Global Warming

[Sonart]

.

LOLOLOL!!! Rightee-O, Xyzer... an objective look at Global Warming, sponsored by the Heartland Institute!!!

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

"The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say--over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. But they have lost the debate. Skeptics are the winners of EVERY scientific debate, always, everywhere. Because skepticism, as T.H. Huxley said, is the highest calling of a true scientist."

And co-sponsored by such paragons of Scientific objectivity as: {drumroll}...

Americans for Tax Reform -- "Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is ostensibly a group that pushes for lower taxes. It has close ties to the Republican Party and has frequently allied itself with the tobacco industry."

Business & Media Institute -- "The Business & Media Institute (BMI) was founded in 1992 as the Free Market Project by the conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center. BMI describes itself as an organization "devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media."

Cascade Policy Institute -- "Cascade Policy Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan Libertarian public policy research organization based in Portland, Oregon that focuses on state and local issues. The institute, founded in January 1991, seeks to "explore and advance public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity". Although not aligned with any political party, the institute advocates policies that promote free markets and limited government."

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise -- Heck, you folks can figure this one out.

Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy -- "The Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy was founded by Mark E. Mathis, its executive director, a former TV anchor, a radio talk show host and a consultant to the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico. A disclosure statement with an opinion column stated that "Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy is funded by more than 250 members including New Mexico oil and gas producers." [1]

In March 2006 Mathis was a co-signatory on a letter, initiated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in support of an expansion of oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge."

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow -- "The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) was founded in 1985. It does policy and lobbying work on the environment from a libertarian perspective. It touts itself as a conservative answer to the Public Interest Research Groups (e.g. NYPIRG, ConnPIRG et al.), progressive lobbying groups concerned with environmental issues."

[b]Competitive Enterprise Institute[/B] -- "It postures as an advocate of "sound science" in the development of public policy. However, CEI projects dispute the overwhelimng scientific evidence that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change. They have a program for "challenging government regulations", push property rights as a solution to environment problems, opposed US vehicle fuel efficiency standards and been a booster for the drug industry."

Frontiers of Freedom Institute -- "According to the organization's web site, "Frontiers of Freedom is a cutting-edge, forward-looking policy group advancing center-right principles in today's fast-paced news and information age. We work with grassroots activists throughout the country to protect private property rights, secure our national security, and promote sensible public policies critical to our country's liberty."

George C. Marshall Institute -- "The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The think tank's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment."

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."

etc.

etc.

etc.

You get the picture.



If I might cut & paste a post on a recently deceased thread...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Since then, however, the scientific consensus that global warming is real, that we caused it and that it's happening faster than predicted, has become SO overwhelming that even the mainstream media can't deny it.

Alas, that leaves poor schmucks like Xyzer caught in what I call the crossroads of dogmatic ideology, morality and reality. I compare it to religious conservatives and the issue of homosexuality. For centuries, religious conservatives, because of their dogmatic ideology, felt free to condemn homosexuals as immoral. Which, of course, was irrefutable because religious conservatives had taken upon themselves the mantel of arbitors of what is and isn't moral.

Over time, however, REALITY has since determined that homosexuality is a condition that individuals are born with, out of no choice of their own, and, further, it's a condition that harms no one. Well, by their own ideology, condemning someone for a harmless physical condition over which they had no choice would not only be cruel, it would be immoral.

Can't have that, since that would make their dogmatic ideology itself immoral and that's impossible. The only solution? Reality is wrong, homosexuality isn't a condition, it's a choice, and therefore, can remain immoral!

Same with global warming. Based on conservative, free-market dogmatic ideology, government regulation of the free-market isn't just wrong, it's downright immoral!!! Along comes the REALITY of global warming, a massive threat to life on earth as we know it. It would be downright IMMORAL not to take steps to stop or slow climate change, but that would mean requiring the Free Market to change the way it does business, and if they refuse, compelling change through government regulation, and, based on dogmatic ideology, that would ALSO be immoral.

Dang! Can't have that, so the only way to maintain the moral superiority of dogmatic ideology is simple... Global Warming isn't happening. Problem solved.



.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre I'm just wondering how the AGW religionists are going to save face when their projections continue to prove to be terribly flawed.

Well I'm certain I just don't know, Foxfyre. Yet despite the best efforts of such paragons of unbiased reporting as FAUX News, actual scientific study continues to confirm the reality of global warming...

