does he know that it's going to be like Waterworld in 50 to 100 years? People in the 1950s thought life in the 2000s was going to be flying cars and and transporters. How did that turn out?

[SonOfAGun]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?


Hey, whatever we can make work at the time. Right braaaaah? :lmao

[Shastafarian]

What will all the global warming followers say when NYC isn't under water in 50 years? Will they admit they were wrong or at least that the situation was deeply exaggerated? I think global warming exists but not to the degree that Al Gore preaches. I've always thought it was funny how Al Gore uses worst case scenarios and end of the world scenarios when it comes to global warming. How the fuck does he know that it's going to be like Waterworld in 50 to 100 years? People in the 1950s thought life in the 2000s was going to be flying cars and and transporters. How did that turn out?

He was basing his predictions on statistics. Do you know what "trends" are? I have a feeling you don't based on your little flying car analogy.

[TheProfessor]

i love internet science.
The internet: where anyone is an expert. I mean, they have a graph, for God's sake!

[Wild Cobra]

Can you find me one scientific article that claims global "warming" doesn't exist that isn't backed by/funded by oil companies or any large donor who has an interest in saying global "warming" doesn't exist? Sure, I can find some. What's the point. If you don't understand the science in the article, you will simply blow it off.
hilarious coming from the guy who basically made "I don't remember where I read it..." his own on this forum.Do you remember the source of all the things you learn? Stop being silly please.

[Shastafarian]

Sure, I can find some. What's the point. If you don't understand the science in the article, you will simply blow it off.Find them. I went to a top 15 University and minored in Biology (requirements included Physics and Chemistry).


Do you remember the source of all the things you learn? Stop being silly please.
I don't state them as fact if I don't remember the source(s).

[Wild Cobra]

Find them. I went to a top 15 University and minored in Biology (requirements included Physics and Chemistry).

Since you claim to understand, let's just save some time. What do you question of what I say? In this thread, and several others, I have given far better explanations of what causes global warming than the liberal agenda proclaims.

Task me. Ask real questions of substance of me. Not what other people say.

I dare you.

[Shastafarian]

Since you claim to understand, let's just save some time. What do you question of what I say? In this thread, and several others, I have given far better explanations of what causes global warming than the liberal agenda proclaims.

Task me. Ask real questions of substance of me. Not what other people say.

I dare you.

Or you could find these unbiased articles we've been discussing instead of deflecting.

[Wild Cobra]

Or you could find these unbiased articles we've been discussing instead of deflecting.
Chicken.

[Shastafarian]

Chicken.

Liar.


Sure, I can find some.

[Wild Cobra]

Liar.
I knew you were a waste of time. Goodbye asshole.

[Shastafarian]

I knew you were a waste of time. Goodbye asshole.

My waste of time was asking you to provide a single article that opposes the idea of global "warming" that wasn't funded by someone with interest in saying global "warming" doesn't exist. You failed and I was right. Til next time WC.

[Jacob1983]

Stats don't mean shit. Al Gore's predictions are just guesses. Most of the time states are just possibilities. For example, you may mention some stats about plane crashes or drunk driving crashes. Those stats are not guarantees that you personally will die in a plane crash or drunk driving crash. They just say it's possible. It's also possible that you could win the lottery but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. The fad that is global warming is dying down. It's no longer a trendy thing anymore. People have lost interest.

[Wild Cobra]

Stats don't mean shit. Al Gore's predictions are just guesses. Most of the time states are just possibilities. For example, you may mention some stats about plane crashes or drunk driving crashes. Those stats are not guarantees that you personally will die in a plane crash or drunk driving crash. They just say it's possible. It's also possible that you could win the lottery but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. The fad that is global warming is dying down. It's no longer a trendy thing anymore. People have lost interest.
I think Shasta just wants me to give him an article that he can then link a RealClimate dot com article disputing it. Then, I'll have to say why the RealClimate article is wrong, and he won't have the intelligence to decide the truth himself. His bottom line will end up who had the most articles. The idiot says the 'deniers' are funded by oil. So what. Some are. Nobody else has much money to fund scientific research to dispel the propaganda the government grants are supplying to those causing the fear.

