Maybe because it's easier to attack people raising the issues?
That's probably true but I think it's less likely to happen if the clarion calls are based on sound science rather than muddy science.
Science is politics.
Now there's a catch 22 for you! We shouldn't focus on the motives of those raising the issues but if science is politics then the only question possible is the motives.
In the end, science trumps politics. It took a while, but even the Pope eventually came around to Galileo's view.
“Lots of people are worried about global warming,” I said.
“I understand,” said Spock. “Your planet is going through one of its periodic climate shifts.”
“But there are also lots of people who don’t believe that the climate is growing warmer.”
“That is illogical. Temperature measurements clearly show that the Earth’s average temperature is steadily rising.”
“I know,” I said. “But some people think that fears of global warming are greatly exaggerated.”
Spock’s brows rose significantly. “The temperature measurements are real. Observations have shown that sea ice in your Arctic Ocean has thinned considerably. Glaciers in Greenland are melting at the greatest rate ever observed.” I told him that I knew all that, but some people don’t agree that the problem is truly serious.
“Projections of the eventual temperature increase are difficult to make,” Spock conceded. “But global temperatures are in fact rising and your planet’s climate will in fact grow warmer.”
“I know that, and you know that,” I replied, “but still there are skeptics.”
Spock hesitated, then said, “Part of the problem, from my point of view, is that you humans are allowing your emotions to outweigh your logical abilities.”
..."The CAUSE of the warming is the debate point"...
Indeed that has always BEEN the issue. It has been consistently the global warming advocates that have persistently linked the two with no scientific correlation. Indeed THEY seem to be the consistent "FLAT EARTH" Advocates using Galileo's "rebel" days, to draw an analogy from the past. It would seem from your post that you actually would agree there is NO directly measurable, let alone statistically significant link between the two variables in the post's heading.
Of course they might want to backwardsly explain how great deserts were formed even before the advent of C02 emissions from automobiles!? :shades: i.e., the Sahara Desert (North Africa), and closer in town, the Mojave, CA (Area 51, NV etc. ). This can of course be used as a model for the thesis being espoused. I will grant you they do have the chicken little and scare tactics down pretty well. "The truth is out there". It does not appear to be the fault of residual SUV RUG to PUG emissions.
ccording to both the International Panel on Climate Change and many global climate models, water vapor accounts for somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. (The 98-percent figure, much beloved by global-warming skeptics, seems to have been first used in a 1991 article by Richard Lindzen. He cites a 1990 IPCC report as his source, but the report doesn't appear to contain that number.)
The skeptical argument thus goes something like this: Since water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, and since this vapor is created through natural evaporation rather than human activity, the current warming trend is nothing to worry about—just the Earth going through a normal climatic cycle.
But this viewpoint ignores the reactive nature of water vapor—in other words, the gas doesn't cause warming all by its lonesome. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is almost purely a function of temperature—the warmer the air gets, the more vapor it's able to glean from the planet. We know, for example, that the atmospheric water content over the oceans has increased (PDF) by 0.41 kilograms per square meter every 10 years since 1988.
So, what's causing the temperature rise that's resulted in greater evaporation? Well, over that same time period, global emissions of carbon dioxide have soared. And unlike water vapor, which returns to Earth as precipitation within a week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 sticks around for between 50 and 200 years. Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 25 percent of the greenhouse effect, so it's pretty clear that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 is playing a significant role in recent warming. (This warming might have been even greater if not for the ability of the planet's oceans to absorb heat.)
Just because something is settled in your mind does not mean it is fact. For every post claiming the world is warming we have posts that question with scientific data those assertions. I find GW as put forth in this thread very simplistic without much merit. I find the assertions that our vehicles are a major cause of GW has even less merit. Even the distorted UN findings only claim that all transportation accounts for 15% of the GHG. Last I checked 15% of anything is NOT major.
I am not against clean air and water. I believe in doing my part to keep our environment clean. I just do not get fanatical about anything. I consider the GW cult a bunch of uninformed fanatics. Or those wanting to profit on the ignorance of the masses. GW is BIG bucks for those that got in on the ground floor of the scheme. It may be the Ponzi scheme to top all pyramid schemes.
