Global Warming

[xyzer]

Here is a counter article. Networks Wrong On Global Warming Again; Arctic Ice Still There
However, I don't doubt the recorded data. I think satellite measurements are the most accurate and ice melt has been increasing.

What remains to be seen is whether humans caused it or can change it?

[dan4reason]

The scientific predictions by some people were off. It is hard to measure exactly how much ice will melt in the future. We do know that much has melted and much will melt.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: dan4reason The scientific predictions by some people were off.

Indeed, they were off. The predictions were all made based on warming by human created greenhouse gases, but now it appears that the warming is actually happening faster than predicted.


Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions' -- June, 2007

Why Is Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted? NOAA Probing Arctic Pollution -- Apr. 2008

Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Predicted -- National Geographic, May, 2007

Atmospheric CO2 Levels Rising Much Faster than Predicted, Scientists Warn -- Apr. 2008

Greenland ice may melt faster than expected -- Sept. 2008

Arctic melt worse than predictions -- CNN, May, 2007



Seems one likely reason is all those unanticipated 'Feedback Loops' that accellerate the process.

Southern Ocean may not absorb more CO2 emissions -- May, 2007

Increasing Levels Of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Cause A Rise In Ocean Plankton Calcification -- May, 2008

More Climate Feedback Loops -- Nov. 2007


But fear not!!! Republicans and Libertarians have a plan! Pump more AMERICAN oil!

[dan4reason]

Great point! I have talked to people who do not support that idea. Could you give me some solid evidence I could use?

[xyzer]

Here is an interesting clip of the suns variable brilliance over the years..
Breitbart.tv » Animation Shows Sun Cycles Over Multi-Year Period

Compare it with this interesting article and we may see another climate change agent that is not fully researched yet?Solar wind weakest since beginning of space age

The solar wind "inflates a protective bubble, or heliosphere, around the solar system," which protects the inner planets against the radiation from other stars, said Dave McComas, Ulysses' solar wind principal investigator and senior executive director at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas.

I haven't found a study addressing this yet but is does suggest another influence on climate change?

With the solar wind at an all-time low, there is an excellent chance the heliosphere will diminish in size and strength," said Ed Smith, NASA's Ulysses project scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "If that occurs, more galactic cosmic rays will make it into the inner part of our solar system," added Smith. Scientists say the weakening of solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun's magnetic field, but the causes of these changes are unknown. The weakened solar activity can be beneficial because it slows satellites around the Earth, allowing them to remain in orbit longer. The sun normally experiences 11-year-cycles between periods of great activity and lesser activity. But, Smith said, the Ulysses mission's recent results, published in Geophysical Research Letters, show that "we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated." The Ulysses mission was the first project to survey the space environment over the sun's poles. The data the spacecraft has collected has profoundly changed the way scientists view our nearest star and its effects on the Earth.

.

[xyzer]

The latest in the questioning of Alarmist Climate Warming Reports?
Could it just be that exaggerated reports create more sales or readership?
I've certainly noticed it on this thread. Polar Bears being threatened, coastal areas on flood alert, hurricanes of increasing intensity ad infinitum! Sonarts references are a good example?
Example....BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was 'one-sided polemic' | Mail Online

Lord Monkton is tired of it and of being misquoted in the press.

We do not dispute that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but we do dispute its effects’, he said. ‘The data shows that 2008 is the same temperature as 1980 and that the effects of these changes in the atmosphere are not negative but more likely to be beneficial.’

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: dan4reason Great point! I have talked to people who do not support that idea. Could you give me some solid evidence I could use?

Now we're supposed to do your homework? Here, start with my posts - and others - on pg.59 of this thread, up to pg.66

And if you don't believe me, believe these folks...

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine

Quote by: Xyzer Here is an interesting clip of the suns variable brilliance over the years..

How about that. The sun has cooled to its lowest levels in 50 years, yet we're experiencing the hottest average global temperatures in recorded history.

