Global Warming

May 27, 2005Antarctic Ice: A Global Warming Snow Job?Climate scientists have long suspected that warming the oceans around a very cold continent is likely to dramatically increase snowfall. Consider Antarctica. It’s plenty chilly, dozens of degrees below freezing, and it’s surrounded by water. The warmer the water, the greater the evaporation from its surface, and, obviously, the more moisture it contributes to the local atmosphere.So, when this moisture gets swirled up by a common cyclone, do you think it’s going to fall as rain in Antarctica?Welcome worldclimatereport.com - BlueHost.com

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.

The banning of fossil fuels would reduced the amount of man made particulates in the atmosphere. This would have the effect of increasing global warming. I believe however that the intent of modern science is not to ban fossil fuels but to reduce the amount of CO2 that man contributes to the atmosphere. This does have the Catch 22 effect of reducing the particulates in the atmosphere, but I have my doubts that making the attempt to clean up our emissions will have an overall negative effect on our planet. Does this mean that we should continue to pollute the planet with care free abandon? Or perhaps we should make the attempt, as best we can, to find solutions to what we are doing to our home? I am aware of many reasons to believe the sun is much older. A good place to look at would be here -
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
... But that is another debate on an unrelated topic

Really? So from where do you think the neutrino flux originates?

Just a quick response that the low neutrino flux is believed to originate from the suns core. The existance of lithium & beryllium support the temps of the core has not yet achieved full nuclear burning of hydrogen.--------------------------------A low neutrino flux which results in a correspondingly low[16], [17] temperature of the sun's core, again fits in perfectly with the sun being a young star that has not yet achieved full nuclear burning of hydrogen, but is obtaining its energy from a slow gravitational contraction.We know that lithium would be destroyed in around 7,500 years[19] when the central temperature of a young star reaches 3 million degrees.[20]However, the sun still has its normal abundance of beryllium, which is destroyed at a temperature of 4 million degrees.[22] If the Russian scientists are correct in assuming that the sun is homogeneous, then this means that the temperature throughout the whole sun must be far lower than the 15 million degrees required for the sun to be an old, main-sequence star.One of the most recent was the announcement at a major scientific conference in 1995 that the temperature at the center of the sun seems to be varying over a period of several months.[23] This is extremely hard to understand if the sun has a huge central core with a resulting enormous heat capacity. However, such rapid temperature changes are explicable if the sun is young and homogeneous.The Institute for Creation Research

The reason cars have catalytic converters is to convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. You can not just pollute at will but carbon monoxide converts quite quickly to carbon dioxide but the problem is more the lag period in the cities nitric acids that scrubbers and tall stacks are not a bad thing but necessary. However Co2 is not a negative effect on our planet but a positive effect increasing plant growth which increases oxygen output in the algaes, trees, etc... There is also many reasons to believe the sun is no older than 13,000 years, (like core temperature low because of Lithium, and beryllium's presense, etc...) Could the core temperature be rising a bit for the last two centuries of increased solar activities, etc... ? Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Charley, you're violating forum guidelines by repeating, without evidence, your bizarre assertion that Titan has a water canopy.The scientific consensus is abundantly clear that there is no observable canopy on Titan, in its atmosphere, above the atmosphere, dissipated or undissipated, now or in the past. Such a canopy is a physical impossibility. There's no such thing as a water canopy on Titan. There's considerable evidence which you have not responded to. ICR - the Institute for Creation Research - is not a credible source in astronomy or any other scientific field, because they're a religious advocacy group with the purpose of putting forth fundamentalist Christianity under the guise of "science." They have no evidence for their assertions and they traditionally do not cleave to the principles of transparency or even honesty in their "research"The articles they present are based on falsehood; the conclusions they present are driven by religious orthodoxy instead of by evidence; and they've long been rejected as credible by the scientific consensus.The information that they present has no scientific merit and can't be used to support your contentions in a science forum. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that for you. Can you support your contention that climate scientists are listening to spirits? The conclusions of climate scientists are based on evidence, not on the testimony of ghosts.Water vapor is not a climate forcing, it's a feedback. Water precipitates too quickly in the form of rain to be a major contributor to greenhouse warming; rather, the presence of elevated water vapor in the atmosphere is evidence that something else is driving higher temperatures.This is irrefutable consensus science. Your statements are based on flights of fancy.

O.K., now is my favorite time of day, when I wonder and question how the Polar bears are doing in the far North!How is the weather above the Artic circle?http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htmWould anyone like to discuss realtime empirical weather data from the near North Pole?

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.

