Global Warming

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio ... they have been, over 100 years, I.E. before this MMGW hooey. I.E. it's not GW.

Still waiting to hear, are the glaciers growing or shrinking?? Or do you, as it appears, just pick the link that happens to support your personal view at the time you make your claims??

[Mr.Vicchio]

Shrinking ont he edges, growing int eh middle, 705 are Galloping (not the 20 reported before) do you know what a galloping Glacier is?

[xyzer]

I would be willing to posit that glaciers have been shrinking since the end of the Ice Age some 10,000 years ago zee? Obviously climate is variable and some periods in that long span, since ice commanded even much of what is now the USA have varied.. That geologic epoch has seen glacier retreats as well as advances. The records tell us so!

Add to that the fact that these variable periods of climate change over many thousands of years were not accompanied by anthropogenic influences,,(that bugaboo.. increased CO2), and we have to rely on inferences from correlations? I think we have reasons to be skeptical of the probability of humans reducing their use of fossil fuel having much of an effect on this current warming trend.. And I think the economic costs of such a venture, particularly in the developing countries, would outweigh any likelihood of success, whatever we call success? I would opt for adaptation. If the water starts lapping at Wall Street, move it,.shore up the bulkheads, etc. adapt using the technology and economic wealth we have.

I shall now step down off my soap box and go burn some carbon.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I would be willing to posit that glaciers have been shrinking since the end of the Ice Age some 10,000 years ago zee? Obviously climate is variable and some periods in that long span, since ice commanded even much of what is now the USA have varied.. That geologic epoch has seen glacier retreats as well as advances. The records tell us so! Add to that the fact that these variable periods of climate change over many thousands of years were not accompanied by anthropogenic influences,,(that bugaboo.. increased CO2), and we have to rely on inferences from correlations? I think we have reasons to be skeptical of the probability of humans reducing their use of fossil fuel having much of an effect on this current warming trend.. And I think the economic costs of such a venture, particularly in the developing countries, would outweigh any likelihood of success, whatever we call success? I would opt for adaptation. If the water starts lapping at Wall Street, move it,.shore up the bulkheads, etc. adapt using the technology and economic wealth we have. I shall now step down off my soap box and go burn some carbon.

One of the predicted outcomes of Global warming is increased raining for certain areas (and decreased for some), you only have to look at the UK this summer and see how much a little bit extra of precipitation can cause significant damage (flood damage is estimated at cost of billions to repair and compensate). The question is, are you feeling lucky?

[johnny125]

That all is so f***ed up. I never know what will bring another day sun, snow or maybe tornado.

[billybobama]

Quote by: kubedawg Have you considered the Earth's mass completely and a possible way of it healing itself as one big organism? We surely don't know what's @ the center, nor have we gotten past the crust so it's impossible to tell that Global Warming even exists, although it's a decent theory.

I agree with you. I think the Earth is trying to heal itself by eliminating human beings.

[xyzer]

Good question billybob...

I agree with you. I think the Earth is trying to heal itself by eliminating human beings

Come to think about it there is an element of "Darwinist" thinking in the puzzle? So called survival of liviing species. Natural changes in the environment can and do eliminate species unless they can adapt. It is rare that rational humans intentionally do away with themselves?

Does our use of carbon fuels represent a deliberate attempt by humans to eliminate themselves?

[rmnunez]

This is a nice little summary of the CO2 issue from "Real Climate." It does not lay the controversy to rest but is one more step in providing context, which I found helpful: RealClimate

[xyzer]

Agree rm! Interesting, though from what I read it doesn't equate the minimal(in comparison) amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere, nor does it determine, or explore, what causes cloud formation(cosmic activity) which may vary due to the suns intensity and changing magnetic effects?

[xyzer]

Here is a fairly new summary of some fuel for the 'deniers' to crow about..
It covers Professor Gores doom scenarion about the glaciers melting in Grrnland and his supporter Senator Boxer..

Science and Public Policy Institute - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

Plus it erodes pooeys suggestion that what we've been exposed to on the CO2influence is overblown and actually refuted by other scientists and studies?

A few tidbits adding to the growing doubt?

The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990’s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].”

Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of University of Virginia and the Virginia State climatologist wrote the scenario promoted by former Vice President Al Gore and others showing Greenland’s ice melting and raising sea levels by 20 feet is not supported anywhere in scientific literature, not even by the United Nations.

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania rejected fears of a catastrophic 20 foot sea level rise. “At the present rate of sea-level rise it’s going to take 3,500 years to get up there (to a rise of 20 feet) So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming," Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. (LINK)

And the beat goes on!!!!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Agree rm! Interesting, though from what I read it doesn't equate the minimal(in comparison) amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere, nor does it determine, or explore, what causes cloud formation(cosmic activity) which may vary due to the suns intensity and changing magnetic effects?

There has been no link between solar activity (including cosmic rays) and the last few decade's rise in temperature.
But I have already told you before and I doubt this will convince you (after all, it's being presented by an economist who we all know are more authoritative on science matters than say, the scientists!).

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a fairly new summary of some fuel for the 'deniers' to crow about.. It covers Professor Gores doom scenarion about the glaciers melting in Grrnland and his supporter Senator Boxer.. Science and Public Policy Institute - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt Plus it erodes pooeys suggestion that what we've been exposed to on the CO2influence is overblown and actually refuted by other scientists and studies? A few tidbits adding to the growing doubt? And the beat goes on!!!!