Shasta... Have any research not funded by government entities?

[Wild Cobra]

My waste of time was asking you to provide a single article that opposes the idea of global "warming" that wasn't funded by someone with interest in saying global "warming" doesn't exist. You failed and I was right. Til next time WC.
No, you fail. If you understand the sciences as you claim, then tell my why what I said that is not true, using your understanding of science. Not someone elses research.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

My waste of time was asking you to provide a single article that opposes the idea of global "warming" that wasn't funded by someone with interest in saying global "warming" doesn't exist. You failed and I was right. Til next time WC.

Like people like Al Gore don't have anything to gain...

[Wild Cobra]

Like people like Al Gore don't have anything to gain...
He must be pissed that his investments in companies that deal with Carbon Credits isn't going as planned.

[Shastafarian]

No, you fail. Not really.

If you understand the sciences as you claim, then tell my why what I said that is not true, using your understanding of science. Not someone elses research.I'm not an expert in the field. Neither are you. I'd rather read and discuss actual research. Still waiting on that article.

Like people like Al Gore don't have anything to gain...Why do people always go to Al Gore? You think he's a scientist or somethin?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not an expert in the field. Neither are you. I'd rather read and discuss actual research. Still waiting on that article.OK asshole, this site is boring right now and being a Sunday morning, I have a little time. There's no need to be an expert. The sciences involved are simple to understand. Apparently, you are lying about your knowledge.

How about these:

Is NASA data OK, or will you claim it's an oil funded?

Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/), part of text:
New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.
"Black carbon reduces the amount of energy reflected by snow back into space, thus heating the snow surface more than if there were no black carbon," Hansen said.
Soot's increased absorption of solar energy is especially effective in warming the world's climate. "This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a carbon-dioxide forcing of the same magnitude," Hansen noted. Please note that Hansen is one of the alarmists, but his NASA research like this remains unnamed when he is in alarmist mode.


Soot and Global Warming (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4082):

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/4000/4082/soot_gcm_2002.gif
New research from NASA and Columbia University climate scientists shows that more than 25 percent of the increase in average global temperature between 1880 and 2002 may be due to soot contamination of snow and ice worldwide. Pure snow and ice can be blindingly bright, reflecting large amounts of incoming radiation back into space, whereas snow and ice that is contaminated with black carbon absorbs incoming solar radiation. The scientists estimate that a soot content of only a few parts per billion (ppb) can reduce snow’s ability to reflect incoming radiation by 1 percent. In North American, soot has reduced snow’s reflectivity by 3 percent.

This image shows the results of computer models of the impact of soot on global temperatures between 1880 and 2002. Soot has caused the greatest increase in temperature in the high northern latitudes, as shown by the large swaths of red, orange, and gold across the top of this image.

In addition to its contribution to global warming, soot also speeds up melting of snow and ice, meaning it is probably partly responsible for the rapid decline in the world’s glaciers. Soot in the atmosphere causes regional haze that depresses plant (including crop) productivity, and it is a significant health hazard. For more on this story, read the GSFC press release.

BLACK SOOT AND SNOW: A WARMER COMBINATION (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1223blacksoot.html):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/94845main_icecleanPrintt.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/97589main_blacksoot.mpg)

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/94849main_icesootPrintt.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/97589main_blacksoot.mpg)

How about this conclusion by Biology Cabinet, who used NASA research:

Global Tropospheric Temperature Deviations since the Medieval Age
By Nasif Nahle, Wendy Noriega and Adip Said
12 February 2006 (http://www.biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html)

Please note in the below graph that temperatures were higher about 950 AD than they were in 1998, and that CO2 did nothing in historical terms:

http://www.biocab.org/Global_Warmings_and_Coolings_Since_Medieval_Age.jp g

Please note in the below graph there is a correlation with solar irradiance to temperature and is well understood in the field of thermodynamics. CO2 as a greenhouse is not linear like solar radiation is. Past one 100 to 200 ppm of CO2, adding more CO2 does almost nothing.

http://www.biocab.org/Comparison_TT-CO2-Solar_Irradiance.jpg

Read the above link for understanding.

