Global Warming

I am at work so I don't have enough time to look up the information. The program follows a few scientists who studied the effect of the modern "sooty" clouds. The dirty clouds actually reflect more sunlight for a cooling effect. It was quite interesting, it made for a odd parallel as I watched it only days before "An Inconvenient Truth"

I don't know if anybody saw the article, but the rising of the oceans
have claimed some islands, one of which was inhabited at one pointFrom http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/903

I'm not a global warming denier, but I suspect the cited examples are a matter of subsidance of the islands, and not the rising of sea level.Atoll islands are such precisely because the island is sinking. That's why there is the open water between the island and the coral reef. It is also the origin of guyot sea mountains. They are sub-sea level mountains with flat tops, that were originally islands.Moose

Hi, this is interesting here:Opinion Journal of WSJ:snip:U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 --in the range of measurement error and thus not [*NOT*] statistically significant.The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn't predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003--which is the opposite of what you'd expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise.Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews.

This article debunks the opinion piece's misinformation: RealClimate: WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand

quote:

---

However, the extent of its isolation on this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone Christopher Monckton. They quote him saying that the sea level rise predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren't), that the human contribution to recent changes has been 'cut by a third' (no it hasn't), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn't - the clue is in the name).

​

Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous 'hockey stick' ". Not only are the three original "hockey stick" reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years.

---

Following some of the links rebuts the material you posted:

quote:

---

Even less sanely: "Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast." The temperature bit just relies on cherry-picking a start point of 1998 and is just silly. The sea level assertion is incomprehensible: current SLR is 3 mm/yr from satellite; the mid-range value for 2100 from the TAR was 0.4m which is 4 mm/yr. But since the graph is convex the "prediction" was clearly for about 3 mm/yr which was spot on.

---

I find the claim that the oceans are cooling incomprehensible, compared to the data:Maybe global warming deniers simply have a problem reading graphs?

Sure, help me read the graph.So ho much have Temps gone up from 2001?Ocean Levels?You pick the time frame.It should be noted, that since the last Ice age, sea levels have risen 400 feet.Ah, CRISIS!Where is Atlantis?

I think you're missing the point; that the nearly-microscopic decline in ocean temps in one or two years (following an el nino) is insignificant next to the overall trend, which is obvious on the graph. It might be, if you live in New York...

Geez, I am so sorry.And, do i understand your position, that you don't know, or you're unwilling to read your own posted graph?In any case, in the last 100 years the temp has risen 0.6 C with an 0.2 margin of error.And, that coming off an Ice Age or Icehouse Big Chill.That is it!?!?!?!And, that is "significant", and a cause for ALARM?You need your head examined and you need to inform yourself of REALITY!!!Read:A Brief History of Ice Ages and WarmingGlobal warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age -- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life.For example:* Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.* By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bearing Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.* Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice. 403 Forbidden Brrrrrr.And, thank God in heaven above that we have a NATURAL upswing in temps!Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!Enjoy the modest rise in temps!And, more "good news" for Global warming Group think Lemmings!Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold[Ah, there goes my Golfing weather!]25 January 2007There's a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our star's core.Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, modelled the effect of temperature fluctuations in the sun's interior. According to the standard view, the temperature of the sun's core is held constant by the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusion. However, Ehrlich believed that slight variations should be possible.He took as his starting point the work of Attila Grandpierre of the Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In 2005, Grandpierre and a collaborator, Gábor goston, calculated that magnetic fields in the sun's core could produce small instabilities in the solar plasma. These instabilities would induce localised oscillations in temperature.http://environment.newscientist.com/...ay-leave-us-cold.htmlEdited by Richbee, : No reason given.

---

"All who wander are not lost." - J.R.R. TolkeinRichard B.

I have to say, RB, you're not presenting a very compelling (or even coherent) argument, and you don't appear to have responded to the rebuttal I posted at all. And it doesn't speak well for your argument that you have to pepper it with ad hominem attacks. What evidence do you have that we're coming off an ice age that ended in 1980? So how could that possibly be the explanation for a warming trend that began in this century?Honestly, RB, you're not making any sense. You're talking about warming trends with a periodicity of several thousand years, but anthropogenic climate warming has forced anomalously higher temperatures over less than a century. And you can't see at all why that might be something to get concerned about?