National Academy of Sciences -- "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WGI) scientific report, but seeks here to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments and the caveats that need to be attached to them." -- 2008

"The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." --

The American Meteorological Society -- "Carbon cycle models agree that even after the ocean and land have taken their fill of fossil fuel CO2, between 15 and 30%, will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Many of the most profound changes in Earth's climate will take place on these long time scales, such as the melting of ice sheets, permafrost soils, and methane hydrates in the ocean. Sea level in the past has changed by 5 to 20 meters for each degree C change in Earth's temperature. These results imply that the long-term change in sea level from fossil fuels could be 100 times worse than the forecast for the year 2100." -- January, 2008

American Geophysical Union -- ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2008) — "A statement released on January 24 by the world's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists--the American Geophysical Union, or AGU--updates the organization's position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it."

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956--2006.

As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate."

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- "Given what we know about the ability of greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's surface, it is reasonable to expect that as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise above natural levels, the Earth's surface will become increasingly warm. Many scientists have now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind's input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In case you didn't recognize the difference, these are SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH organizations, not free-market policy think tanks. There's a difference.



.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Sonart . LOLOLOL!!! Rightee-O, Xyzer... an objective look at Global Warming, sponsored by the Heartland Institute!!! "..Same with global warming. Based on conservative, free-market dogmatic ideology, government regulation of the free-market isn't just wrong, it's downright immoral!!! Along comes the REALITY of global warming, a massive threat to life on earth as we know it. It would be downright IMMORAL not to take steps to stop or slow climate change, but that would mean requiring the Free Market to change the way it does business, and if they refuse, compelling change through government regulation, and, based on dogmatic ideology, that would ALSO be immoral." Dang! Can't have that, so the only way to maintain the moral superiority of dogmatic ideology is simple... Global Warming isn't happening. Problem solved. [/b] .

Ya nailed it Sonart..!!!

http://members.fortunecity.com/degur...0in%20sand.jpg

Long live ignorance.. praise be GW Bush.. LLC

.

[xyzer]

Thats it! Thats good logic! Attack the messengers. Find fault with those who question your poition. Attempt to overlay facts with disdain and derision! Don't use logic just grab whatever study is available and believe it.
Avoid at all costs the fact that inspite of an continuing increase in anthropogenic gases the last decade has not seen any appreciable warming? Answer it if you can without attacking those who have measured it? Explain this anomaly if you can. Open you minds to the fact that some greater influencing force is the culpritT The Sun...whose wavering brilliance humans can't control who cant be placed as a constant in predictive models?Can you tell us what measures of solar brilliance are coming in the future? The number of sunspots that will be seen next year?

If you can manage it after ROFL explain why you keep mixing a warming trend during the last century with anthropogenic causes of warming? Inspite of you assertion century we who question the importance of human contributions accept the fact that warming did occur after the cooler 1960/70s we just wonder why it gets cooler as all the while human caused CO2 is increasing?
While your at it answer if you can why the studies you keep using have conclusions couched in probability...use words like "could", "most likely' and such as indicators of scientific certainty?

Propose solutions to imagined problems that resonate with ridiculousness. Carbon Credits? Increased gas mileage restrictions? Higher energy prices?
Ignore less costly solutions like increasing nuclear power plants so that that clean energy can cover more that 20% of our needs? And of course opening up available sources of oil and gas? Wouldn't it be profitable to build another 103 nuclear plants and double that 20%?
Dont worry about restrictions that will affect your standard of living and those of the third world.countries. Avoid the fact that clean burning coal technology may insure we can use the virtuaslly unlimited supply of coal?
Quite frankly I wonder if you proponents aren't like sheep being driven by the demagogues and contrivers of faulty climate models that predict only what they want them to predict? Why, you ask? Because the sun (our major warmer) is not predictable and changes in intensity.Is a model realistic without using its influence? Why else have we had long epochs of ice?..They happend well before humans ever inhabited the earth and climate has also warmed well befor humans inhabited the earth?
All living things are here because of energy. Plants photosynthesize sun energy storing it as carbon molecules. Animals eat that stored energy. We humans have also learned how to use that stored energy to create heat. When energy is used waste is created. Instead of proposing to stop using this stored energy why can't we better tap the energy created within the earth..nuclear energy Its clean and virually unlimited? It produces very little waste?

[Chris]

Pretty good writeup on the "Great global warming swindle" and a good rebuttal to the film.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science

I would suggest deniers read

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chris Pretty good writeup on the "Great global warming swindle" and a good rebuttal to the film. The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science I would suggest deniers read

That was a great webpage of facts.

