Global Warming

[Chris]

I know its been quite a while since I was in this thread, and apologies if this has been brought up before, but I came across this:

graphic

Ethanol is not the way my friends.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chris I know its been quite a while since I was in this thread, and apologies if this has been brought up before, but I came across this: graphic Ethanol is not the way my friends.

I think that many have made that point already. And, combined with the previous post, there probably isn't a solution.

I think the real way to go would be thermonuclear war. Drastic reductions in human population combined with nuclear winter would definitely counteract the impacts of global warming.

The real question is, what is the price we are willing to pay to counteract this potential threat?

Is the threat real enough to start to actively reduce human populations?

Keith

[rmnunez]

Scientists have demonstrated that the warming of the last 150 years is not unprecedented or the least bit unusual in historical terms. In fact the record shows that similar or greater warming has taken place numerous times in the past, even before mankind came on the scene. If the cause of the warming is not natural this time, what caused it before?

Note on graph presentation: The heavier temperature lines 160,000 BP to present reflect more data points for this time period, not necessarily greater temperature variability. New Antarctic Ice Core Data

[Chris]

Nice ommission there Rmunez

How about looking at recent co2 levels here.

[rmnunez]

A closer look (from the same site):

This graph (Data 4) illustrates the most recent data set of actual air measurements. It shows how temperatures and CO2 concentrations have increased in recent times. A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. Recent research indicates that it is probably exponential. Or it may be that peak temperatures are more important than mean temperatures. In either of these cases the +2C threshold would be reached much sooner. New Ice Core Data: A Closer Look

[rmnunez]

Before the industrial revolution and the current allegedly elevated CO2 emissions, Greenland was warmer than it is now:

Radiocarbon dates of emergent organic remains along the western margin of Istorvet ice cap (70.8°N, 22.2°W) indicate a time when the ice cap was smaller than at present. This ice cap, similar to others in east Greenland, exhibits “historic” moraines ~1-2 km in front of the presently retreating ice margins. At Istorvet, ice margin retreat has exposed a thin (~8 cm) organic horizon and in situ plant remains in bedrock cracks lie less than 10 m away from the present ice margin (453 m asl in 2006). Clusters of multi-species vegetation also were found on two nuntaks (to 719 m asl) located ~3 km from the historic drift limit. All organic remains were located in protected bedrock lees. On the west side of the ice-cap, vegetation is sparse but present at elevations near the ice margin. Both the ice cap geometry and the presence of overrun organic remains indicate past temperatures at least as warm as those at present. At Istorvet plant remains yielded 12 number of radiocarbon dates. These ages, when converted to calendar years, range from A.D. 400 to 1014, with the largest concentration from A.D. 800 to 1014. This work hones the conclusion of Funder (1978) who reported general climate deterioration since 800 BC. Moreover, it indicates warm conditons at this latitude at the time of Norse colonization of Greenland. "C13A-04" in fm07

[xyzer]

Kieth mentions a potential threat to humankind? I'm not convinced that humans ( anthropogenicCO2) are the cause of climate change?
Science & Environmental Policy Project: Press Release Dec 10, 2007
I
So human solutions(other than adaptation ) appear useless and wasteful.

As this reference shows climate variations are naturally caused so all this posturing and alarm over human creation of CO2 are demagoguery.. We must adapt to climate change. And we must remember that geological.global change is very slow in human terms. This gives us time to use and develop technology that will prolong our survival.

Press Release from Science & Environmental Policy Project 10 December 2007 Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744 Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia). The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly. posted by Fred Singer @ 11:36 AM

[Century 25]

Quote by: J-G-H-Y So I herd u liek AlGorez

It is always easiest to shoot the messenger..

[rmnunez]

Senate report on Infohe's website - 400 scientists speak against climate change. .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

It seems like a big deal until you read the actual comments. Then you find that some scientists thing AGW is a fiction and some think it well established but the projections are exaggerated, by the IPCC - or by the press. A scientific study would not allow such obvious internal contradictions. The report may serve to emphasise scientific skepticism of AGW, but it also demonstrates that there is no coherent alternative theory amongst critics.

Czech-born US climatologist Dr. George Kukla:

"Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural"

B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India

"There is some evidence to show that our planet Earth is becoming warmer and that human action is probably partly responsible, especially in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions. What is in doubt, however, is whether the steps that are proposed to be taken to reduce carbon emission will really bring down the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and whether such attempts, even carried out on a global scale, will produce the desired effect."

Two of the scientists from the report's list who accept AGW, but question the projections of the IPCC (or the media). There are more. So, you have some scientists who think CO2 increase does raise temps, and some who don't. The document raises doubts, contradictory doubts, but does not answer them.

