Thank God for Global Warming...

[Wild Cobra]

Thank God for Global Warming or else we would really be cold here. Our nighttime temperatures continue to dip around freezing and sometimes colder. We had snow again last night where I live. Now I live at least 100 ft. higher than the Portland Airport, which is the official weather record point for Portland. A few days ago, maybe the 26th, they had measurable snow. If they did again last night, I don't know. However, the previous record for late season measurable snow was set on March 10, 1951 (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/hazards/RER_20060310). I still haven't figured out how in a time of global warming, we see record cold spells in places, and I get snow.

I'm just glad we have global warming, else I might be freezing my nuts off in the springtime.

The site above link is 2006 information where snow was a day early of tying the record. It confirms the 1951 date. I didn't find any March 2008 official data yet. NOAA has a February report, but we are still in March. I could probable find an article if I searched enough, but what's the point. I know it was reported in the area.

[jacobdrj]

Somebody didn't watch The Day After Tomorrow...

The gyromoitors inside the global splines will cause reticulations to the temperate zones on the surface causing a global cooling effect in otherwise temperate regions.

In other news, the Earth is also governed by a 19ish year lunar cycle, as well as the 365-day solar one... which does, in fact, effect weather patterns... including temperatures rising and cooling, as well as precipitation changes.

[fyatuk]

Isn't global warming typically measured in either deep sea temperature or upper atmospheric temperature? In either case, the biggest direct effect for such a small increase as has been measured would be changes in global water/air currents which could bring any number of weather changes.

Not that I'm a proponent of man-made catastrophic warming, just pointing out that it's not so much how much it's warmed, but where, when determining weather effects.

[Wild Cobra]

Somebody didn't watch The Day After Tomorrow...

The gyromoitors inside the global splines will cause reticulations to the temperate zones on the surface causing a global cooling effect in otherwise temperate regions.

In other news, the Earth is also governed by a 19ish year lunar cycle, as well as the 365-day solar one... which does, in fact, effect weather patterns... including temperatures rising and cooling, as well as precipitation changes.
OMG...

Such a fake movie, and you take it as gospel?

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't global warming typically measured in either deep sea temperature or upper atmospheric temperature? In either case, the biggest direct effect for such a small increase as has been measured would be changes in global water/air currents which could bring any number of weather changes.

Not that I'm a proponent of man-made catastrophic warming, just pointing out that it's not so much how much it's warmed, but where, when determining weather effects.
The theory is sound, except there really aren't any notable changes in the sea or the upper atmosphere that suggests anything other than natural cycles when you look at the solar factor.

[fyatuk]

The theory is sound, except there really aren't any notable changes in the sea or the upper atmosphere that suggests anything other than natural cycles when you look at the solar factor.

I agree with you there. We know that we are releasing gasses, etc, that can prevent radial cooling, but there's not enough data to really suggest they are dense enough to affect much of anything yet, and we know the planet has seen much more drastic heating rates at a multitude of times in the past.

[Wild Cobra]

Just for fun:

Please understand the direct thermal correlation from the sun. Anytime the alarmists say the sun has almost no influence, they are only talking about the forcing aspect of it's radiated power which is only about 8.1% of the full power the earth takes in.

Here is a simple greenhouse effect model:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Greenhouse_Effect.svg/750px-Greenhouse_Effect.svg.png

The model has a few flaws, but it is one of the models used by the alarmists. I will start with the following assumptions:

The earth with no solar power would be very cold. Not absolute zero because of a hot magma, but it would be somewhere around 55 Kelvin. I chose 55 K for convenience of calculation. It could be +/- 50 easily.

The claimed greenhouse effect for this model is 32 Celsius, with a global temperature of 14 C.

14C – 32 C = -18 C or 255 K; 255 K – 55 K = 200 K (or C) range heat from the sun.

The model shows 67 watts + 452 watts creating the 32 C atmospheric warming. This equates to 16.22 watts per degree.

Now consider a 0.1% increase in solar power (11 year solar cycle exceeds this.)

The 168 watt figure becomes 168.168 watts and directly increase the earths temperature proportionally, or from 255 K to 255.2 K, a 0.2 C increase.

The extra solar heating not becomes more IR for the greenhouse effect. The 67 watt figure is now 67.067. The 452 figure is now 452.452. These also increase the greenhouse effect in a proportional manner, adding another 0.03 C. This is the effect of solar forcing that the alarmists claim the sun has. They never include the direct radiated heat from the sun.