I also like the works of PHD Jeffrey A. Glassman:

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html)

CO2: "WHY ME?" (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html)

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2 (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html)

SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT OF EL NIÑO (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/solar_wind.html)

[DarrinS]

I've come to the conclusion that human beings do, in fact, affect the climate, as do livestock, termites, and every living creature on earth.

Even a single butterfly can affect a complex system like climate in ways we don't understand --> Butterfly Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)


What I don't buy into is the notion of catastrophic global warming, or, "climate change", whereby certain "tipping points" are reached and Manhattan ends up under water.


By the way, climate does CHANGE. Always has -- always will -- even after humans are long gone, climate will continue to change.


Goooooood day.

[Shastafarian]

So just by SCANNING that article you posted, I found this:


Hansen cautioned, although the role of soot in altering global climate is substantial, it does not alter the fact greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate warming during the past century. So we can believe some of what he says, but not all of it I take it? And I enjoyed how you excised that from your quotes.


OK asshole, why do you keep calling me names?

There's no need to be an expert. The WC Mantra

The sciences involved are simple to understand.Is that why we (the collective we as in scientists who study this stuff for a living) still don't understand it fully?

Apparently, you are lying about your knowledge. I am not. My goal was to not let you off the hook in posting an article that you claimed you would have no trouble finding.

Maybe this is a silly question, but how is soot produced? Are there naturally occurring black carbon particles?

[Wild Cobra]

So just by SCANNING that article you posted, I found this:

So we can believe some of what he says, but not all of it I take it? And I enjoyed how you excised that from your quotes.

Enjoy as you wish. Remember, I explained Hansen is an alarmist. He is the one responsible for falsifying the NASA/NOAA temperature data that has since been corrected. He has an agenda.


why do you keep calling me names?
Because you annoy me. If you had a scientific background, you would come to your own conclusions based on the data, rather than believing those who you agree with. Show me you understand the sciences, else I will continue to belittle you for saying you did.


Is that why we (the collective we as in scientists who study this stuff for a living) still don't understand it fully?
Just how many real scientists do understand and maintain that man is the cause of global warming? It's very few now. Maybe 1% as many as the 30,000+ I linked earlier.


I am not. My goal was to not let you off the hook in posting an article that you claimed you would have no trouble finding.

I know that. That's why I hesitated. Like I said, no matter what I post, you will discount it. You are wasting my time unless you can give me a scientific reason to discount it. Not someone else's talking points.


Maybe this is a silly question, but how is soot produced? Are there naturally occurring black carbon particles?

There are some, but it is primarily from burning of wood, oil, etc. I have repeatedly said in past threads that it is the only measurable cause for anthropogenic warming. In the 1970's, we implemented the Clean Air Act. We started putting scrubbers on our soot emitting factories and power plants. What we have in the norther ice is from Asia, who doesn't use clean burning technologies like we do. It is being carried by the winds, melting the norther ice. It is causing warming, and the ice is melting. It is not melting from increased CO2 in the air.

[Wild Cobra]

By the way, climate does CHANGE. Always has -- always will -- even after humans are long gone, climate will continue to change.


Goooooood day.
And it's funny that liberals are always wanting to "Save the Planet." Mother Earth will still be here after we are long gone. Shouldn't we worry about ourselves?

[Wild Cobra]

Hansen's work cannot be trusted, only the raw data he uses can. Consider this:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
August 2007 Update and Effects (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html)

[Shastafarian]

Enjoy as you wish. Remember, I explained Hansen is an alarmist. He is the one responsible for falsifying the NASA/NOAA temperature data that has since been corrected. He has an agenda.Then why did you use that article?


Because you annoy me. If you had a scientific background, you would come to your own conclusions based on the data, rather than believing those who you agree with.How do you know what I believe?

Show me you understand the sciences, else I will continue to belittle you for saying you did.You're belittling me?


Just how many real scientists do understand and maintain that man is the cause of global warming? It's very few now. Maybe 1% as many as the 30,000+ I linked earlier.:lol I would ask for any source on that 1% of 30,000 but I know you don't have one.


I know that. That's why I hesitated. Like I said, no matter what I post, you will discount it.I didn't discount that last one. In fact, it looks pretty good to me.