Particle Physicist Jasper Kirkby, a research scientist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, believes his research will reveal that the sun and cosmic rays are a "part of the climate-change cocktail." Kirkby runs a CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) project that examines how the sun and cosmic rays impact clouds and subsequently the climate. In a February 23, 2007 Canadian National Post article, CERN asserted,
"Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth's energy balance, and changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate." According to the National Post article, "Dr. Kirkby has assembled a dream team of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists from 18 institutes around the world, including the California Institute of Technology and Germany's Max-Planck Institutes, with preliminary data expected to arrive this coming summer. The world of particle physics is awaiting these results with much anticipation because they promise to unlock mysteries that can tell us much about climate change, as well as other phenomena." Kirkby once said his research into the sun and cosmic rays "will probably account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."

Friis-Christensen does not insist that his proposed cosmic ray effect is the only force for global climate change. "I cannot claim that our ideas disprove the greenhouse theory," he says. "Both mechanisms may work together. Greenhouse gases could have played a significant role." Kirkby agrees: "There is certainly a greenhouse effect," he says. "The question is whether it is responsible for all the 0.6 °C warming in the past century, or two-thirds or a fifth —or what?" Article Error - New Scientist Environment

I googled David Evans because I had seen his name in my wanderings (he has taken up a bet on climate change). Didn't take long to find this;

I'm not throwing out 100 years of solid science that indicates that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. I acknowledge it, and agree that the extra carbon causes some warming. But, I question the models that say that the extra carbon causes a particular amount of warming. James' Empty Blog: Why David Evans is wrong (along with all the other sceptics)

The purpose of the report is not to provide a balanced view of these scientists POV, or of the science, but to arrange every criticism they've uttered congruent with being anti-IPCC and anti-AGW into one handy document in order to 'balance' the political discourse with selected dissenting quotes. Many of those cited are not climate scientists.

Some of the scientists do not think the IPCC is "bunk", but offer nuances on certain components. Reading the quotes, some are elementarily wrong. (I noticed that many of the criticisms offered by the scientists were on matters outside their expertise) Common among them was 'climatologists ignore water vapour', 'climatologists ignore solar variability', 'what about the mid-century cooling' and other familiar criticisms. Those former, at least, are patently and demonstrably wrong. All one has to do is look up the sections in the IPCC dedicated to water vapour and solar variability. Other criticisms touched fairly on points of uncertainty - clouds, aerosols etc. Objective, substantiated criticism is welcome, of course, but that is not what that report is about.

There are at least 20 000 climate scientists world wide (that might be just the US figure, actually - can't remember). This report, then, reflects the opinions of less than 2% of the climate science community and exaggerates or distorts at least some of them.

[Century 25]

mnunez, that is nonsense. Climatologists take all of the past data on cyclic climate variability's into the equation. They use Cray Supercomputers: Supercomputer to power climate change study (Jan. 10, 2007) and there is irrefutable data.

Even Korea is an aware & advanced entity: Korea Meteorological Administration's new Cray X1e supercomputer is world's fastest weather prediction system

[Century 25]

Quote by: Chris I know its been quite a while since I was in this thread, and apologies if this has been brought up before, but I came across this: graphic Ethanol is not the way my friends.

Yes, I agree. Try something like this: Aptera Electric Typ-1 e - Video Test Drive - First Look Details and Slideshow - 300 MPG - Popular Mechanics

The "solution" to global warming is not difficult.. it is accomplished using many small steps.. like using natural daylight.. and CF ( Compact Fluorescents - BulbAmerica.com ) it's merely living logically. Buildings should be (and should long since have) designed to provide natural lighting and use artificial only as an adjunct.

Overpopulation is always a major concern/issue. Just imagine a world with about 4 billion less consumers.. I say quality over quantity.


.

[Foxfyre]

For a bit of change of pace, I thought you guys might enjoy taking this little 10-question test. (I admit I missed one and scored a pitiful 90%):

The Global Warming Test

[EnragedParrot]

I got 100%, even though the test didn't think so.

I was dismayed with some of the misleading questions. For example, question 3 asks,

"The main cause of Global Warming is:

a) pollution from factories and automobiles
b) orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output
c) the Greenhouse Effect"

Which global warming? The current trend is almost certainly caused by increases in greenhouse gases from human activities (not an option), but past warmings had nothing to do with humans whatsoever. So I can't choose option a) unless they specify the current warming, and I can't choose option b) unless they specify past warmings.

But OK, I'll admit I enjoyed taking it. It even made me giggle a little.

[xyzer]

I think the test maker has been reading my posts Naturally I did well on answering my answers!

[rmnunez]

I got 2 wrong: the second and the last question.