The 14 C global average is now 14 C+ 0.2 C+ 0.03 C, or 14.23 C.

The alarmists don't exactly lie. They say a 0.1% increase in solar radiation only increases the greenhouse effect by the 0.03 C. This simply ignore the 0.2 C increase by direct radiation.

Now supposable, man kind has increased the temperature by 1 C in the last 100 years. To do this, the greenhouse effect of 519 must increase by 6.16%. Since they claim it's not solar, the 452 number must increase to 484, or a 7.08% (32 watt) increase. Greenhouse gasses are not proportional in forcing power, and CO2 is accepted to be 9% of the greenhouse effect. 9% of this 519 is 46.71 watts. To add another 32 watts is a 68.51% increase in forcing from CO2, yet at 280 ppm for century old levels, the CO2 already traps about 90% of what is can at 100% saturation! It is impossible for CO2 to add 1 C. This is asking that CO2 trap more than at 150% of saturation.

Now a 1% change or more in solar energy over times not recorded are expected to be certain. What does a 1% increase or decrease give us? Without going in complete detail, it is about:

1% hotter is about 16.32 C average global temperature.

1% cooler is about 11.68 C average global temperature.

Now when the oceans get cold enough to reabsorb most the CO2 in the atmosphere and/or reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere enough, we go into another ice age from the loss of the greenhouse gasses.

[Don Quixote]

Somebody didn't watch The Day After Tomorrow...


Yes, a completely silly movie. I was entertained, however, by the special effects and how the producers, writers, and director tried to jam every liberal meme (idea) they possibly could into the script ...

Global climate change(obvious)

Homeless guy in the library (society stole from him!)

Burning books in the library to keep warm (the librarian scolds them, you should NEVER burn books, only fascists do that)

The father-son rift

The Vice President who looks remarkably like Dick Cheney, who denies global climate change and probably works for big oil

Americans crossing into Mexico en masse for warmer climate (obviously a reflection of their view on illegal immigration)

The Republican President dying (a liberal's wet dream)

Possibly the most unintentially hilarious movie of all time.

[Don Quixote]

I thought the movie was hilarious.

[Pistons_In_7]

Global Warming is a joke, historically temperatures have always had fluxuations and "warmer" and "colder" periods, what we are seeing now is nothing out of the norm if you look at the big picture. Global Warming was created as propaganda to further the agenda of those who could benefit from spreading this foolishness.

[xrayzebra]

The real truth about Global Warming and it's "intended" consequences.

Poor Nations Demand Climate Money

By MICHAEL CASEY – 22 hours ago

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — Poor countries at a U.N. conference said Tuesday they won't sign a global warming pact unless industrialized nations guarantee them billions of dollars needed to adapt to the impact of climate change.

Island nations in the Caribbean and South Pacific recounted how they are being hit by worsening floods, rising seas and cyclones linked to climate change and don't have the money to build sea walls or relocate threatened villagers.

"Adaptation is critical to our very survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados who was speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States. "If a deal on adaptation is not part of this agreement, we have no incentive to be part of it."

Rich countries insist they are willing to help but disagree over how to provide assistance — whether it should be voluntary aid favored by the United States or a European proposal to use the trading of pollution permits to generate funds.

The weeklong conference of representatives from 163 countries launched a 21-month process Monday aimed at concluding a new climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, to rein in carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases blamed for the rise in world temperatures.

Along with financing, countries are expected to wrangle over how best to reduce emissions in a new agreement.

The EU has proposed that industrialized countries slash emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The U.S., which is one of the world's top polluters, has repeatedly rejected mandatory national reduction targets of the kind agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol a decade ago.

Japan, which is struggling to meet its emissions-cutting commitment under the Kyoto pact, is backing industry-based emission caps which are seen as a bid to reduce its obligations in a future agreement.

Assistance to impoverished countries almost derailed December talks in Bali at which world governments agreed to launch the current negotiations. Many poor nations argued that industrialized countries should take the first step in both reducing emissions and helping developing countries cope with rising temperatures.

Once that occurs, the developing countries agreed for the first time to take verifiable actions on their own to control greenhouse gases.