You are wasting my time unless you can give me a scientific reason to discount it.I can't and won't.

Not someone else's talking points.Have I been using someone else's talking points?


There are some, but it is primarily from burning of wood, oil, etc. I have repeatedly said in past threads that it is the only measurable cause for anthropogenic warming. In the 1970's, we implemented the Clean Air Act. We started putting scrubbers on our soot emitting factories and power plants. What we have in the norther ice is from Asia, who doesn't use clean burning technologies like we do. It is being carried by the winds, melting the norther ice. It is causing warming, and the ice is melting. It is not melting from increased CO2 in the air.You probably should've found a better article then. One that doesn't include "Hansen cautioned, although the role of soot in altering global climate is substantial, it does not alter the fact greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate warming during the past century" or "black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century". I wonder what makes up the other 75%.

[Wild Cobra]

Then why did you use that article?

I had no choice that he was a coauthor of the article now, did I.


How do you know what I believe?
You're belittling me?

Yes, I'm belittling you. How do I know what you believe? I have a pretty good guess by the way you proceeded.


:lol I would ask for any source on that 1% of 30,000 but I know you don't have one.

You're right, I don't have one. I did say "maybe." It is my opinion.

Tell me. Is there a 30,000 petition of scientists who have signed a petition believing in anthropogenic global warming doe to CO2? The closest you'll find is the IPCC report that had most the scientists involved abandon the project. Several have had their names removed from the project that were cited. I think only a few dozen believe in the IPCC report that were involved.


I didn't discount that last one. In fact, it looks pretty good to me.
Dr. Glassman does some fine work.


I can't and won't.
I didn't think you could. I understand all of the concepts with the sciences I learned in High School. I keep forgetting schools today aren't the same as they used to be.


Have I been using someone else's talking points?

Maybe not, but then why do you believe in CO2 causing warming?


You probably should've found a better article then. One that doesn't include "Hansen cautioned, although the role of soot in altering global climate is substantial, it does not alter the fact greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate warming during the past century" or "black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century". I wonder what makes up the other 75%.

I guess it's a matter of knowing how to parse data. The article acknowledges a significant portion of heating due to black carbon. As for the remaining warming, thermal equations bear out that the sun is the primary contributor to global warming. It has increased by a little over 0.01% over the last century, resulting in a minimum thermal increase of 0.3 Celsius. CO2 still has a small effect, but very small. This is the hardest to quantify. It would only be 0.125 C if CO2 accounts for 12% of the greenhouse effect. I base that on the formula K=(p*0.0555)ln(P+1) where K is the greenhouse temperature rise in Kelvin (or Celsius), P is CO2 in ppm, and lower case p is the percent of the greenhouse gas. This is assuming the greenhouse effect is 33 degrees at 383 ppm, therefore 12% of 33 is 3.96 degrees of warming at 383 ppm. 1900 = 320 ppm and 2000 = 383 ppm. If you want to believe that CO2 accounts for 26% of the greenhouse effect, then the delta T would then be 0.261 K. Just over 1/4 degree increase. You see, greenhouse gases, because of how they interact with spectral energy, are logarithmic. The curves look like this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TempvsCO2vspctofgrennhouseeffect-1.jpg

If you extend that out all the way to 5000 ppm (5% CO2) then you get this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TempvsCO2vspctofgrennhouseeffect0to.jpg

[Shastafarian]

I had no choice that he was a coauthor of the article now, did I.Does that mean this is the only unbiased article you could find?


Yes, I'm belittling you.You're calling me a liar. I'm not sure that's "belittling".

How do I know what you believe? I have a pretty good guess by the way you proceeded.Ok why don't you lay out what you think I believe if you're so sure you know.


You're right, I don't have one. I did say "maybe." It is my opinion.That's not how you used the word maybe. You used it as a qualifier for your 1% guess. The maybe in your sentence was meant to give you some deviation from 1%. I'd challenge you to find documentation of between .2% and 4% of 30,000 but I know you can't.



