"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::

Good Video on Global Warming

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

[101A]

Never let it be said the U. S. Military can't fight a war on multiple fronts AND solve the global warming crisis!

Report: Somali pirates want U.S. Navy to back off

North Korea thanks U.S. Navy for help in fighting off pirates

Pirates leave ships under US Navy escort

and on and on and on the stories go...

No, Yoni.

The U.S. is actively REDUCING the number of Pirates; thus INCREASING the instance of Global Warming (it is a reverse correlation).

Big oil, the Repugs and the Religious Right are, no doubt, behind this.

I saw an NBADan post that indicated that the reason for the whole thing is some rich Republican Donors have bought up a bunch of Islands buried beneath both polar ice caps.

By reducing pirates it serves two purposes for these people that don't pay their own way: It makes it easier to ship their indentured servants and piles of bullion to those islands, which will soon be uncovered as the ice melts!

[Yonivore]

No, Yoni.

The U.S. is actively REDUCING the number of Pirates; thus INCREASING the instance of Global Warming (it is a reverse correlation).

Ooops! My bad, I never looked at the axis. Very deceptive, Scott! Kind of like the "hockey stick" graph, the statistically insignificant data sets graphs, etc...

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...uh, well, mmmm, you just can't fool me again.

Big oil, the Repugs and the Religious Right are, no doubt, behind this.

I saw an NBADan post that indicated that the reason for the whole thing is some rich Republican Donors have bought up a bunch of Islands buried beneath both polar ice caps.

By reducing pirates it serves two purposes for these people that don't pay their own way: It makes it easier to ship their indentured servants and piles of bullion to those islands, which will soon be uncovered as the ice melts!

Makes sense. Yes, all of it makes sense now.

[Yonivore]

bump

[101A]

The silence is deafening!!!

Come on, bring us some consensus!

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::

Good Video on Global Warming

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

[101A]

:::bump:::

Good Video on Global Warming

There's also a Part II, III, and IV.

From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

Since Yoni apparantly isn't here:

bump

[Yonivore]

Looks to me like a few good volcanic eruptions could fix this whole global warming thing, pronto!

[xrayzebra]

Along about January we will be wanting some of that global
warming.

[boutons_]

From the mid-19th century, when the above graph shows ramping up through 57F, the industrialization, buring coal and oil and wood, plus industrial farming (animal farts) has been pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air.

So what is cause(s)? a few eruptions? or human activity? or something else? we know atmospheric pollution from human activity has been monotonically increasing, as has the temperature, the basis of why non-politicized, uncorrupted scientists are convinced humans are causing the warming.

[inconvertible]

500,000,000 years from now the sun is going to swallow the earth, how green do we have to get to prevent it?

[Yonivore]

And, another nail in the anthropogenic global climate change alarmist's coffins.

Advocates of anthropogenic global warming ::cough::Algore::cough:: want you to believe that the science is settled and there is nothing left to debate. But this is the opposite of the truth; in fact, climate science is in its infancy and virtually every proposition relating to it is controversial.

A case in point: the computer programs that tell us that human activity will lead to catastrophic warming assume that warmer temperatures will give rise to more high-al ude clouds, which in turn will trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and create a positive feedback loop. Recent research suggests, however, that increasing temperatures will have the opposite effect, reducing the incidence of high-al ude clouds and thereby creating a safety valve rather than reinforcing the original warming. The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy and Justin Hnilo (Sorry George "Dont With Me" Gervin's Afro, no link available):

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high al ude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

As the Earth's surface warms - due to either manmade greenhouse gases or natural fluctuations in the climate system - more water evaporates from the surface. Since more evaporation leads to more precipitation, most climate researchers expected increased cirrus cloudiness to follow warming.

"To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming."

"The role of clouds in global warming is widely agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."

The team analyzed six years of data from four instruments aboard three NASA and NOAA satellites. The researchers tracked precipitation amounts, air and sea surface temperatures, high and low al ude cloud cover, reflected sunlight, and infrared energy escaping out to space.

When they tracked the daily evolution of a composite of fifteen of the strongest intraseasonal oscillations they found that although rainfall and air temperatures would be rising, the amount of infrared energy being trapped by the cloudy areas would start to decrease rapidly as the air warmed. This unexpected behavior was traced to the decrease in cirrus cloud cover.

"Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall," Spencer said. "Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high al ude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise ..."

There are significant gaps in the scientific understanding of precipitation systems and their interactions with the climate, he said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.

"Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty."

That's a remarkable quote: "Everyone just assumed" that more rainfall means more high al ude clouds. That is the level of scientific certainty on which claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming rest.

[Mr. Peabody]

And, another nail in the anthropogenic global climate change alarmist's coffins.

Advocates of anthropogenic global warming ::cough::Algore::cough:: want you to believe that the science is settled and there is nothing left to debate. But this is the opposite of the truth; in fact, climate science is in its infancy and virtually every proposition relating to it is controversial.

A case in point: the computer programs that tell us that human activity will lead to catastrophic warming assume that warmer temperatures will give rise to more high-al ude clouds, which in turn will trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and create a positive feedback loop. Recent research suggests, however, that increasing temperatures will have the opposite effect, reducing the incidence of high-al ude clouds and thereby creating a safety valve rather than reinforcing the original warming. The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy and Justin Hnilo (Sorry George "Dont With Me" Gervin's Afro, no link available):


That's a remarkable quote: "Everyone just assumed" that more rainfall means more high al ude clouds. That is the level of scientific certainty on which claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming rest.