Financing dominated the climate talks in the first two days. John Ashe, chairman of the Group of 77 and China, a coalition of developing countries, said members of the group complained they cannot use their scarce resources to reduce greenhouse gases if their most urgent needs in adapting to global warming aren't met.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is hosting the Thailand meeting, said it is essential to figure out what the industrialized world is willing to pay to help out poorer countries.

"There is not going to be an international agreement ... without clarity on what resources will be on the table to help developing countries to limit their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change," he said.

Only up to $300 million annually will be available through a U.N. adaptation fund created in Bali, with a maximum of $1.5 billion a year projected if a climate agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol is approved.

That is much less than the nearly $86 billion the U.N. Development Program estimates is needed annually by 2015.

China called in Bangkok for developed countries to provide at least 0.5 percent of their gross domestic product annually to help poorer nations adapt.

In the United States, that would exceed $60 billion.

Many European nations led by Germany have suggested closing the funding gap by using a percentage of money generated from the trading of carbon credits — permits for companies to emit carbon pollutants. Others have suggested a tax on aviation or maritime fuels could be used to finance adaptation measures.

Most of the industrialized world, however, has focused on helping developing countries speed up the use of cleaner, more efficient technologies. The U.S., Japan and Britain, for example, said they will contribute to a clean technology fund, administered by the World Bank, that will dole out $5 to $10 billion over three to five years. The fund will begin operating in July.
On the Net:

* Conference site: http://unfccc.int/2860.php

[SAGambler]

Just follow the money and you will see what Global Warming is really about.

[BradLohaus]

Turner: Global Warming Will Cause Mass Cannibalism
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism

On what will happen if global warming is not addressed immediately:

TED TURNER: Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state -- like Somalia or Sudan -- and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there'll be no more corn grown. Not doing it is suicide. Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons is suicide. We've got to stop doing the suicidal two things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons and after that we've got to stabilize the population. When I was born-

CHARLIE ROSE: So what's wrong with the population?

TURNER: We're too many people. That's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff.

Turner then made a blood sacrifice to Gaia at the Georgia Guidestones. :lol

[Spurminator]

Sounds like we should go ahead and get started on the cannibalism thing.

[Nbadan]

ummm....some analysis are predicting a shortage of corn this year...

[Spurminator]

If that's the case, maybe we should go back to just using it for food.

[Extra Stout]

Sounds like we should go ahead and get started on the cannibalism thing.
Do liberals go better with a Zinfandel or a Cabernet?

[PixelPusher]

Do liberals go better with a Zinfandel or a Cabernet?
Zinfandel. Save your Cabs for a well marbled conservative steak.

Just don't go too crazy on the conservatives, too much of that shit'll give you gout.

[Don Quixote]

If that's the case, maybe we should go back to just using [corn] for food.

Right on. I hear corn is an excellent source of food. I wonder if other countries know of this ...

[Don Quixote]

TURNER: We're too many people. That's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff.[/I]
:lol

Okay, Ted. You first.

[PixelPusher]

Right on. I hear corn is an excellent source of food. I wonder if other countries know of this ...
Depends on how much available fresh water those countries have. Corn is one of the most water hungry crops in existence.

[jacobdrj]

OMG...

Such a fake movie, and you take it as gospel?

What is gospel?

[boutons_]

WC and other deniers say that global warming is nothing but just another sun cycle, not caused by man. So the real scientists attempt to refute:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

[ClingingMars]

OMG...

Such a fake movie, and you take it as gospel?

yeah, taking An Inconvenient Truth seriously is retarded.

-Mars

[DarrinS]

WC and other deniers say that global warming is nothing but just another sun cycle, not caused by man. So the real scientists attempt to refute:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm


Don't play that "deniers" shit. The word is -- skeptic. And, year after year, more people are becoming skeptical, especially since warming has slowed significantly over the last 10 years.


The IPCC's assessment reports on climate change have become less and less doomsday-ish over the last 15 or so years. Why is that?


Meanwhile, Al Gore is spending 300 million to convince you that the debate is over.

[Nbadan]

...don't blame the sun....

'No Sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website


Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favored theory of climate "Deniers", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)

Of course, if you want to believe global warming deniers, you know, the same crowd that thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs and was hand-picking Al-Queda leaders, feel free...

[Nbadan]

The IPCC's assessment reports on climate change have become less and less doomsday-ish over the last 15 or so years. Why is that?