Tell me. Is there a 30,000 petition of scientists who have signed a petition believing in anthropogenic global warming doe to CO2?I dunno

The closest you'll find is the IPCC report that had most the scientists involved abandon the project. Several have had their names removed from the project that were cited. I think only a few dozen believe in the IPCC report that were involved. And you can prove this right?


Dr. Glassman does some fine work.Sounds jewish.


I didn't think you could.Didn't want to.

I understand all of the concepts with the sciences I learned in High School. I keep forgetting schools today aren't the same as they used to be.Are you saying you can disprove what you were so happy to show me as proof?


Maybe not, but then why do you believe in CO2 causing warming?I believe it has a hand in it (whoops I helped you out) based on scientific data I saw in college.


I guess it's a matter of knowing how to parse data. The article acknowledges a significant portion of heating due to black carbon.Mostly anthropogenic

As for the remaining warming, thermal equations bear out that the sun is the primary contributor to global warming. It has increased by a little over 0.01% over the last century, resulting in a minimum thermal increase of 0.3 Celsius.Oh averages. They get us all into trouble when trying to prove global "warming" exists or doesn't.

CO2 still has a small effect, but very small. This is the hardest to quantify.I thought this stuff was easy to understand

It would only be 0.125 C if CO2 accounts for 12% of the greenhouse effect. I base that on the formula K=(p*0.0555)ln(P+1) where K is the greenhouse temperature rise in Kelvin (or Celsius), P is CO2 in ppm, and lower case p is the percent of the greenhouse gas. This is assuming the greenhouse effect is 33 degrees at 383 ppm, therefore 12% of 33 is 3.96 degrees. 1900 = 320 ppm and 2000 = 383 ppm. If you want to believe that CO2 accounts for 26% of the greenhouse effect, then the delta T would then be 0.261 K. Just over 1/4 degree increase. You see, greenhouse gases, because of how they interact with spectral energy, are logarithmic. The curves look like this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TempvsCO2vspctofgrennhouseeffect-1.jpg

If you extend that out all the way to 5000 ppm (5% CO2) then you get this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TempvsCO2vspctofgrennhouseeffect0to.jpgslow down their chief. Where are you getting these data points?

[Wild Cobra]

Here's something else. Al Gore uses the worse case science he can find. That means he used the 26% CO2 Greenhouse effect. From wiki: Greenhouse Gas
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26% [worse case 26%]
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%
The chart he uses:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/ppmCO2.jpg

My chart at 26% converting the Y axis to downward forcing in watts per meter has the identical curve:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/AgGoreschart.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Does that mean this is the only unbiased article you could find?
Not at all. I'm just not going to look and look. I went strait to NASA because I know they have good data.


Ok why don't you lay out what you think I believe if you're so sure you know.
I'll just keep it simple that you believe in the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax.


That's not how you used the word maybe. You used it as a qualifier for your 1% guess. The maybe in your sentence was meant to give you some deviation from 1%. I'd challenge you to find documentation of between .2% and 4% of 30,000 but I know you can't.
That would take some serious research. All I know for certain is that 30,000 people have not stood up together proclaiming man is causing global warming. I cannot recall 3,000, or even 300. Can you show me 300?

And you can prove this right?
I don't know where that data would be. I have listened to interviews bot at least two people who were initially on the IPCC science council, then left. One said he had to threaten a lawsuit to get his name removed. In the end, only a handful of climatologists did the final editing. The hundreds they claim is bullshit because most only had a had in compiling data.


Sounds jewish.
Does that matter?


Didn't want to.I say bullshit. I say you can't.


Are you saying you can disprove what you were so happy to show me as proof?What? I'm just not doing anything important at the moment.


I believe it has a hand in it (whoops I helped you out) based on scientific data I saw in college. It does, but very little. Not enough to matter. Definitely not 26% of the greenhouse effect.

Mostly anthropogenic
Black Carbon is mostly anthropogenic. Like I explained earlier, I agree with that. My claim is that it has the 2nd greatest global warming effect, behind solar irradiation changes. CO2 changes are probably in 3rd place.


Oh averages. They get us all into trouble when trying to prove global "warming" exists or doesn't.Care to elaborate?