I cannot see how anyone can still claim that global warming is not caused by fuel useage unless they have a political agenda to protect the oil industry.

The claim that scientists are still debating this and it needs more study, before we do anything drastic, is in my opinon a lot of hogwash.

I believe that some people just have a long standing dislike for "environmentalists" because of those who protested progress to save the spotted owl, or whatever. And they think that global warming is just another one of those things that tree hugging left-wing hippies are promoting. And so they feel compelled to carry on their attack without comprehending that global warming came from the scientific community, not from Earth Frist or that Green Peace organization. Nor was it created by people who dislike big oil the coal industry.

Some of them who are anti-global warming science just do not like Al Gore because he is a democrat. And they connect the science of global warming with the democratic platform due to Al Gore's movie and book.
They see it as a poltical debate and not a debate about a scientific topic.

We have a real threat confronting our earth, and that threat happens to be our use of fosil fuels, which we now know about due to science and their reports about the causes of global warming.

Our governmental leaders were given that "3 oclock phone call" about the threat of global warming, but they did not respond with any real action to safeguard us, and took another pathway. Al Gore knew about this problem and wrote a book about it before he was elected to the White House, and yet, the Clinton/Gore term did little to insure results or to seek alternative energy with much gusto. And for sure Bush Jr did nothing, he even made things worse.

We need a canidate that will put this on the front burner. Sorry for getting poltical. But the scientists can only make suggestions, they cannot make laws.

[xyzer]

Ive read the so called answer to the global warming swindle movie which came out a few years back Chris...and it is filled with inacuracies and cloaked admissions?
e.g. A real flaw in this reporters(note she doesn't have any climate or scientific credentials..which relates to the peer review necessity which you climate sheep require)article (and there are many) shows up here..It's just her opinion no better than yours or mine? Is that your answer to the observations of the credentialed scientists who commented in the Swindle and pointed out the Gore/IPCC flaws??

The reason that temperatures dropped in the northern hemisphere when our post-war uber-industrial era kicked in was because all the pollution we were churning out (sulphates in particular) did a great job of reflecting sunlight back out to space - the 'global dimming' phenomenon. That offset the warming you would have expected if CO2 levels alone caused climate.

This nonsense completely ignores the forcing effect of CO2 as well a admitting that the sun has a warming effect? The very thing she denies throughout her pedantic report? CO2 has a blocking effect for reflected sunlight but allows the suns rays to warm the earth..she indicates atmospheric gases block the suns rays? Dimming caused the cooling? Is that whats caused the last decade to be cooler than the previous one?

Besides this tripe(you naively call a "web page of facts") have you any cogent scientific answers to my basic questions. Can(and has) the unpredictable suns intensity be used as an input in a predictive climate model? We know its intensity changes, how do scientists account for its changes in prediction models? Put more simply, how do we know what cycle of increased intensity will the sun may have in future decades?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Thats it! Thats good logic! Attack the messengers. Find fault with those who question your poition.

Oh boo hoo, we're attacking the poor messengers. That's never stopped you and your ilk from ridiculing and savaging Al Gore. What about my messengers? The U.S, National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, Scripps Institute, MIT, Stanford University, etc. etc.

Oh, that's right, those messengers are perveyers of "Bad Science", "Chicken Little" alarmists, and sell outs to the mysterious "Environmental Agenda".

While your messengers are who??? Billion dollar energy corporations and their free-market, libertarian economists and lobbyists who's only concern is their gawd given right to make money pillaging and polluting the planet as they see fit.

You know what they call people who knowingly and willingly trade the lives of innocent people for money??? Slime. Self absorbed scum.

Quote by: Xyzer Don't use logic just grab whatever study is available and believe it.

We've been bombarding you with nothing but facts and logic for ten years now. Don't pretend otherwise.

Quote by: Xyzer Avoid at all costs the fact that inspite of an continuing increase in anthropogenic gases the last decade has not seen any appreciable warming? Answer it if you can without attacking those who have measured it? Explain this anomaly if you can.

Easily, with your own words. As you always say, the climate fluctuates...it's the way of any graph...



...the small ups and downs don't matter, it's the overall trend, which is currently rising, and the last decade remains the hottest on record.

11 Hottest Years Occurred in Past 13 -- Dec. 2007

Quote by: xytzer If you can manage it after ROFL explain why you keep mixing a warming trend during the last century with anthropogenic causes of warming?

Duh!!! Because of this...