How do you explain that, Xyzer?

Cooling Sun brings relief to sweltering Earth -- "Now leading scientists are predicting that we may soon enter such a period again - although they stress such cooling would only bring temporary relief to our overheated world. In the end, the Earth will still be swamped by huge rises in global temperatures, triggered by human activities, that will affect the planet over the next few decades."

[QUOT=XyzerE]BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was 'one-sided polemic' | Mail Online[/QUOTE]I see... so Lord Monkton wants the BBC investigated because the facts it presented make Mockton look like a fool.

By all means, Xyzer... keep us posted on the results of the investigation.

Quote by: xyzer quoting Monkton "The data shows that 2008 is the same temperature as 1980 and that the effects of these changes in the atmosphere are not negative but more likely to be beneficial."

Except for the minor problem that his statement is completely false.

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

Global temperature 2008: Another top-ten year

Prof. Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: "Phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña have a significant influence on global surface temperature and the current strong La Niña will act to limit temperatures in 2008. However, mean temperature is still expected to be significantly warmer than in 2000, when a similar strength La Niña pegged temperatures to 0.24 °C above the 1961-90 average. Sharply renewed warming is likely once La Niña declines."

These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."





Of course, with the Sun's output decreasing for the last 50 years, how is it that the temperature isn't falling more dramatically?

.

[xyzer]

Yes sir Sonart...

How about that. The sun has cooled to its lowest levels in 50 years, yet we're experiencing the hottest average global temperatures in recorded history

Haven't you noticed that satellite measured global temps have cooled in most of the last decade? By golly... references from several sources have been posted on this thread indicating that there is definitely a cooling trend? Don't you get it? That coincides with less sunlight?

You even post a graph showing a drop in temps since 2000. Are you reading it right? Sun cools, temps go down? Lets wait a few years and see if the cool some more.
In another graph how come temperature rise precedes CO2 increases whether its during El nino or La nina? Can you explain how much lag time is needed for the suns warming or cooling to affect earth ocean and land temperatures?

By the way just how did we record global temps worldwide before say WW2? I think you better stick to the last quarter century before you make comparisons? How many temp recording sites did we have in Antarctica before satellites were available? How about on the continent of Africa? Lets get serious here, just how do we make such comparisons and expect them to be accurate?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Don't you get it? That coincides with less sunlight?

Number one, sure, why wouldn't it? Number, two that "cooling trend" hasn't been enough to actually create any significant cooling, given that the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica continue to melt at accelerating rates. Every year this decade still remains among the ten hottest on record.

Besides, like I said, I actually predicted a cooling trend... or at least a reduction in the amount of warming ... years ago, based on simply looking over the existing fluctuations that exist within the overall warming trend.

By the way just how did we record global temps worldwide before say WW2? I think you better stick to the last quarter century before you make comparisons?

Just because you don't know doesn't mean the researchers studying global climate don't. We've been over this again and again and again, yet you continue to dredge up this silly strawman.

.

[xyzer]

Here is another source for the cosmic ray theory..
Cosmic rays set climate change on Earth, expert says

No Sonart I dont know!

Just because you don't know doesn't mean the researchers studying global climate don't. We've been over this again and again and again, yet you continue to dredge up this silly strawman.

Its not a 'strawman, its a fact! Temperatures ALL OVER THE EARTH were not accurately or completely measured until the satellite age! This includes surface and space temps. Reporting stations were scarce and unreliable. This means that the data included in climate models was not entirely based on actual measurements, ergo, models used by the UN are/were not always entirely accurate? "has its problems"

Here is a quote from the reference..

Every one of these things (parts of his theory) has its problems. But so does every other model" of how Earth's climate behaves.

We cant stick our heads in the sand and spend vasts sums of money and effort changing something we cant change based on flawed models and real uncertainty as to the cause of the global warming cycle we experienced at the end of the last century.