Even if I accept this idea, what difference does it make? We built our cities and houses when it was colder, and the sea was lower. Just because it used to be hotter in the past, doesn't make this current warming any less of a threat. This is true. But without significant levels of greenhouses gases in the past, why should we expect anything different?Have a look at this graph: Causes of Climate ChangeYes, the sun is indeed making the earth hotter. (I wish it wasn't, because that would stop a lot of misnomers about the sun causing all of global warming, rather than 19% of it.) But, greenhouses gases are now the cause of our very rapid changes, compared to the slow fluctuations in solar radiation or the short-lived changes in volcanic forcing. Edited by Doddy, : fixed link

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

There is no basis to the belief that global warming is caused by mans contribution to the greenhouse gases. When one totals all the greenhouse gases mans contribution is only .28 percent of one degree over 100 years. The suns solar cycles has been heating up for over the last 50 years which is the culprit not mans contributions. The problem is that they want to empose a tax on our Co2 emmissions not china's, mexico's, to no purpose when mans total contribution is meaningless(.28 percent of one degree). Its only an attack on the America and those foolish enough to see that which is not the cause as if for some reason it is the cause.The greenhouse gases will only increase not because of mans contribution but because of the methane being released as the polar ice caps melt, as the sun continues to stay at its increased solar outputs. It appears the blame game always gets shifted to the fossil fuels if they believe its global cooling 1970's or global warming 2007. In 20 years it might well be called global cooling we are at the mercy of the sun not mans meaningless contributions.With the biblical flood happening only 5400 years ago and the sun becoming a star 13000 years ago we have perhaps a better understanding of what is actually happening. The polar caps covered sealed massive amounts of methane but now that the sun has heated up the opposite of the glaciation of the dark ages and its now releasing increasing amounts of methane from the oceans bottoms, and as the polar caps melt. This amount of Co2 being released by methane alone dwarfs mans total contributions (.28 % of one degree over 100 years)of all greenhouse industrial gases making the kyoto treaty meaningless. The taxing of Co2 is the next lunacy on the horizon, heaven help us if Hilary gets elected, etc...

In fact, there's such a considerable basis that the IPCC's newest report concludes at least a 90% certainty that humans are primarily responsible for elevated atmospheric carbon levels that force global warming. In fact, studies since the IPCC's TAR have shown that the total contribution to warming from solar radiation was overestimated in that document by a factor of 3 to 4. The sun is definitely not to blame for global warming.Most of your statements are unsourced, so there's no reason to believe that they're true. On the other hand, the IPCC report (as well as professional explanation) can be found here. America is the source of the majority of carbon emissions worldwide, as well as the technological leader in developing low-carbon technologies, so it makes sense that we would, to some degree, be singled out. Mexico is not a significant contributer. While China is projected to become the leader in carbon emissions within this decade, that's largely a function of their larger population. Per capita, they actually have significantly lower emissions than the US.Kyoto singles out polluters who could change their ways if some pressure was brought to bear. It's not an "attack on America". These are made-up facts that bear no relationship to scientific reality. Biblical dogma is not a substitute for evidence. Again, this unsourced statement is contrary to the scientific consensus on the issue. You're entitled to your own opinion on global warming, but not to your own facts.

Have Oceans Temps Increased?Where, or to what depth?Snip of the day:The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.See More.....Climate chaos? Don't believe itBy Christopher Monckton, Sunday TelegraphDOWNLOAD References and Calculations (PDF) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened URL to fix page width

---

"All who wander are not lost." - J.R.R. Tolkein

​

Richard B.

Argument?You can't get the most basic facts correct and you want me to present a better "argument"?Now, back to the FACTS, and what was that you were quoting about Temps rising and by how much?Snip of the Day:News: Breaking stories & updates - The TelegraphQuote:In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C) [Within a margin of error and so insignificant to draw any conclusions] , and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [Holy One World Gov'] The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.Re: Solar Sun Sposts and StormsRead on, and please inform yourself.Climate chaos? Don't believe itBy Christopher Monckton, Sunday TelegraphDOWNLOAD References and Calculations (PDF) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...Edited by Richbee, : No reason given.Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened URL to fix page widthEdited by Richbee, : Edit

---

"All who wander are not lost." - J.R.R. Tolkein

​

Richard B.

A better question here, is if CO2 levels have been rising since the Industrial Revolution" why did Temps go down from say, 1940 - 1975?Re: The Sun god HeliosQuote:News: Breaking stories & updates - The TelegraphTwo centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.Climate chaos? Don't believe itBy Christopher Monckton, Sunday TelegraphDOWNLOAD References and Calculations (PDF)404Book Resource Suggestion:Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas.Singer and Avery record that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warming(s) in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records; Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects. Edited by Richbee, : Edit Add

---

"All who wander are not lost." - J.R.R. Tolkein

​

Richard B.