...which just happens to coincide with the onset of industrialization 200 years ago and it's explosion right aloing with human population, so that we -- human beings -- now produce around 24 billion tons of CO2 per year, above and beyond what nature does. Volcanoes, on the other hand, produce only around 150 to 250 million tons of CO2 per year.

Inspite of you assertion century we who question the importance of human contributions accept the fact that warming did occur after the cooler 1960/70s we just wonder why it gets cooler as all the while human caused CO2 is increasing?

Because it was only cooler compared to the overall rise... it was, once again, an regular fluctuation. The overall trend, based on the last 500 years should be moving steadily downward, towards the next Ice Age.

It's on in the last 200 years -- just COINCIDENTLY exactly matching the explosion of human industrialisation.



All of this is referred to, by the way, as 'logic' combined with 'facts'.

Quote by: Xyzer Propose solutions to imagined problems that resonate with ridiculousness.

All solutions are imagined in your mind because they all involve changing the way industry does business.

But more importantly, I've seen enough of your posts over the last year to know that this mostly nvolves how YOU personally live your life, and the fact that you simply can't stand the idea of ANYONE telling YOU you have to change how you do things.


.

[Foxfyre]

We briefly interrupt the high tech discussion on solar output to bring you a message from the world of good intentions producing unintended consequences:

Excerpt

. . . .Ethanol has been touted as a weapon in the fashionable crusade against climate change, because when mixed with gasoline, it modestly reduces emissions of carbon dioxide. Reasoning that if a little ethanol is good, a lot must be better, Congress and the Bush administration recently mandated a sextupling of ethanol production, from the 6 billion gallons produced last year to 36 billion by 2022. But now comes word that expanding ethanol use is likely to mean not less CO2 in the atmosphere, but more. Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline by 20 percent - the estimate Congress relied on in requiring the huge increase in production - ethanol use will cause such emissions to nearly double over the next 30 years. The problem, laid out in two new studies in the journal Science, is that it takes a lot of land to grow biofuel feedstocks such as corn, and as forests or grasslands are cleared for crops, large amounts of CO2 are released. Diverting land in this fashion also eliminates "carbon sinks," which absorb atmospheric CO2. Bottom line: The government's ethanol mandate will generate a "carbon debt" that will take decades, maybe centuries, to pay off. Actually, that's not quite the bottom line. Jacking up ethanol production causes other problems, too. Deforestation. Loss of biodiversity. Depletion of aquifers. More ethanol even means more hunger: As more of the US corn crop goes for ethanol, the price of corn has been soaring, a calamity for Third World

How government makes things worse - The Boston Globe

[xyzer]

I'm begining to laugh Sonart...Who measured and where did the temperature recordings occur that you cite in your graph above? Lets choose 1900 and before? Some GLOBAL temperature measurement but only in the eyes of fools? Or maybe some scientist trying to use proxies in his model in order to predict whats going to happen 50 years from now? This scientist may have a grant to see whether CO2 increases have caused global warming...what measurements were used in the model? Were proxy temps used? Was a changing suns brilliance used?
Where were the temperatures recorded before humans even had figured out how to measure and standardize temperatures? Was it Mongo the cave man who wrote down the temps he recorded on a piece of slate and passed them on to us? Was Mongos recording indicative of the temperatures in Fu Man Chus China at the time?

Come on now you haven't answered my question..If CO2 increases precede global climate warming why did the climate cool 50 years ago as CO2 increased? Why has the clinate stopped warming in the past decade as Human caused CO2 is increasing?

Here are some figures for comparison..

The weight of the Earth's atmosphere can be calculated as follows. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is on average 14.5 pounds per square inch = 10 tons per square metre. This pressure is due to the weight of atmosphere above an area at sea level of one square metre. The radius of the Earth "r" is 5,925 km and so the surface area of the Earth (land and ocean) is 4 x "pie" x "r" squared = 4 x 3.142 x 5925 x 5925 = 441 million square kilometres = 441,000 billion square metres. Therefore the weight of the Earth's atmosphere is 441,000 billion x 10 = 4.41 million billion tons. Now 26.7 billion (the weight in tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year, see (A) above), divided by 4.41 million billion gives the fraction 6 /one million which means that the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels is equal to 6 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere by weight. (6 millionths)

Ergo CO2 is an minor trace gas. And if we increase our input by burning fossil fuels by the same amount each year would it have an appreciable effect? How many times will 6 parts go into a million parts? Careful you are falling into the trap of correlation equals causation..it doesn't and in fact the records show CO2 increases followed warming rather than preceded them.Besides plant matter needs and absorbs CO2 does it not?