Not well:

quote:

---

In a closed meeting here late last month, 40 members of the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union concluded that the imposing white carnivores -- the world's largest bear -- should now be classified as a "vulnerable" species based on a likely 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. There are now 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears across the Arctic...

​

The best longitudinal information on the effect of global warming on polar bears comes from the western coast of Hudson Bay, in the Canadian province of Manitoba. It shows a 17 percent decline in the polar bear population in the past 10 years, from 1,200 to fewer than 1,000. The panel here in Seattle used the Canadian research as the primary basis for its warning about the future of polar bears around the world.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html

Well then, you can just easily post the refutations then can't you?What facts do you dispute?It should be noted that the boys at Real Climate dot.org are in fact the authors of the 'Hockey Slap Schtick' crapola.Now going forward, has warming been bad to date and should we fear the future?In North America our farmers have harvested record crops of Corn and Wheat as one example. Crops grow faster with better Temps and with more CO2!Now, can I predict what will happen in the future if Temps rise, and there is a margin of error for the recorded past and go forward errors can be multiplied!I have NO FEAR OF THE FUTURE, and I do have some idea of what 1 - 2 C would bring, because I found this dummy named.....Kerry Emanuel is a professor of meteorology at MIT and the author of Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes. In 2006 Time magazine recognized him as one of the world’s 100 most influential people.Page not found - Boston ReviewFor example, doubling the concentration of CO2 would raise the average surface temperature by about 1.4F, enough to detect but probably not [*NOT*] enough to cause serious problems.Almost all the controversy arises from the fact that in reality, changing any single greenhouse gas will indirectly cause other components of the system to change as well, thus yielding additional changes. These knock-on effects are known as feedbacks, and the most important and uncertain of these involves water. [H2O for you!](We should discuss the one wild variable of any Climatic Model and cloud cover and water vapor is impossible to predict day to day, let alone years in the future.)Now if we cannot agree on the future, wouldn't it be simple and easy to agree on the empirical data of the past?I doubt it, because fundamentalist "global warming" lemmings suffer from "group think" hysteria and hype even the most basic facts in this debate!Case Study:Recent Temp Changes SmallThe global mean temperature is never constant, and it has no choice but to increase or decrease--both of which it does on all known time scales. That this quantity has increased about 0.6C (or about 1F) over the past century is likely.A relevant question is whether this is anything to be concerned about.It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are "record breakers" or even whether current temperatures are "unprecedented."All that matters is that the change over the past century has been small. The fact that such claims are misleading or even false simply provides a temptation to discuss them and implicitly to attach importance to them. Remember, we are talking about tenths of a degree, and all of you know intuitively that that isn't very much.(Noteworthy is the margin of error of 0.2 C 0 give or take.)Page Not Found | Heartland InstituteRichard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.Edited by Richbee, : Edit Add

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.

hahahahaha!Still brainwashed by the media?Among some dozen or more bear groups in the World, one group in the Hudson bay area has had a population decline, and more than likely because their human food sources were cut off.DON'T FEED THE BEARS!

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.

Sorry, there is no low neutrino flux. This particular puzzle was known as the Solar Neutrino Problem and, surprise surprise, is no longer a problem. We were then only detecting a third of the neutrinos owing to sensitivity issues (could only measure the electron neutrinos and not the mu-and tau-neutrinos)So, from where do you think the neutrino flux originates?

Lessee: Laughter. Irrelevant ad hominem rhetorical question. Unsupported assertion. Sophomoric sarcasm in all-caps.Stunning.

What facts have you presented? None that I can see. But they do, of course, require water - I worked long enough for the USDA to tell you that - and two years ago, Missouri had the warmest summer on record at that time, and the worst harvest of corn and soy in recent memory. It was a lot better last summer because it rained so much more. Your assertions of bumper crops all over the place are flights of fancy. Your own source is a dummy? Thank you for proving my point, RB. Water is a feedback, not a forcing. .6C? Or .28C? You don't seem so sure, but I've seen both numbers bandied about as absolute facts.Why is it that global warming deniers can't even agree amongst themselves about the slightest detail? Because they're all making things up, that's why. Actually, you're completely wrong. In an air mass the size of the Earth's whole atmosphere, I intuitively grasp that a tenth of a degree is a pretty significant change.I guess the question is - what's wrong with your intuition?

You might find this article interesting, since you've presented a fair number of these myths yourself: RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Nucleur reaction of Hydrogen thought was what the Russian scientists thought responsible for the solar electron neutrino flux. Suspect your mu-and tau-neutrinos flavors are of the cosmic neutrino flavor not all necessarily of the solar neutrino flavors. Edited by Charley, : No reason given.