The author comments..."

In his paper, he concludes: "Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers

I have repeatedly pointed out that I think natural factors are much more important than AGW releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. The big scare is being challenged by more studies every year. We still just don't know what the primary cause of climate change is?

[dan4reason]

should have mentioned that roughly 45% of it goes into the ocean, give or take. I'm sure there's a saturation point but I have no idea how close or far we are, haven't researched that particular aspect. Anyway, 55% of what goes up into the atmosphere, on a net basis, stays up there.

How do you get all this stuff?

[xyzer]

Hey dan4, this post by? is the usual hooey.
"Anyway, 55% of what goes up into the atmosphere, on a net basis, stays up there."
It doesn't stay there!
Check out this site..
Orbital tracking reveals thinning upper atmosphere - 06 February 2004 - New Scientist

From the reference..."Below the thermosphere, these gases are dense enough to trap the radiation from the Sun and that reflected from the Earth, which warms the planet. But at higher altitudes, the lower density makes the greenhouse gases efficient at siphoning heat into space".

"In the upper atmosphere, carbon dioxide acts as an air conditioner, whereas in the lower atmosphere, it acts as an insulator," says John Emmert, lead author of the study and a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, US.

[xyzer]

This just in. The man agrees with me!
www.dcexaminer.com >> Guest Columnists

But all this frenetic activity resembles an inverted pyramid—a massive weight with only a single point of support. And just what is this single support? It certainly does not follow logically that CO2 emissions drive a warming trend that began prior to widespread fossil fuel use and that has yet to reach the magnitude of the medieval warm period when Vikings colonized Greenland. Nor is a climate catastrophe implied by the presently observed rate of warming. Those conclusions are reached only if one accepts two intermediate steps: (1) that science has separated anthropogenic effects from natural climate oscillations; and (2) that the atmosphere-ocean system is metastable so CO2-induced warming will trigger a runaway process.

I think this expert must have read some of my posts?

[xyzer]

Is this event natural or does it signal a natural change in Glaciers in the colder regions?

Bad weather was good for Alaska glaciers: Environment | adn.com

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

Rivers of ice flow slowly. Hundreds of feet of snow would have to accumulate at higher elevations to create enough pressure to stall the current glacial retreat and start a new advance. Even if the glaciers started growing today, Molnia said, it might take up to 100 years for them to start steadily rolling back down into the valleys they've abandoned. "It's different time scales," he said. "We're just starting to understand." As strange it might seem, Alaska's glaciers could appear to be shrinking for some time while secretly growing. Molnia said there are a few glaciers in the state now where constant snow accumulations at higher elevations are causing them to thicken even as their lower reaches follow the pattern of retreat fueled by the global warming of recent decades.

[xyzer]

Its not hard to acknowledge that there are so many are adherents of the Whacko warnings of Al Gore and others about the influence of increasing carbon fuel use on climate change when you read stuff like this.
BMI Special Report -- Global Warming Censored

Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions

• Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1. • Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

[Dr_Acula]

My geology professor says that global warming is most likely caused by astronomic cycles, not by humans.

[Matt W]

And a geology professor is an exper on astronomy how? Just curious.

[Compugasm]

I've been reading this thread for a very long time. I really want to belive we can do something. However, all the links that have been provided thus far in the arguments, are conclusions based on observations. For some reason, scientists seem to be exempt in applying the scientific method to the global warming issue.

Quote by: Matt W And a geology professor is an exper on astronomy how? Just curious.

Seriously, do you really care what makes him qualifed? If you doubt his credentials, then at least acknowledge that the sudden crop of celebrities who suddenly have their own "green" TV shows aren't qualifed either.

[Matt W]

Am I slinging around quotes & view of celebs? No, I'm not. I'm asking a simple question.

[Compugasm]

It's a totally irrelvant question. You gave up on xyzer, and have been waiting like a spider for the last week, to attack the next person to post any comment.