That shows that in the years since 1980, only 5 years have been cooler than the annual mean since 1880. The last 11 years have all been warmer than the mean.
Where is the definable cooling trend?
Regardless of the assumption that GW is "big bucks" for some people, I cannot see evidence of anything but a warming trend.
If you look at the last graph on the following link, you will see that the last 3 million years the earth has been cooler than the 540 million years before that. Looking at the entire graph, you can see that the normal temperature for earth should be about 3C higher than today. So if the Earth is warmer, it's just getting back to normal. Maybe then we can stop burning so many fossil fuels to keep from freezing to death!
You can't compare the earth's temps from millions of years ago to today.
Why not? Physics hasn't changed and the same mechanisms are at work.
If someone has to go back millions of years to disprove a point, then they automagically lose the point.
Don't be silly. One could just as well assert that if someone uses only data over the past few decades and ignores millions of years of history then they are being deceitful and lose all their points.
tidester says, "Why not? Physics hasn't changed and the same mechanisms are at work."
Um, physics have not changed, true, but the dynamics of the world climate certainly HAVE changed. The climate on Earth and the dynamics of the environment of this planet are VASTLY different now than millions of years ago.
If that needs to explained further to anyone here, then they are lacking in the education required to make a salient point.
And if anyone thinks the world is not in a warming trend, show me a chart which indicates we are in a cooling trend. Still waiting for a valid one that encompasses a time frame which involves similarity to the current state of the Earth's climate.
but the dynamics of the world climate certainly HAVE changed. The climate on Earth and the dynamics of the environment of this planet are VASTLY different now than millions of years ago.
Nonsense. What is the basis for your claim? A milliion years ago, the Earth had an atmosphere identical to the one we have today, the Earth spun as it does today, the Sun shined as it does today, and the Earth had oceans and lakes and mountains and a biosphere as it does today. Energy was conserved a million years ago as it is today, thermodynamics worked the same way, heat flowed in the same way as it does today, radiation worked the same way and on and on.
If that needs to explained further to anyone here, then they are lacking in the education required to make a salient point.
If you can't make your case without being rude and offensive then you have no case at all. I would not presume to know what level of education anyone else here has. Your points are rapidly falling into negative territory.
tidester says, "If you can't make your case without being rude and offensive then you have no case at all."
What I said is neither rude nor offensive. It's the stating of a very generalized opinion, and as you can see, was intentionally not directed at or toward any one person in particular. It's merely that if someone thinks certain things, then they are lacking in education on the subject. Same with any subject on any forum - someone almost daily makes a statement or a post out of misinformation or lack of education. Not a crime, but it happens.
And this statement:
tidester says, "A milliion years ago, the Earth had an atmosphere identical to the one we have today, the Earth spun as it does today, the Sun shined as it does today, and the Earth had oceans and lakes and mountains and a biosphere as it does today."
You can check out NASA for longer term data. Their results indicate 0.4 °C COOLING per decade of the stratosphere while tropospheric changes are flat with a statistically insignificant increase of 0.04 °C per decade. (This is from data only up to year 2000 but apparently the surface temperature changes have reversed.)
One can "make an educated guess" about what level of education others have by reading their posts. At the most basic level, it's usually easy when you are educated about a subject to quickly spot when someone else is incorrect about something.
On your last Blog link:
I can make an excel chart too.
His "data" link is dead. Nor does he say for what geological area his chart is using.
That supposed "data" conflicts with everything else I can find. So, does that mean he is right and everyone else is wrong?
We can't know, since he does not reveal his data source.
NASA data certainly does not show the Earth cooling.
We, generally as a body of knowledge, know the history of climate on this planet pretty well. I personally don't presume to know more than the next above-average intelligence layman.
But for someone to say the Earth was meteorologically the same place a million years ago, that statement, on it's surface, sounds to me like it would have to be completely incorrect.
Sure, the basics are the same: Earf and moon and sun interacting, oceans alive, etc. But many things most certainly were different.
I am researching the issue and will post something later in reference to what I find.