[xyzer]

By the way did you read my post? Evidently not because it elicited this nonsensical passage.

Same with global warming. Based on conservative, free-market dogmatic ideology, government regulation of the free-market isn't just wrong, it's downright immoral!!! Along comes the REALITY of global warming, a massive threat to life on earth as we know it. It would be downright IMMORAL not to take steps to stop or slow climate change, but that would mean requiring the Free Market to change the way it does business, and if they refuse, compelling change through government regulation, and, based on dogmatic ideology, that would ALSO be immoral.

Your talking government intervention of the successful and accepted way of doing business and using resources in the USA over the past 200 years? You like most leftie Democrats see the only way to solve problems is through government intervention and mandates. I suspect you aren't a tax payer, dont own any property and wouldn't feel the economic impacts of what you propose? What if it wasn't the free market that gave you the computer you use?

I feel it would be truly immoral to burden us, and the worlds populations, with pie in the sky based schemes to change what humans can't change. By burderns I mean more government intrusion, higher costs, higher taxes, stupid carbon tradeoffs and ethanol, windmill, light bulb plans that oppress the worlds population.

I offered a solution in the form of nuclear power which would stimulate business and the free enterprise system and create cleaner burning energy sources with the technology we alread have. Nuclear plants to replace the carbon burners? Thats the least harmful if we intend to chase after mythical(that is unproven) anthropogenic causes of warming?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre We briefly interrupt the high tech discussion on solar output to bring you a message from the world of good intentions producing unintended consequences:

What discussion on solar output... there is none.

Solar cycles and global warming -- "The evidence that the sun is causing global warming is so thin that even the studies skeptics cite often disprove the link. For example, the most commonly used argument that the sun is more active than anytime in the previous 1150 years comes from Usoskin 2005. This study finds a close correlation between sun and climate but also finds the correlation ends in 1975 and thus "this most recent warming episode must have another source". Unfortunately most skeptics don't read all the way to the concluding paragraph.

Now a new study linking solar cycles to global temperature has been mentioned on Senator Inhofe's Press Blog:

-- "New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle: Excerpt: The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note."--

The study is Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung. They find a global warming signal of 0.18°C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. Eg - from solar minimum to solar maximum, global temperatures increase 0.18°C due to an increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). To find the solar signal, they detrended the temperature data by removing the global warming trend. They found the detrended temperature correlated well with the solar cycle.

However, a fair degree of climate variability contaminated the signal. Volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991 coincided with solar maximums. Similarly, the El Nino peak of 1998 occured during low solar activity. Tung and Camp filtered out the noise using various statistical techniques and found an even higher correlation with the solar cycle.

They concluded that from solar minimum to maximum (eg - from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C. Conversely, from solar maximum to minimum (eg - from 2001 to 2007), the reduced forcing from the sun cools global temperatures by 0.18°C. This 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend.

Camp and Tung explore the ramifications further in a follow-up paper Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity. Independently of models, they calculate a climate sensitivity between 2.3 to 4.1°C. Eg - if CO2 levels are doubled, global temperatures will increase around 3.2°C. This confirms the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity. In Tung's own words, "The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models."

The other significant finding is that solar forcing will add another 0.18°C warming on top of greenhouse warming between 2007 (we're currently at solar minimum) to the solar maximum around 2012. In other words, solar forcing will double the amount of global warming over the next five to six years."

Quote by: Foxfyre But now comes word that expanding ethanol use is likely to mean not less CO2 in the atmosphere, but more. Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline by 20 percent - the estimate Congress relied on in requiring the huge increase in production - ethanol use will cause such emissions to nearly double over the next 30 years.

Fine with me... this is bad news for a half-ass measure that I never much liked, since it still involved oxidation of carbon fuels.

If your point is that science it fickle and that solutions will be difficult, so what? It's a common story that science can find contradictions the deeper it digs into a subject. That's a good thing.

(And no, after 30 years of research, I don't belive science is going to reverse it's conclusions on global warming. To the contrary, they've pretty well covered all the bases.)

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer I'm begining to laugh Sonart...Who measured and where did the temperature recordings occur that you cite in your graph above? Lets choose 1900 and before? Some GLOBAL temperature measurement but only in the eyes of fools? Or maybe some scientist trying to use proxies in his model in order to predict whats going to happen 50 years from now?