[xyzer]

The real value of the test site is in the explanations that support each question. There is a fountain of fact there. I suggest Al Gore read it, you too Parrot.! Though I'm not holding my breath. Good find Foxfyre

[rmnunez]

No, the test is aimed at bluntly disputing a lot of the 'hot air' in the global warming scare and it works at a rather simple level. For example, we do depend on some "greenhouse" effect to survive and CO2 is necessary for plants, but the global warming scare is more about excessive greenhouse effects due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Simple online forumites like me, without doctorates in climatology have had discussions at a deeper level on the level of CO2 and its impact than are covered in this silly test.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre For a bit of change of pace, I thought you guys might enjoy taking this little 10-question test. (I admit I missed one and scored a pitiful 90%): The Global Warming Test

Quote by: EnragedParrot I got 100%, even though the test didn't think so. I was dismayed with some of the misleading questions. For example, question 3 asks,

And so you should be dismayed, Parrot. Yep, a lovely test, Foxfyre. Once I figured out their agenda, it was easy to get 100% correct. Their argument is based on a bunch of old non-sequitors, innuendos and some outright bullsh!t.

1. Yep, global warming is real... they'll concede to the obvious to set us up.

2. Again, conceding to the obvious. We're thinking, okay, this sounds reasonable....

3. Oops, here we go... utter hogwash. Scientists have looked thoroughly at sun spots, various solar cycles and orbital anomolies and, sorry, they do NOT account for the current warming.

4. A non-sequitor.... yes, water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas. So frigging what? Changes in the percentage of CO2 are still responsible for the current warming... AS PREDICTED. Alas, warming temperatures also create MORE WATER VAPOR, creating yet another feedback loop that accelerates global warming.

5. Same thing. So what? In global, geological terms, a 1 degree increase -- and the continuing, accelerating increase -- is very significant, no matter how insignificant deniers would like to make it appear to the layman.

6. And yet again, a non-sequitor. It doesn't matter how insignificant 1/10th of 1% may seem to the uneducated layman, it's all that's necessary to create global warming.

7. A red herring... misdirection. No one is claiming CO2 is bad for forests. In fact, forests LOVE CO2. Again, so what... it's the temperature rise due to greenhouse gases that's going to affect forests, not atmospheric CO2 levels. And the affect we're seeing RIGHT NOW is a dramatic increase in forest fires.

8. Innuendo. Yes, the 'Little Ice Age' was part of a natural Ice Age fluctuation that's been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. But, based on that natural fluction, the Little Ice Age should have been the beginning of a long, 25 thousand year decrease in temperatures, exactly as we've seen on everyone's charts...



...EXCEPT, that within the last 200 years temperatures have swung DRAMATICALLY upwards, and the ONLY thing that explains it is the explosion of man-made greenhouse gases.

9. Misleading and quite false. 10 years ago the overwhelming consensus was, ok, global warming is happening, but we're not sure why. 5 years ago the consensus is that global warming is happening and we're the cause of it, but we're not sure that drastic action has to be taken right now. Today, the OVERWHELMING consensus is that global warming is real, we caused it, it's happening faster than predicted and action has to be taken RIGHT NOW!

Nobel-Winning Climate Panel Calls for Urgent Action



As always, Fyrefox, your disingenuous deniers club sleight of hand is full of crap.

.

[Chris]

I came across this:

I am sure this is mirrored throughout the world:

NOAA

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT TNZ005>011-022>034-056>066-075-077>080-093>095-020000- SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NASHVILLE TN 900 AM CST TUE JAN 1 2008 ...2007 IS THE 2ND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD IN NASHVILLE AND THE 9TH DRIEST... THE TEMPERATURE IN NASHVILLE FOR 2007 AVERAGED 62.3 DEGREES... MAKING IT THE 2ND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. THE TEMPERATURE WAS 3.4 DEGREES ABOVE NORMAL...AND JUST TWO TENTHS OF ONE DEGREE SHY OF THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD...WHICH WAS BACK IN 1921 WHEN THE TEMPERATURE AVERAGED 62.5 DEGREES. THIS WAS THE 4TH CONSECUTIVE YEAR WITH ABOVE NORMAL TEMPERATURES IN NASHVILLE. THE NORMAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE IN NASHVILLE IS 58.9 DEGREES. NASHVILLE HAD ITS 9TH DRIEST YEAR ON RECORD IN 2007 AND THE DRIEST SINCE 1988. RAINFALL TOTALED 35.66 INCHES WHICH IS 74 PERCENT OF THE 30 YEAR NORMAL ANNUAL RAINFALL OF 48.11 INCHES.

[xyzer]

Sonart you are again a bit behind the curve! What global warming? The last decade has seen a leveling off of global temperatures while Anthropogenic CO2 in steadily increasing?(a logical anomaly if as you do, we blame warming on humans increasing their use of enery?)

Here is an article by a climate expert that points out the problem?
New Statesman

The author is..

David Whitehose was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is "Whitehouse is terrific.

An indication he knows more of what cdrives climate than Al gore.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

Actual measurements disprove computer predictions? Wonder why? Could it be there are other climate influences that are involved? Could it just be that the computer models don't include all the salient influencers of climate?

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

By the way Chris citing weather in Nashville does not have any relationship to global temperatures??????? Does it?????