The more one "protests" really highlights how weak the hypothesis or nexus is between auto C02 generation and CLIMATE correlation. The case of predictability of WEATHER change due to C02 emissions is so far NULL. So making a jump based on less than a generation (30 plus years) of data vs data consisting of millions of years of data is truly weird.
A lot of scientists were truly incredulous about God and the BIG BANG Theory. :shades: The way some environmentalist's talk, you would think Prius was a (motorized) "god".
This is from NOAA. They show the South Pole is in a cooling trend. There are so many variables that can skew any data used that it is crazy in my mind to believe anything compiled by politicians. Such as the IPCC report from the UN.
I'm as much as expert as the next "not a professional climatologist" layman.
And I don't even know what "posturing" is, so I am surely not doing it, whatever it is.
And yes I have looked. See this:
Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed.
The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.
The emission of GHG is not going to cease or even be lessened so what is the point of belaboring the issue? By 2100 you, me and our grandkids will all be gone.
Apparently, not much EXACT data exists on what the climate was like 1 million years ago. We do know this:
* One million years ago the current ice-age (Pleistocene) began.
* We are now living in an abnormally warm period compared to the earth's average temperature for the last one million years (during which glaciation has prevailed).
* The current interglacial period has been subject to climatic changes on a smaller scale than the change from glacial to interglacial but still large enough to disrupt civilizations.
This is a very good recent paper that talks about climate history of the past couple of million years and has a few good specifics:
On another point, where did you see the basis for your statement that the Earf's current temperature is 3C too cold?
I didn't say "too cool"; I said below normal. That graph is on a log-scale. So look at the first 2 sections from the left. That represents from 542 million B.C. to 7 million B.C. That represents nearly 99% of the previous historical time.
Now take those 2 sections and put a ruler up to it so that half the area is above and half is below the ruler, and you'll see the ruler is about at 3-4C. On that graph we're now at abourt 0.5C.
If someone has to go back millions of years to disprove a point, then they automagically lose the point.
LOL. I wish I had that time-machine. I just want to go back 30 years with a few dollars to play the stock market And I guess with that statement we can't discuss whether there were ever large liz-zards running around who lived in the tropical areas of Alaska, died and eventually made us "go-go juice". I guess all that oil in Alaska just formed from the glaciers that have been there forever.
gary says, "By 2100 you, me and our grandkids will all be gone."
So, you only care about the Earf's climate up to the point of the death of your last grandkid?
I want the Earf to be habitable and hospitable to humans and lesser animals for much longer than that.
Whether or not anything little ole me can do to affect that is unclear. But I'm certainly going to err on the side of "use common sense and do less harm" than the other direction.
I've never argued that point with you. You must be confusing me with someone else.
My main points have been: 1) That the data showing the temp. going up is only a small amount over several decades. 2) The Earth has had much higher CO2 levels and life survived and flourished to what it is today. 3) the Earth has on average been much warmer, by 3-4 C than it is today. 4) A warmer Earth is more beneficial to life; even though some species may perish on a warmer Earth. This is an observation looking at the variety and density of life in tropical areas, vs. those in cooler and arctic areas (Brazil vs. Canada for example). 5) You will not get people to stop emitting CO2, because the global population is expanding and becoming wealthier, using more fuels in the process. 6) The goal of every global economy is to expand their economies, which uses more fuels.
And most importantly to answer the question - no autos DO NOT contribute a significant amount of the man-made CO2. Most CO2 is coming from our everyday use of electricity.
LOL. If that guy is from Columbia, I'll give him a break if English is his 4th language. Did you read that thing, and not find it rambling, and lacking in the basics of syntax and grammar? For example: "Now humans are applying a much stronger, much faster forcing as we put back into the atmosphere, in a geologic heartbeat, fossil fuels that accumulated over millions of years."
Or from the 5th paragraph: "To cause the loss of all summer Arctic ice with devastating effects on wildlife and indigenous people." Isn't that missing the subject part of the sentence?
And "...and likely render the semi-arid states from west and central Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, ..." I kinda missed when they split Texas up into separate states.