Hmmm....yeah, why is that?


Claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has seriously underestimated the challenge and costs of stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions in the 21st century are fuelling controversy among climate and energy researchers.

Climate policy expert Roger Pielke Jr, climatologist Tom Wigley, and economist Christopher Green lay out in a commentary article published in Nature 1 today why they think that the emission scenarios the IPCC produced nearly a decade ago, which are still widely used, are overly optimistic. They note that most of the IPCC’s 'business as usual' emission scenarios assume a certain amount of 'spontaneous' technological change. The size of this assumed change is unrealistic, they argue, and deceives policy-makers and the public about the crucial role policy must have in encouraging the development of technologies to prevent dangerous climate change.

Such a large chunk of the needed energy-efficiency improvements is built in to these 'business as usual' scenarios that the degree of change requiring special effort seems artificially small, they argue. According to the authors' own calculations, IPCC scenarios make it seem as if the technical challenge of stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions at around 500 parts per million — a concentration which scientists think will prevent average global temperatures from rising more than 2 °C — is a quarter of its true size.

Richard Tol, an energy and environmental economist at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, also says that the IPCC has underestimated the cost of technology, and notes that the cost of mitigating against climate change increases as time goes on. If Pielke and colleagues are correct, the cost of controlling global warming could go up by a factor of 16, argues Tol.

Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080402/full/news.2008.728.html)

[Wild Cobra]

WC and other deniers say that global warming is nothing but just another sun cycle, not caused by man. So the real scientists attempt to refute:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
That article is about cosmic ray changes, not solar intensity.

Come on now. Stop wasting my time.

The suns effect due to intensity is very strait forward. There is a proportional response between solar intensity and global warming with all other factors not changing. The Kelvin scale is used often because 0 K is absolute zero. The greatest effect the sun has with changes would be if the earth would be 0 K with no solar radiation. 0 C = 273 K (actually 273.15 K) and there in a 1:1 additive response. With an average global temperature of 14 C, the temperature on the Kelvin scale would be 287 K. A one percent change in solar output is a direct 2.87 C. I assume the earth would be around 55 K (-218 C) with no sun. The surface warmth would be maintained by the molten core. For ease of calculation, we can up that for even less effect to 87 K. This is a 200 C range. 1% would be 2 C rather than 2.87 C.

Say what you will about there being no correlation, or making less of it than is real. There is a real scientific correlation. We have directly observed solar changes with the monitoring satellites we have. We see changes over the short time in excess of 0.15%. If you expect the long term effect to be that stable, I'll sell you a bridge. By using isotopes, we know the solar activity has changed greater than this. Global warming and proxies match pretty good.

[Nbadan]

Can a Day after tomorrow scenario happen?

Has An Ocean Circulation Collapse Been Triggered?


ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2008) — Predictions that the 21st century is safe from major circulation changes in the North Atlantic Ocean may not be as comforting as they seem, according to a Penn State researcher.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is very unlikely that the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC) will collapse in the 21st century. They predict a probability of less then 10 percent," says Klaus Keller, assistant professor of geosciences. "However, this should not be interpreted as an all clear signal. There can be a considerable delay between the triggering of an MOC collapse and the actual collapse. In a similar way, a person that has just jumped from a cliff may take comfort that pain in the next few seconds is very unlikely, but the outlook over the long term is less rosy."

Science daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102148.htm)

[Nbadan]

On solar irradiance...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/cooling_1975_2008.gif
Land-ocean temperature anomaly 1975 to 2008 (blue with trend line), Total Solar Irradiance 1978 to 2008 (red). Light blue area indicate periods when solar irradiance is falling due to the 11 year solar cycle.


The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, it's the sun's close correlation with Earth's temperature in the past that proves it has little to do with the last 30 years of global warming.

This conclusion is confirmed by many studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming:

* Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
* Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
* Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
* Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
* Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
* Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
* Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
* Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
* Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
* Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
* Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

[DarrinS]

I agree with Al Gore, the debate on global warming is over. Everyone agrees that the Earth is currently warming and that humans are affecting it (have been since man first walked the Earth).


The REAL debate NOW, is between climate change scientists and climate change alarmists. Is there really a "crisis". Al Gore is spending 300 million dollars to convince you there is.


If you want to see a real debate on this subject, go to http://www.michaelcrichton.net/videos.html and judge for yourself.

