History channel presents "little ice age"

[Old Rocks]

Ol' G-string doesn't read anything above the level of 'Conservative' one liners, and doesn't believe anything that someone with more than an eighth grade education tells him.

 

[code1211]

Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Just for clarification, does the whole 97% agree that human beings are causing 100% of the warming? Is there a lesser % claiming that 100% is caused by human beings? Do any of these scientists think that human beings are causing warming in part, but that part is small? Partial? Fractional?

Do any of the 97% think that there might be other factors like, oh, the Sun that might have any impact at all on the Climate.

If the 97% monolithically support the notion that 100% of the warming is caused by human beings, as you imply, they are worthy of our scorn and derision, not our respect.

No one said humans cause 100% of warming. Where is that implied? I'd think you'd want to point that out BEFORE talking about derision. THAT can easily be turned around by sloppy posting.

The words said exactly this:

"97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming"

There is no reference to a partial causing or a cause in conjunction with any other factor. It says that humans are causing global warming. I cannot see a different way to read this. Can you?

If the thesis is that some part or some small part is being caused by humans, why not say that if that is what he meant to convey.

The intent was to mislead by omission and you are supporting his deception.

 

[code1211]

You're missing the point. Of course there are other stronger determinants of climate, that's a given, NOT something that's being over-looked, particularly by climate scientists. The concern is over the effect of ADDED pressure towards higher tempeartues from man-made sources. There's been 30-40% rise in CO2 over the last ~200 years. Since additional CO2 adds to the "Greenhouse Effect" on a log scale, that's still a 11-15% rise. Hardly what I would call minor.

Another factor to consider is the impact of the increase in the CO2. I've read in this long investigation that as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the magnitude of the impact decreases.

It's along the order of for every degree of additional warming caused by CO2 the icremental increase of CO2 must double compared to the previous increment.

By this calcualtion, before we can add enough CO2 to the air to create the increase in temperatures predicted by those who are calling for panicked reaction, the air would become poisenous to breathe.

We asphysciate and the problem is solved.

More seriously, though, even within the normal ebb and flow of annual temperature, CO2 seems to be a very weak driver of climate. Why did the fairly predictable rise of temperatures since 1980 dip in the middle of the time span and stall out lately? CO2 has risen relentlessly until the Big 0 decided to remedy the economic problems of the country. The "Big 0 Effect" has been to stop everything, including CO2 Production, that has anything to do with manufacturing.

He said that he would stop the rise of the oceans which was arguably not happening. Apparently, he was referring to the rise that Kennedy predicted would lift all boats.

That's a lot of rhetoric with nothing to back it up. If you're going to make those kinds of blanket statements, give us some links or show us your math!

I've read this in so many places, I'm astonished that everyone hasn't seen it. As explained below, the CO2 must double to achieve the incremental increase achieved by the previous doubling. It's a very simple and an intuitively obvious conclusion.


CO2 is Logarithmic Explained | Knowledge Drift; The Science of Human Error

<snip>
What is often quoted is that CO2 doubling causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface of 3.7 watts/meter squared, which in turn raises temperatures about 1 degree Celsius. Why the reference to “doubling”? Because we’re talking about light and filtering materials. Consider that you have several pairs of sun glasses, each of which blocks 50% of the light. If you put two pairs in a row, do they block 100%? Of course not. The first pair blocks 50% and the second pair blocks 50% of what is left, which is 25% of the original light. The third pair would only block 12.5% of the original light. CO2 suffers from the same law of diminishing returns. What keeps getting left out of the climate discussion is what happens after the first doubling. The pre-industrial levels (1900 AD or so) of CO2 are commonly quoted at 278 PPM (parts per million) and the current levels are at about 385 ppm. If we look at this graph, it becomes pretty clear that we would have to generate a LOT of CO2 to get much more effect than we are already:
<snip>

 

[Old Rocks]

Given that the TSI is lower than it has been for a while, that we just had a major La Nina, yet the global temperature continues to go up, and the Arctic Ice to decline, what other factor would cause this?