I thought this stuff was easy to understandQuantifying it is tricky, but understanding the effect isn't. Quantifying CO2 is next to impossible for several reasons. The primary on in my opinion is the nature of the spectral absorption. Quantifying solar heat is simple linear math, and little remains when you account for it. The heat collected by black carbon is also linear. Thing with CO2 is what ever warming effect you get at 20 ppm, you don't double the heating until you reach about 400 ppm. The math is logarithmic, still mathematically simple, but again. Quantifying it isn't. Understanding it's nature has a simple truth. Doubling CO2 amounts to less than a 20% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2. Thing with the alarmists, is they ignore other factors and focus on CO2. The see the effect of a 0.7 C increase since the 1700's and attribute all of it to CO2. First of all, that would require CO2 to either have more than 26% of the greenhouse effect, or that there was only 240 ppm in 1700. So many other paleoclimate science facts they flat out ignore to make CO2 the culprit.


slow down their chief. Where are you getting these data points?
Everyone, even the alarmists agree, CO2 is logarithmic. I simply apply the formula to different stated opinions of the levels. It's just simple algebra.

[Wild Cobra]

I actually made a minor mistake comparing the two graphs. Can you spot it?

[Shastafarian]

Not at all. I'm just not going to look and look. I went strait to NASA because I know they have good data.Yet this data doesn't support your assertion that anthropogenic global "warming" is a hoax.

I'll just keep it simple that you believe in the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax.Some parts

That would take some serious research. All I know for certain is that 30,000 people have not stood up together proclaiming man is causing global warming. I cannot recall 3,000, or even 300. Can you show me 300?Quick google search says!
"Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html


I don't know where that data would be. I have listened to interviews bot at least two people who were initially on the IPCC science council, then left. One said he had to threaten a lawsuit to get his name removed. In the end, only a handful of climatologists did the final editing. The hundreds they claim is bullshit because most only had a had in compiling data.listened where?

Does that matter?Dem jews are smart dey are.

I say bullshit. I say you can't.I can't, won't, and don't want to because as I said earlier, I have no problems with that article.


Black Carbon is mostly anthropogenic. Like I explained earlier, I agree with that. My claim is that it has the 2nd greatest global warming effect, behind solar irradiation changes. CO2 changes are probably in 3rd place.According to that article you posted, CO2 is leading the race.

Care to elaborate?I don't like using averages when you're trying to describe an intricate and massive system such as the one we're dealing with.

Quantifying it is tricky, but understanding the effect isn't. Quantifying CO2 is next to impossible for several reasons. The primary on in my opinion is the nature of the spectral absorption. Quantifying solar heat is simple linear math, and little remains when you account for it. The heat collected by black carbon is also linear. Thing with CO2 is what ever warming effect you get at 20 ppm, you don't double the heating until you reach about 400 ppm. The math is logarithmic, still mathematically simple, but again. Quantifying it isn't. Understanding it's nature has a simple truth. Doubling CO2 amounts to less than a 20% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2. Thing with the alarmists, is they ignore other factors and focus on CO2. The see the effect of a 0.7 C increase since the 1700's and attribute all of it to CO2. First of all, that would require CO2 to either have more than 26% of the greenhouse effect, or that there was only 240 ppm in 1700. So many other paleoclimate science facts they flat out ignore to make CO2 the culprit.See I have to take your word on things like "quantifying solar heat is simple linear math". I don't have the breadth of knowledge to know the exact process of deducing the history of solar heat. That's why I was asking where you're getting this data.



Everyone, even the alarmists agree, CO2 is logarithmic. I simply apply the formula to different stated opinions of the levels. It's just simple algebra.I was talking about each datum themselves.

[Shastafarian]

I actually made a minor mistake comparing the two graphs. Can you spot it?

Can't stay long but the first thing I see is you didn't take into account the square of meters.

[Wild Cobra]

Can't stay long but the first thing I see is you didn't take into account the square of meters.
I mean beyond a typo. I mean a factual error. It's minor enough I overlooked it myself. It's not important enough to fix right away, especially if you don't see it.