This NASA study already took the Iris Effect into account --

NASA SATELLITE INSTRUMENT WARMS UP GLOBAL COOLING THEORY

Measurements from a NASA Langley Research Center satellite instrument dispute a recent theory that proposes that clouds in the Tropics might cool the Earth and counteract predictions of global warming. The Langley instrument indicates these clouds would instead slightly strengthen the greenhouse effect to warm the Earth.

Scientists at NASA Langley in Hampton, Va., used observations from an instrument called CERES (Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System) on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite to test the Iris effect?the proposed cooling mechanism.

"The Iris effect is a very interesting but controversial idea for how clouds might act to stabilize the climate system. If correct, it would be welcome news for concerns over future climate change," said Bruce Wielicki, CERES principal investigator at NASA Langley. "We tested the Iris hypothesis by looking down at these clouds using the latest generation of satellite data in the Tropics and found the opposite answer. If anything, these clouds appear to slightly destabilize climate."

According to the Iris effect, the climatically important canopy of clouds in the Tropics decreases as climate warms. As its size shrinks, so does the area of ocean and land covered by the canopy. With more of the Earth's surface and atmosphere free from heat-trapping clouds, more emitted thermal energy (or heat) can escape to space and, according to the theory, cool the Earth.

While a smaller cloud canopy could allow more heat to leave the Earth, it also means more sunlight could reach the surface. In the battle between the cooling of escaping heat and the warming of incoming sunlight, cloud properties determine which one will have a stronger effect on climate. CERES provides the most accurate measurements ever of how much heat clouds trap and how much sunlight they reflect.

"We used the cloud observations from CERES, placed them inside the Iris climate model and found a slightly destabilizing effect of these clouds," said Wielicki. "The result is that the Iris effect slightly warms the Earth instead of strongly cooling it."

"A recent study by Dennis Hartmann at the University of Washington has seriously challenged whether the Iris decrease in cloud canopy would occur in a warmer climate," Wielicki adds. "Our study takes the next step and shows that, even if the Iris effect decreases the cloud canopy, the resulting change in the planetary energy balance would not act to stabilize the climate system."

Bing Lin, a NASA Langley researcher and CERES team member, will present the paper on this research during Session 10 of the 13th Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations at the American Meteorological Society annual meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 16, at 1:45 p.m. The Journal of Climate published this paper in the January 1, 2002, issue.

Designed and managed by NASA Langley, there are CERES instruments aboard the TRMM and Terra satellites. The CERES instruments were built by the TRW Corp., Redondo Beach, Calif.

The Iris hypothesis was published by Richard Lindzen and co-authors in the March 2001 issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

[Mr. Peabody]

The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy and Justin Hnilo (Sorry George "Dont With Me" Gervin's Afro, no link available):

I know the PowerLine Blog post you copied didn't have the link available, but here is a link to the abstract on the paper.

Link

[Mr. Peabody]

The silence is deafening!!!

Come on, bring us some consensus!

Evidently the Bush EPA believes there is some consensus --

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-do ented and understood.

* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.


What's Very Likely?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

[Yonivore]

I know the PowerLine Blog post you copied didn't have the link available, but here is a link to the abstract on the paper.

Link

Thanks Peabody.

[Yonivore]

Evidently the Bush EPA believes there is some consensus --

More bureaucrats. I think it's an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phenomenon. As the science becomes more definitive, the politicians will begin to back away.

[smeagol]

Who care if the Earth is heating. We can all move to Alaska and sew the land.

[Yonivore]

Who care if the Earth is heating. We can all move to Alaska and sew the land.

That's the spirit.

[Yonivore]

NASA and university scientists have determined that reversals in Arctic Ocean circulation, which is caused by atmospheric circulation changes, vary by the decades. "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

Not to get too scientific on you, the pattern of circulation in the Arctic affected the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, which decreased its weight (specific gravity) and changed its circulation. But this is a naturally occurring change. "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."

According to the report, it is too early to say but the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to its counterclockwise circulation pattern .. but change back it will, and then back the other way ... and so forth. I wonder what OwlGore will be saying when that happens.

[boutons_]

... except that when most/all the millenially Arctic/Greeland ancient ice is melted, talk about decadal differences will be, is, meaningless. Yoni is ridiculous.

[xrayzebra]

... except that when most/all the millenially Arctic/Greeland ancient ice is melted, talk about decadal differences will be, is, meaningless. Yoni is ridiculous.

When is this all suppose occur. Not in my lifetime or yours
or your kids lifetime. All these global warming people
will only tell you that it is a crisis and must be addressed
now. Including you boutons. Science my foot. There
are some either side of the issue. I choose the one where
man has little difference to earth. Except in localized
cases. Like burning leaves in your yard and the folks
next door get the smoke.

[Walter Craparita]

500,000,000 years from now the sun is going to swallow the earth, how green do we have to get to prevent it?

That wouldn't be a problem if Bush hadn't assassinated Captain Planet.

[Yonivore]

Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?

Wow! Who woulda thunkit?

[boutons_]

Compounding natural warming cycles with inustrially/agriculturally produced gases over the last 150 years is a great idea.

Natural warming/cooling cycles are, duh, cyclic, while human activities are monotonically increasing, even accelerating as India and China add their to advanced countries' .