[xrayzebra]

I agree with Al Gore, the debate on global warming is over. Everyone agrees that the Earth is currently warming and that humans are affecting it (have been since man first walked the Earth).


The REAL debate NOW, is between climate change scientists and climate change alarmists. Is there really a "crisis". Al Gore is spending 300 million dollars to convince you there is.


If you want to see a real debate on this subject, go to http://www.michaelcrichton.net/videos.html and judge for yourself.



No everyone doesn't agree. Some scientist even say
we are in a cooling phase. And could be entering into
a new ice age.

[Don Quixote]

George Will amply summed up the debate in a recent article. The global warming debate basically follows a few logical steps ...

(I'll try to get the gist.)

(1) The planet's temperature is rising. This is pretty much the only undisputed point.

(2) Mankind has caused it. This is a big leap -- we don't know this. We understand the physical theory behind how industrialization might be causing it, but it's certainly not a proven. Indeed, the earth's climate has fluctuated markedly at least since the early medieval period (i.e., the Little Ice Age 1150-1300 and it has been argued that the warming after 1300 was a factor in encouraging exploration), and most certainly since prehistoric times.

(3) Climate change is a bad thing. Again, debatable. Maybe some coastal cities are flooded, but then again, perhaps there is a feedback loop in the "system" that would negate it. Again, we don't know.

(4) Mankind ought to take steps to reverse climate change, and has the capability to do so. This is highly dubious, too.

So ... going by this basic framework, we can see at what step various people are arguing. I'm firmly at Step 2.

[Wild Cobra]

On solar irradiance...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/cooling_1975_2008.gif
Land-ocean temperature anomaly 1975 to 2008 (blue with trend line), Total Solar Irradiance 1978 to 2008 (red). Light blue area indicate periods when solar irradiance is falling due to the 11 year solar cycle.

Nice job Dan. First of all, the 0.6 C is not only from the 1700's but like you show, except... NASA has admitted since the time of that graph that their formulas were bad for computing the temperature. Compare it against a reliable long term temperature graph. Also, that is only short term. Here is a long term solar activity vs. Carbon 14. C14 is created in the upper atmosphere in proportion to the suns level of radiation. Here is a convenient temperature graph also:

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

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

Now please notice a few things. The C14 on the graph is "permille" or in thousandths. This is relative concentration change in the CO2 mix. The top of the graph has the ending of it just after 2000 correlating to just before 1950. That's because it takes about 60 years to see the changes in the C14 levels as it collects on the Earth. The changing levels of C14 is also way carbon dating used the be unreliable. Carbon dating is reliable again now that scientists know how to account for the moving changes over time.

Anyway...

C14 is a proxy for solar radiation. It is not 100% reliable because it is the higher energy cosmic rays that change the Nitrogen 14 to Carbon 14, but these relationships are proportional over an averaged time period.

Something I never touched on before, but it is true. C14 has different absorption characteristics of infrared than C12 does. Even though a 2% increase in C14 from the 1700 to now is small, it traps wavelengths of infrared that C12 doesn't. These small changes can have a larger relative impact of the greenhouse gasses than the same percentage change of normal CO2, but I don't know how relevant that impact is. It would take some research that I'm unaware of happening.

Common C2O is 12C-16O-12C. You can also find it in 14C-16O-12C and 14C-16O-14C. Each of these have a different resonance! There is also C13 at higher percentages, but they remain pretty stable to C12 concentrations. For the purpose of discussion, consider it's effects the same as Additions of C12 do very little as it is near saturation for spectra absorption. Small changes in C14 however can make large changes in the greenhouse effect. The carbon and oxygen can also have different isotopes. I wonder what effect the oxygen 18 would have? It has a 0.2% natural abundance. It is used as a temperature proxy, probably because water made with it freezes at a lower temperature that water with O16. I don't think it was a change in the greenhouse effect since I don't know of solar radiation creating the isotope like it does Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10. We also have fossilized records of Be10 that correlate to long term solar activity:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

Notice now both Be10 and C14 show correlations with solar activity. Again, pick a good long term temperature graph and compare. The one I supplied was convenient, but a shorter time would show better resolution.

I know I'm skipping around a bit, and I'm not going to take much effort to fix it since this isn't a term paper, or other important work... Sorry...