The fact that your limited mind can't comprehend how scientific research is carried out is not my problem, Xyzer. But when the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Weather Association, NASA, NOAA, Scripps Institute, Stanford University, Oxford University and MIT all come out and solidly declare that global warming is happening, that we're causing it and that it's happening faster than predicted, I have to believe they know infinitely more about what they're talking about than you do.

So forgive me if I don't get sucked into debating your inane, endlessly circular list of silly and grotesquely ignorant "logic traps".

You made yourself quite clear long, long ago on this board, Xyzer. You have absolutely no interest in doing anything whatsoever for the common good if it reguires you to change any habits, foregoe even the slightest pleasures or inconvenience yourself in any way whatsoever, period. But don't for a second believe you can salvage what little conscience you have by thinking your silly, sophomoric barricades of obfuscation and hands-over-the-ears denial are going to hold back the overwhelming reality that is anthropogenic Global Warming.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Your talking government intervention of the successful and accepted way of doing business and using resources in the USA over the past 200 years? You like most leftie Democrats see the only way to solve problems is through government intervention and mandates.

Flawed as government intervention may be, it beats the holy hell out of solving problems by simply denying there's a problem.

If the free market has solutions for climate change, then outstanding!!! That's exactly what we need, entreprenureal innovation, Yankee enginuity and American knowhow. There's a brave new world out there, with vast fortunes to be made re-inventing how we power the world, and it should be Americans making those fortunes, not the Europeans or Japanese.

But so far, you're not talking about any better alternatives to government regulation, are you... you're just sitting there with your hands over your ears denying there's any problem at all.

Which makes your entire last post meaningless.

Quote by: Xyzer I offered a solution in the form of nuclear power which would stimulate business and the free enterprise system and create cleaner burning energy sources with the technology we alread have. Nuclear plants to replace the carbon burners? Thats the least harmful if we intend to chase after mythical(that is unproven) anthropogenic causes of warming?

I'm all for nuclear power. Always have been.

So why are you spending so much time still denying the reality of global warming?

.

[Century 25]

"Flawed as government intervention may be, it beats the holy hell out of solving problems by simply denying there's a problem."

That's for sure. Also, instead of zipping off on a tangent & playing the panic card, why not take the calm.. intelligent approach - which seems so useful in most circumstances..? The KISS approach would make big changes.

Homes can be built/retrofitted using natural daylight.. and when needed fluorescent area lighting & LED task lighting. Instead of tearing up the forests (which absorb CO2) for building termite food houses.. use foamcrete.. it's lightweight but very strong.. it provides great insulation which saves energy.. and is quite storm proof.. usable on rooftops (why use shingles..??) and it saves the constant maintenance of other materials.

That is only the beginning.. so very much more is easy for us to do.

.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Sonart . So why are you spending so much time still denying the reality of global warming?

Because people are lazy: "Riding a bicycle? Are you mad? I could lose weight! Bus and subway? Those are for poor people, I'm American baby!."

[xyzer]

The fact that your limited mind can't comprehend how scientific research is carried out is not my problem, Xyzer. But when the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Weather Association, NASA, NOAA, Scripps Institute, Stanford University, Oxford University and MIT all come out and solidly declare that global warming is happening, that we're causing it and that it's happening faster than predicted, I have to believe they know infinitely more about what they're talking about than you do.

Come on Sonart

I have asked you to explain why if anthropogenic causes are the reason for global warming...WHY THE GLOBAL TEMPS COOLED IN THE 1960s and 70s AS ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 WAS INCREASING? Why in the past decade has climate warming slowed. I pointed out 4 sources that confirmed that actual temps had leveled between 98 and 08? You who have to use ad hominem slurs to try to make your case can't answer my questions? Why?

Might it have something to do with the Sun being a major influiencer as you pointed out in one study (Usorkin)? If the sun does influence climate why has it been overcome by anthrpogenic CO2.? Was its effect overcome by something in the past? Why if the suns brilliance was a factor for 1100 or so years has it suddenly become a non factor? If the suns brilliance correlated with climate warming what was it in the colder decades of 1960/70 when temps cooled? If 'forcing' is the result of the suns energy being blocked isn't the amount of forcing dictated by the amount of sunlight entering the earths atmosphere?


Have you been reading my posts between issuing vitriolic and meaningless comments?
For example..You even post

But so far, you're not talking about any better alternatives to government regulation, are you... you're just sitting there with your hands over your ears denying there's any problem at all.

I just posted my opinion about the option of nuclear power which to anyone with a grain of brain power is an alternative to government intervention?

I got a real guffaw out of the comparison with climate and homosexuality?