And "First, we must phase out the use of coal and unconventional fossil fuels except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered." What the heck is "unconventional fossil fuels"??
But thanks for the laughs. I'll have to go back and read the rest. I'm sure there's many gems in there!
Regarding cooling, here's the abstract of a report from NASA/Goddard in a peer reviewed journal:
"The stratosphere has been cooling by about 2K/decade at 30-60 km over the past several decades and by lesser amounts toward the tropopause. Climate model calculations suggest that stratospheric water vapor is an important contributor to the observed stratospheric cooling, but there are large differences among recent GCM simulations for prescribed changes in stratospheric water vapor, which point to problems with the current GCM treatment of the absorption and emission by stratospheric water vapor. We show that the correlate k-distribution treatment with sufficient resolution is capable of simulating accurately cooling by stratospheric water vapor. We obtain equilibrium cooling of about 0.3K that extends from 20 km to the top of the atmosphere, and adjusted radiative forcing of 0.12 W/m2, for a stratospheric water vapor increase of 0.7 ppmv which has been estimated for the period 1979-1997."
- V. Oinas, A.A. Lacis, D. Rind, D.T. Shindell, J.E. Hansen, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2791-2794, doi:10.1029/2001GL013137 (2001). (see Abstract)
Note the significance of water vapor.
You may also be interested in seeing what a prominent physcist has to say about the matter of GCMs. Freeman Dyson
"Dyson explains why climate models have no scientific merit, why average global ground temperature is a great fiction, and what he believes the real dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are."
He has a view different from yours so we can casually dismiss him?
As far as being a "layman": That description in itself does not diminish one's knowledge. Just because I don't play professional football does not mean that I don't know a ton about it.
I never "dismiss" anyone just because they have a different view than my own. How does that stimulate debate and create educational opportunities?
Thanks for the link to posturing. Like I said: regardless of what it is, I don't do it.
Let's not get into a battle of posting "he said and this guy said and this guy said."
We could do that for days and not change anyone's mind.
I have yet to see any REAL data indicating that the Earf is not in a warming trend.
That description in itself does not diminish one's knowledge.
You were attempting to diminish others when you said "If that needs to explained further to anyone here, then they are lacking in the education required to make a salient point." You can't have it both ways.
Let's not get into a battle of posting "he said and this guy said and this guy said."
REALITY CHECK: So it's okay when you quote this person and that one along with unattributed graphs and charts and so on but it's not okay for others to respond in kind? Just curious.
I have yet to see any REAL data indicating that the Earf is not in a warming trend.
What's up with that? We've given technical references and graphs. But since you ask, can you give one shred of evidence proving that climate changes today are in any real way different from those of any other period throughout all of history?
It would seem that those proposing the notion that GW is caused by man have the burden of proof on their shoulders. It's not for others to disprove your claims. So far, claims of anthropogenic climate change are utterly unconvincing from a scientific perspective - except perhaps to the politically motivated.
I am not sure why NOAA did not have data past 1998. I would think a trend line from 1957 to 1997 would be better than trends that are from 2000 to 2007. Most of the charts posted showed climate ups and downs from year to year.
They can adapt or die. There are penguins in So. America. Were they part of a bygone Ice Age? With 95% plus of all living species already extinct, why the fuss over a weak species?
Meanwhile Bloomberg weighs in, urging the UN to act on climate change.
Doesn't it make you just a bit suspicious when more and more politicians jump on the GW bandwagon? Could it be the light they are seeing is gilded in Gold? The whole carbon credit scheme is so perfect for the elitist to use for extracting more money from the peasants. We can start with a simple carbon tax for breathing. Now how much do you your wife and children weigh? We also need the weight on your dog and cat. The opportunities are endless. If Al Gore can make $100 million on GW in 7 short years, think of the potential.
Comments
Guess they didn't get the word. :sick: :lemon:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6379767&ch=4226724&s- - - rc=news
That's probably true but I think it's less likely to happen if the clarion calls are based on sound science rather than muddy science.
Science is politics.
Now there's a catch 22 for you! We shouldn't focus on the motives of those raising the issues but if science is politics then the only question possible is the motives.