Now consider this. It takes about the 60 years to see the actual global average C14. That long rise from (upper year axis) about 1950 to 2000 are immediate changes for the small degree that carbon 14 will have vs. carbon 12. I didn't find a reference to atmospheric concentration of C14. It is higher than the natural abundance of 1 ppt as the atmosphere is where it is formed. Consider this graph:

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

Near zero ppm of CO2, we have dramatic changes. The very small amounts of carbon 14 will have similar dramatic changes among their vibrational frequencies. I just don't know is it's enough to have a measurable effect, if looked for.

Now I disagree with the values the above graph says changes of CO2 make, but it is manipulated to show the 0.6 C change from the 280 ppm to 380 ppm levels, to support the alarmists. The graph does show the general trend of how atmospheric CO2 affects the temperature. It should flatten out more than it does past 200 ppm.

Wow... I am skipping around, but cannot take the time to format this better.

Here is a chart from NASA that wiki has:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Solar_Forcing_GISS_model.gif

Now it has the changed in forcing power from this graph. When I traced the image though wiki, I found a question to the validity of the forcing power. Therefore, I traced the original source graph, here:

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

The average before 1900 is about 1364.8 and the average after 1950 is about 1366.4. This is about a 0.12% increase which WILL CHANGE the global temperature by AT LEAST 0.1 C from that 50 year period of change. Actually, much of the effect has a time lag as the oceans absorb the heat. The equilibrium takes at least decades to take effect. We still may not have equilibrium to the rise between 1900 to 1950.

Now keep in mind, the 1365 watt per meter is the direct power at the equator. Since only half the earth is exposed to the sun at once, and is curved, the 235 watt/meter number is used global calculations. Changes are proportional.

That's enough for now class.

[Ignignokt]

Global warming is a bunch of shit.

- Clinging Terds.

[Wild Cobra]

Global warming is a bunch of shit.

- Clinging Terds.
It all depends on what a person means by Global Warming.

There is a measurable increase that cannot be denied. There is a trend that coincides with industrialization. The 'bunch of shit' is that the alarmists take the coincidence of industrialization with the natural increase of nature and say than man is causing it.

It is pure coincidence. It is not man made to the extent said. If we do cause any warming, it is insignificant compared to the natural warming.

Global Warming has been a real phenomenon. So is Global Cooling. They basically take turns as the dance in nature.

People can be so arrogant to believe we can have such a dramatic global effect on nature.

[Wild Cobra]

Bump

Read posts 7 and 36.

[clambake]

Bump

Read posts 7 and 36.

no thanks.

[Winehole23]

Can a Day after tomorrow scenario happen?

Has An Ocean Circulation Collapse Been Triggered?


"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is very unlikely that the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) will collapse in the 21st century. They predict a probability of less then 10 percent," says Klaus Keller, assistant professor of geosciences.

Science daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102148.htm)




Scientists predict that the AMOC will weaken further if global heating continues, and could reduce by about 34% to 45% by the end of this century, which could bring us close to a “tipping point” (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear) at which the system could become irrevocably unstable. A weakened Gulf Stream would also raise sea levels on the Atlantic coast of the US, with potentially disastrous consequences.


Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who co-authored the study published on Thursday in Nature Geoscience (https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/gulf-stream-system-at-its-weakest-in-over-a-millennium), told the Guardian that a weakening AMOC would increase the number and severity of storms hitting Britain, and bring more heatwaves to Europe.


He said the circulation had already slowed by about 15%, and the impacts were being seen. “In 20 to 30 years it is likely to weaken further, and that will inevitably influence our weather, so we would see an increase in storms and heatwaves in Europe, and sea level rises on the east coast of the US,” he said.



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/atlantic-ocean-circulation-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists

[Winehole23]

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor1.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09237-3

[SnakeBoy]

In 20 years...

[Winehole23]

In 20 years...in the long run we'll all be dead, but we were both here 12 years ago when this thread started.

[Winehole23]

the stability of the polar vortex *might be* related to this *now.*

[boutons_deux]

the stability of the polar vortex *might be* related to this *now.*

no might

AGW of the Artic, the rate of increase higher than sub-Arctic regions, de-stabilizes the vortex. So antifa can freeze Texas.

[DMC]

the stability of the polar vortex *might be* related to this *now.*

What about the cost of ammo or the bitcoin? All of it is related!

[RandomGuy]

[rings doorbell, runs away like a little bitch]

Meh.