Why do you keep bringing up Al Gore when I've already said that his documentary is a Michael Moore style job? I have never cited material from Al Gore and nor do have I ever said anything but huge sea level rises et cetera. However, allow me to cite some of their bullshit from that site

New data is revealing what may perhaps be the ultimate inconvenient truth for climate doomsayers: Global warming stopped in 1998. Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik Svensmark of the 2007 book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,” explained in July 2007

Except the warming didn't really stop at 1998 and has been explained of why some may think like that. But I doubt you'll read that and look forward to the next time that it may be cited.

[xyzer]

Pooey...Whats the beef? I posted the reference to refute the Gore myths that Greenland Ice Cap was melting rapidly! You obviously didn't read it? Because you are so locked into the warming dogma that you reject contra evidence? Evidence that the public is being alarmed by demagogues like Gore!

Anyway if you had taken time to peruse the site you would have seen this..

In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty – of battling away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.”

and

Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." (LINK)

[Mr.Vicchio]

Al Gore is the face of the Progressive Global Warming Movement. Like it or not Pooey, that's how it is. I His movie might be a Michael Moore type film, but it's also being pushed on Elementary and High school students as facts.

By people that swallow the GW theory.

[xyzer]

I had to break off my last post Pooey...but to continue..
Here is another article(admittedly not by a scientist) by a correspondent who questions the logic of some of the arguments of global warming believers? You have made similar accusations in your past posts..
Townhall.com:aralyzing Fog of Uncertainty on Climate::By Debra J. Saunders
arguments that the oil companies are paying off some of the so called deniers of the CO2 influence on climate? The author points out the income sources of both pro and con contributers? It takes money to do research and Kerry/Heinz is a good source too?

The science doesn't follow the money, the money follows the scientist. If you're a researcher on either side of the issue, eventually you'll get money from that side -- or be unemployed.

Global warming guru James Hansen, a NASA scientist, received $250,000 from a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. Hansen endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. But I wouldn't dream of suggesting Hansen was bought.

[xyzer]

I'm chuckling over the site you refeference pooey?

Except the warming didn't really stop at 1998 and has been explained of why some may think like that. But I doubt you'll read that and look forward to the next time that it may be cited.

The author and his argument fall right into the logical trap? The chart on Holocene Temperature Variations explodes the myth. The temperature variations over the thousands of years have varied dramtically. Some epochs have shown greater warming. Even a thousand years back it was warmer. The author talks about 'cherry picking' data and then in the geological sense cherry picks the current data?

By the way I read that 1998 wasn't as warm as 1934?

Don't the charts indicate that well before the influence of we humans there were dramatic variations in the earths temperatures?

[Mr.Vicchio]

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. That was not what he expected to find. "All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude 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." The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

UAH News: Your Official UAH News Source

There we go.

"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." Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to be controversial. "I know some climate modelers will say that these results are interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global warming," he said. "But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right before we rely on their long term projections."

[Mr.Vicchio]

Black carbon, or soot, is created primarily by either natural sources such as forest fires, or man-made sources, such as industrial pollution caused by burning fossil fuels like coal. Ice core samples taken from Greenland show that between 1880 and the 1950s, the amount of soot that feel on Greenland's glaciers and ice sheets dramatically increased. During this time, the amount of soot from industrial pollution was seven times greater than the amount of soot from forest fires. New research shows that most of this industrial soot came from North America, and was moved by wind patterns into Greenland. When soot gathers on snow and ice, it reduces the amount of sunlight the frozen surfaces can reflect, causing them to absorb more of the energy from the sun. This causes ice and snow to melt faster, which exposes rocks, dirt and sea ice that absorbs even more sunlight. New research shows this process lead to increased temperatures in Greenland during this time of increased man-made soot. Credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation Scientists from the Desert Research Institute (DRI) and their collaborators have determined that Northern Hemisphere industrial pollution resulted in a seven-fold increase in black carbon (soot) in Arctic snow during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, according to new research into the impact of black carbon on Arctic climate forcing.

Arctic climate study reveals impact of industrial soot

More insight into "global warming!"

I'm loving this stuff this week.

[xyzer]

For those with the time and inclination to read more on the subject of how the case for global warming is presented..try thisScience and Public Policy Institute - “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over

It seems there is not consensus and that angle is being abused by the yay sayers?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey...Whats the beef? I posted the reference to refute the Gore myths that Greenland Ice Cap was melting rapidly! You obviously didn't read it? Because you are so locked into the warming dogma that you reject contra evidence? Evidence that the public is being alarmed by demagogues like Gore!

My beef is that you're making it out as if I am an acolyte of Al Gore when I've stated time and time again that I have not seen his film and nor will I bother. I will get my science from a scientist and NOT a politician. [QUOTE=xyzer;418520]Anyway if you had taken time to peruse the site you would have seen this..

In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty – of battling away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.”

Just because you can repeat lies, it doesn't make them a fact. 1998 was exceptionally warm because of the El Nino factor, if you take that into account then the warming is still going on. Please read to reduce your embarrassment levels.
In addition, I have already cited the recent studies that show conclusively that the sun cannot be responsible for the past 2 decade's warming, but as you're a playing the usual general ignorance game, I'll bring it up again.

Quote by: xyzer and Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." (LINK)

Conveniently, their cited article for the quote is inaccessible so I'll have to address that at a different time.