In the end, science trumps politics. It took a while, but even the Pope eventually came around to Galileo's view.
"Global Warming is a GLOBAL TREND toward high temperatures."
That does not mean all cold and ice storms are over. It does not mean that we will see the end of snow, blizzards, ice storms, etc.
It does not mean that certain areas of the world will not have extreme cold snaps.
IT does mean that the overall, WORLDWIDE trend is toward warming, right now. That fact is not up for debate here.
The CAUSE of the warming is the debate point.
It's only Logical
“Lots of people are worried about global warming,” I said.
“I understand,” said Spock. “Your planet is going through one of its periodic climate shifts.”
“But there are also lots of people who don’t believe that the climate is growing warmer.”
“That is illogical. Temperature measurements clearly show that the Earth’s average temperature is steadily rising.”
“I know,” I said. “But some people think that fears of global warming are greatly exaggerated.”
Spock’s brows rose significantly. “The temperature measurements are real. Observations have shown that sea ice in your Arctic Ocean has thinned considerably. Glaciers in Greenland are melting at the greatest rate ever observed.” I told him that I knew all that, but some people don’t agree that the problem is truly serious.
“Projections of the eventual temperature increase are difficult to make,” Spock conceded. “But global temperatures are in fact rising and your planet’s climate will in fact grow warmer.”
“I know that, and you know that,” I replied, “but still there are skeptics.”
Spock hesitated, then said, “Part of the problem, from my point of view, is that you humans are allowing your emotions to outweigh your logical abilities.”
Indeed that has always BEEN the issue. It has been consistently the global warming advocates that have persistently linked the two with no scientific correlation. Indeed THEY seem to be the consistent "FLAT EARTH" Advocates using Galileo's "rebel" days, to draw an analogy from the past. It would seem from your post that you actually would agree there is NO directly measurable, let alone statistically significant link between the two variables in the post's heading.
Of course they might want to backwardsly explain how great deserts were formed even before the advent of C02 emissions from automobiles!? :shades: i.e., the Sahara Desert (North Africa), and closer in town, the Mojave, CA (Area 51, NV etc. ). This can of course be used as a model for the thesis being espoused. I will grant you they do have the chicken little and scare tactics down pretty well. "The truth is out there". It does not appear to be the fault of residual SUV RUG to PUG emissions.
Water Vapor alone does not GW make
ccording to both the International Panel on Climate Change and many global climate models, water vapor accounts for somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. (The 98-percent figure, much beloved by global-warming skeptics, seems to have been first used in a 1991 article by Richard Lindzen. He cites a 1990 IPCC report as his source, but the report doesn't appear to contain that number.)
The skeptical argument thus goes something like this: Since water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, and since this vapor is created through natural evaporation rather than human activity, the current warming trend is nothing to worry about—just the Earth going through a normal climatic cycle.
But this viewpoint ignores the reactive nature of water vapor—in other words, the gas doesn't cause warming all by its lonesome. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is almost purely a function of temperature—the warmer the air gets, the more vapor it's able to glean from the planet. We know, for example, that the atmospheric water content over the oceans has increased (PDF) by 0.41 kilograms per square meter every 10 years since 1988.
So, what's causing the temperature rise that's resulted in greater evaporation? Well, over that same time period, global emissions of carbon dioxide have soared. And unlike water vapor, which returns to Earth as precipitation within a week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 sticks around for between 50 and 200 years. Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 25 percent of the greenhouse effect, so it's pretty clear that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 is playing a significant role in recent warming. (This warming might have been even greater if not for the ability of the planet's oceans to absorb heat.)
I am not against clean air and water. I believe in doing my part to keep our environment clean. I just do not get fanatical about anything. I consider the GW cult a bunch of uninformed fanatics. Or those wanting to profit on the ignorance of the masses. GW is BIG bucks for those that got in on the ground floor of the scheme. It may be the Ponzi scheme to top all pyramid schemes.
Indeed there is more direct and measurable evidence that your quote is more spot on than ANY links to GW.
The Earth is in a warming trend.
I asked you a few days ago to find me a chart showing a cooling trend.