[Wild Cobra]

Quick google search says!
"Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Opinions. Did it ask how many of that 82% who agreed actually did research on the subject? Forget the 97% climatologists. That's part of what they are taught! How about the last paragraph:
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.Very few people do understand the long term. Climatologists sure don't. They're just glorified meteorologists!


listened where?One of the several talk radio programs I listen to. It may have been on the Roger Hedgecock show (http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/). I forget where exactly which program, but it was one of the shows that is in the evening here.


According to that article you posted, CO2 is leading the race.I don't care what others say. I look at the data in articles. I use my own mind, not others.


I don't like using averages when you're trying to describe an intricate and massive system such as the one we're dealing with.I'm not sure what averages you mean. Again, care to elaborate?


See I have to take your word on things like "quantifying solar heat is simple linear math". I don't have the breadth of knowledge to know the exact process of deducing the history of solar heat. That's why I was asking where you're getting this data.If you learned chemistry and physics, you know that heat is linear. Period. It's only not linear when there is a state change involved like solid to liquid, or liquid to gas.


I was talking about each datum themselves.
Explained in the wiki link where I quoted the 9% to 26%.

[Shastafarian]

Opinions. Did it ask how many of that 82% who agreed actually did research on the subject? Forget the 97% climatologists. That's part of what they are taught! How about the last paragraph:Very few people do understand the long term. Climatologists sure don't. They're just glorified meteorologists!"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."


I don't care what others say.clearly

I look at the data in articles. I use my own mind, not others.Usually this is a good thing. Unless the other people involved are scientific experts. Then I usually at least listen to what they have to say.

I'm not sure what averages you mean. Again, care to elaborate?Well for starters, you're using mean global temperature are you not?

If you learned chemistry and physics, you know that heat is linear. Period. It's only not linear when there is a state change involved like solid to liquid, or liquid to gas.Ah right. I did know that. It's been a couple years since physics but it eventually comes back. How do they measure levels of solar heat from the past?

[Yonivore]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?
That theory was only posited when it became clear the theory saying anthropogenic CO2 wasn't actually warming the planet.

Other than the IPCC political consensus, there are no peer-reviewed scientifically-based and published conclusions on which to base either theory. Just a bunch of assumption-based modeling.

[Wild Cobra]

"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."
So you dismiss them out of hand. You see, those with those areas of expertise have done far more studying of the various geosciences than a climatologist does. They are the real experts, but since they studied fields that give them money from energy industries, you dismiss them. I dismiss climatologists because to get a BS in climatology requires only one course more than getting a BS in meteorology.

Usually this is a good thing. Unless the other people involved are scientific experts. Then I usually at least listen to what they have to say.
But they are not experts in the geosciences. Just one aspect of it.


Well for starters, you're using mean global temperature are you not?
Yes, and if you break it down by latitude and terrain, there's alot of variation. I'm simply using the same indicator the alarmists use.

I contend that most of the variation in the 9% to 26% figure has to do with temperature. More specifically, blackbody radiation. The spectra of the blackbody radiation changes with heat. As this happens, the percentage of the spectra that CO2 is capable of influencing changes. Near the 26% end, it is so cold, there is almost no influence anyway. In the desert, CO2 is about 9%, at a high power level. My best estimate is that the global average for calculation proposes is between 10% and 15%. I personally settle for 12%, but cannot be certain.


Ah right. I did know that. It's been a couple years since physics but it eventually comes back. How do they measure levels of solar heat from the past?
There are several ways that they do it. There is isotopic records in the ice and plant life. Dendrochronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology) is one of several biological methods. Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 are common isotopes measured.

You ask how I know about solar activity. Data from several sources. Here's a mathematical representation of solar activity that fits past events, going into the future:

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif

I found this graph also, captured it from a previous thread:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Carbon14-sunspot.svg/800px-Carbon14-sunspot.svg.png

Notice that sunspots roughly correspond to Carbon 14 production. There is an approximate 60 year smoothing in the carbon 14 data because it takes that long for it to fall out of the atmosphere and be absorbed into organic matter.

NOAA has data (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt) that I placed in excel and came up with this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/solarradiation1600to2100.jpg

I extended the last 11 years represented as the current non-existant trend. You see, we still are in essence missing the sunspot cycle we should be in. From the SOHO Satellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOHO_spacecraft):

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/latest.jpg