So far no one has done it.
So, if there are "FACTS" disputing the warming trend, where is a chart?
Look at this data:
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .65 -.01
1982 -.35 .11
1983 .00 -.02
1984 .01 .00
1985 -.41 .24
1986 .74 .30
1987 .84 .27
1988 .33 .52
1989 -.17 .52
1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11
1995 .36 .06
1996 -.16 .39
1997 .04 .48
1998 1.24 .52
1999 .94 .71
2000 .54 .81
2001 .78 .67
2002 .55 .57
2003 .53 .60
2004 .46 .68
2005 .71 .74
2006 1.15 *
2007 .84 *
**************************************
That shows that in the years since 1980, only 5 years have been cooler than the annual mean since 1880. The last 11 years have all been warmer than the mean.
Where is the definable cooling trend?
Regardless of the assumption that GW is "big bucks" for some people, I cannot see evidence of anything but a warming trend.
Looking at the entire graph, you can see that the normal temperature for earth should be about 3C higher than today. So if the Earth is warmer, it's just getting back to normal. Maybe then we can stop burning so many fossil fuels to keep from freezing to death!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
On another point, where did you see the basis for your statement that the Earf's current temperature is 3C too cold?
P.S. If someone has to go back millions of years to disprove a point, then they automagically lose the point.
Why not? Physics hasn't changed and the same mechanisms are at work.
If someone has to go back millions of years to disprove a point, then they automagically lose the point.
Don't be silly. One could just as well assert that if someone uses only data over the past few decades and ignores millions of years of history then they are being deceitful and lose all their points.
Um, physics have not changed, true, but the dynamics of the world climate certainly HAVE changed. The climate on Earth and the dynamics of the environment of this planet are VASTLY different now than millions of years ago.
If that needs to explained further to anyone here, then they are lacking in the education required to make a salient point.
And if anyone thinks the world is not in a warming trend, show me a chart which indicates we are in a cooling trend. Still waiting for a valid one that encompasses a time frame which involves similarity to the current state of the Earth's climate.
See this chart:
How does that NOT indicate a warming trend?
I AM saying that there IS without a doubt a warming trend.
Anyone with an objective mind can determine that to be true.
The questions REMAIN:
How much if any of is is caused by human burning of fossil fuels?
What, if anything, can we do about it?
Nonsense. What is the basis for your claim? A milliion years ago, the Earth had an atmosphere identical to the one we have today, the Earth spun as it does today, the Sun shined as it does today, and the Earth had oceans and lakes and mountains and a biosphere as it does today. Energy was conserved a million years ago as it is today, thermodynamics worked the same way, heat flowed in the same way as it does today, radiation worked the same way and on and on.
If that needs to explained further to anyone here, then they are lacking in the education required to make a salient point.
If you can't make your case without being rude and offensive then you have no case at all. I would not presume to know what level of education anyone else here has. Your points are rapidly falling into negative territory.
What I said is neither rude nor offensive. It's the stating of a very generalized opinion, and as you can see, was intentionally not directed at or toward any one person in particular. It's merely that if someone thinks certain things, then they are lacking in education on the subject. Same with any subject on any forum - someone almost daily makes a statement or a post out of misinformation or lack of education. Not a crime, but it happens.
And this statement:
tidester says, "A milliion years ago, the Earth had an atmosphere identical to the one we have today, the Earth spun as it does today, the Sun shined as it does today, and the Earth had oceans and lakes and mountains and a biosphere as it does today."
I'll post more on this soon.
That is patently offensive and it's called argument by posturing. Again, don't presume to know what education others here have.
Here's some data for you:
It's from here: The Earth has Cooled 0.05 °C in Last 10 Years."
You can check out NASA for longer term data. Their results indicate 0.4 °C COOLING per decade of the stratosphere while tropospheric changes are flat with a statistically insignificant increase of 0.04 °C per decade. (This is from data only up to year 2000 but apparently the surface temperature changes have reversed.)
On your last Blog link:
I can make an excel chart too.
His "data" link is dead. Nor does he say for what geological area his chart is using.
That supposed "data" conflicts with everything else I can find. So, does that mean he is right and everyone else is wrong?
We can't know, since he does not reveal his data source.
NASA data certainly does not show the Earth cooling.
LiveScience Staff Writer
SPACE.com
Mon Feb 11, 11:50 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080211/sc_livescience/submersiblerobotruns- - - onseasheat
The nexus of course is how to harness the suns energy that hits the earth and of course radiates at that time of the day AKA night to power autos.
Of course the killer application might be, :lemon: if given lemons make lemonade drill: How to power autos with.... CO2. :shades:
But for someone to say the Earth was meteorologically the same place a million years ago, that statement, on it's surface, sounds to me like it would have to be completely incorrect.
Sure, the basics are the same: Earf and moon and sun interacting, oceans alive, etc. But many things most certainly were different.
I am researching the issue and will post something later in reference to what I find.
You're telling us that you're a climate expert? Scientist? Physicist? I think it's best to drop the posturing.
NASA data certainly does not show the Earth cooling.
Then you haven't looked.
Such as?
I am researching the issue and will post something later in reference to what I find.
Oh, then you made the previous statement with no basis whatever?
A lot of scientists were truly incredulous about God and the BIG BANG Theory. :shades: The way some environmentalist's talk, you would think Prius was a (motorized) "god".
And I don't even know what "posturing" is, so I am surely not doing it, whatever it is.
And yes I have looked. See this:
Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
That from this NASA page:
link title
And this:
Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed.
was from this page:
link title
Can you show me a page where NASA data shows the Earf on a recent cooling trend?
I'm getting to that.
The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.
The emission of GHG is not going to cease or even be lessened so what is the point of belaboring the issue? By 2100 you, me and our grandkids will all be gone.
* One million years ago the current ice-age (Pleistocene) began.
* We are now living in an abnormally warm period compared to the earth's average temperature for the last one million years (during which glaciation has prevailed).
* The current interglacial period has been subject to climatic changes on a smaller scale than the change from glacial to interglacial but still large enough to disrupt civilizations.
This is a very good recent paper that talks about climate history of the past couple of million years and has a few good specifics:
link title
I didn't say "too cool"; I said below normal. That graph is on a log-scale. So look at the first 2 sections from the left. That represents from 542 million B.C. to 7 million B.C. That represents nearly 99% of the previous historical time.
Now take those 2 sections and put a ruler up to it so that half the area is above and half is below the ruler, and you'll see the ruler is about at 3-4C. On that graph we're now at abourt 0.5C.
If someone has to go back millions of years to disprove a point, then they automagically lose the point.
LOL. I wish I had that time-machine. I just want to go back 30 years with a few dollars to play the stock market
So, you only care about the Earf's climate up to the point of the death of your last grandkid?
I want the Earf to be habitable and hospitable to humans and lesser animals for much longer than that.
Whether or not anything little ole me can do to affect that is unclear. But I'm certainly going to err on the side of "use common sense and do less harm" than the other direction.
That's what I mean by a "current warming trend."
The line is not going DOWN.
I've never argued that point with you. You must be confusing me with someone else.
My main points have been:
1) That the data showing the temp. going up is only a small amount over several decades.
2) The Earth has had much higher CO2 levels and life survived and flourished to what it is today.
3) the Earth has on average been much warmer, by 3-4 C than it is today.
4) A warmer Earth is more beneficial to life; even though some species may perish on a warmer Earth. This is an observation looking at the variety and density of life in tropical areas, vs. those in cooler and arctic areas (Brazil vs. Canada for example).
5) You will not get people to stop emitting CO2, because the global population is expanding and becoming wealthier, using more fuels in the process.
6) The goal of every global economy is to expand their economies, which uses more fuels.
And most importantly to answer the question - no autos DO NOT contribute a significant amount of the man-made CO2. Most CO2 is coming from our everyday use of electricity.
LOL. If that guy is from Columbia, I'll give him a break if English is his 4th language. Did you read that thing, and not find it rambling, and lacking in the basics of syntax and grammar? For example: "Now humans are applying a much stronger, much faster forcing as we put back into the atmosphere, in a geologic heartbeat, fossil fuels that accumulated over millions of years."
Or from the 5th paragraph: "To cause the loss of all summer Arctic ice with devastating effects on wildlife and indigenous people." Isn't that missing the subject part of the sentence?
And "...and likely render the semi-arid states from west and central Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, ..." I kinda missed when they split Texas up into separate states.
And "First, we must phase out the use of coal and unconventional fossil fuels except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered." What the heck is "unconventional fossil fuels"??
But thanks for the laughs. I'll have to go back and read the rest. I'm sure there's many gems in there!
Layman? Then you have no right to impugn the credentials of other layman and even a few scientists and engineers who contribute to this discussion.
And I don't even know what "posturing" is, so I am surely not doing it, whatever it is.
Look it up. Here, for example: posturing
Regarding cooling, here's the abstract of a report from NASA/Goddard in a peer reviewed journal:
"The stratosphere has been cooling by about 2K/decade at 30-60 km over the past several decades and by lesser amounts toward the tropopause. Climate model calculations suggest that stratospheric water vapor is an important contributor to the observed stratospheric cooling, but there are large differences among recent GCM simulations for prescribed changes in stratospheric water vapor, which point to problems with the current GCM treatment of the absorption and emission by stratospheric water vapor. We show that the correlate k-distribution treatment with sufficient resolution is capable of simulating accurately cooling by stratospheric water vapor. We obtain equilibrium cooling of about 0.3K that extends from 20 km to the top of the atmosphere, and adjusted radiative forcing of 0.12 W/m2, for a stratospheric water vapor increase of 0.7 ppmv which has been estimated for the period 1979-1997."
- V. Oinas, A.A. Lacis, D. Rind, D.T. Shindell, J.E. Hansen, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2791-2794, doi:10.1029/2001GL013137 (2001). (see Abstract)
Note the significance of water vapor.
You may also be interested in seeing what a prominent physcist has to say about the matter of GCMs. Freeman Dyson
"Dyson explains why climate models have no scientific merit, why average global ground temperature is a great fiction, and what he believes the real dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are."
He has a view different from yours so we can casually dismiss him?
Enjoy!
"Are automobiles even creating a BLIP in Global Warming?"
I never "dismiss" anyone just because they have a different view than my own. How does that stimulate debate and create educational opportunities?
Thanks for the link to posturing. Like I said: regardless of what it is, I don't do it.
Let's not get into a battle of posting "he said and this guy said and this guy said."
We could do that for days and not change anyone's mind.
I have yet to see any REAL data indicating that the Earf is not in a warming trend.
Meanwhile Bloomberg weighs in, urging the UN to act on climate change.
You were attempting to diminish others when you said "If that needs to explained further to anyone here, then they are lacking in the education required to make a salient point." You can't have it both ways.
Let's not get into a battle of posting "he said and this guy said and this guy said."
REALITY CHECK: So it's okay when you quote this person and that one along with unattributed graphs and charts and so on but it's not okay for others to respond in kind? Just curious.
I have yet to see any REAL data indicating that the Earf is not in a warming trend.
What's up with that? We've given technical references and graphs. But since you ask, can you give one shred of evidence proving that climate changes today are in any real way different from those of any other period throughout all of history?
It would seem that those proposing the notion that GW is caused by man have the burden of proof on their shoulders. It's not for others to disprove your claims. So far, claims of anthropogenic climate change are utterly unconvincing from a scientific perspective - except perhaps to the politically motivated.
"UN Delegate: I do not want to live in a world without Penguins! "
King penguins could be wiped out by climate change (AFP)
With a little luck, the next Freeman Dyson will be among them.
Doesn't it make you just a bit suspicious when more and more politicians jump on the GW bandwagon? Could it be the light they are seeing is gilded in Gold? The whole carbon credit scheme is so perfect for the elitist to use for extracting more money from the peasants. We can start with a simple carbon tax for breathing. Now how much do you your wife and children weigh? We also need the weight on your dog and cat. The opportunities are endless. If Al Gore can make $100 million on GW in 7 short years, think of the potential.