Less energy coming in, yet we have increasing temps. But we have increased CO2 by 40% and CH4 by over 150%, both GHGs, as well as NOx's and industrial chemicals for which there is no natural analog, so it seems reasonable that we might be affecting the temperature balance of the planet.

Now those that claim CO2 has no effect need to explain where the extra energy is coming from. You up to that Code?

In the meantime, we have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real, and a threat to all of us. Some grand conspiracy? Would you care to explain how that is arranged?

 

[Old Rocks]

But CO2 is not the only affect. As Arrhenius point out in 1896, a small increase in heat from CO2 draws more H2O into the atmosphere, which is a much more effective GHG. Of course that rains out in ten days or less, just ask anyone living along the Missouri and Mississippi this year about that, but the CO2 is still there, as it takes geological processes to remove that in any significant amount.

Code, I know you know this, and are playing to the ignorant audience here. Here's hoping Karma for you.

 

[code1211]

Let's leave it up to the scientists. What do they say? Oops.

What do the scientists say? They say that the warming is caused by extraterrestrial forces and NOT by mankind.

What did you think they said? There must be a fairly complete explanation of what they are saying on the DNC website.



Nature Journal of Science Discredits Man-made Global Warming

Nature Journal of Science Discredits Man-made Global Warming
biggovernment.com ^ | 6 Sep 2011 | Chriss W. Street

Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:31:32 PM by saganite

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”

The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web, built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere.

The climate study involved scientists representing 17 of Europe’s and America’s premiere research institutes.

The results demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that can grow and seed clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere; the temperatures then fall as the density of the clouds increase. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere; the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Nature Journal has been the holy-grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. Its original editors gave the title to their new scientific journal in celebration of a line by British poet William Wordsworth: “To the solid ground of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye”. Because research scientists are the primary audience this most prestigious of journals, the magazine strives to retain its stamp of approval as the pinnacle of scientific credibility for original research. Nature first introduced its readers to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently mapping of the human genome.

 

[code1211]

Given that the TSI is lower than it has been for a while, that we just had a major La Nina, yet the global temperature continues to go up, and the Arctic Ice to decline, what other factor would cause this?

Less energy coming in, yet we have increasing temps. But we have increased CO2 by 40% and CH4 by over 150%, both GHGs, as well as NOx's and industrial chemicals for which there is no natural analog, so it seems reasonable that we might be affecting the temperature balance of the planet.

Now those that claim CO2 has no effect need to explain where the extra energy is coming from. You up to that Code?

In the meantime, we have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real, and a threat to all of us. Some grand conspiracy? Would you care to explain how that is arranged?

CERN would disagree along with scientists from 17 of the leading laboratories from Europe and the US. How a grand conspiracy is arranged is what we will witness in the responses to the conclusions issued by CERN.

Regarding the level of the TSI, there has been a very moderate drop back fro the peak which was quite recent, but still leves us riding a high compared to the past. During the little ice Age, we seem to have bottomed out in terms of measuing this and recently, we ride the 11 year cycle at the top range of the TSI ever recorded.

That's where the extra energy is coming from.

LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

 

[Old Rocks]

Freeper. LOL. And that is not what that article states.

What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?

What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...
CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming


"The new [CERN] findings point to cosmic rays and the sun &#8212; not human activities &#8212; as the dominant controller of climate on Earth...CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science" [Lawrence Solomon]

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."


CERN scientist Jasper Kirby, about his recent cosmic ray experiment:

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

At CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, scientists created an experiment to test how clouds are formed. The experiment ties in with a climate "skeptic" hypothesis that cosmic rays (charged particles from space) are causing global warming. As the hypothesis goes:

Solar magnetic field gets stronger => More cosmic rays are blocked from reaching Earth => Clouds, which are hypothetically seeded by cosmic rays, are less likely to form => Fewer clouds means more sunlight reaches Earth's surface => More sunlight means warmer temperatures => global warming!

Many climate "skeptic" bloggers and commenters have claimed that the CERN experiment has proven that cosmic rays are causing global warming, and that the experiment is "the final nail in the man-made global warming coffin" (i.e. here and here and here and here).

In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining
In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU: A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance

EASI Search Result
Abstract

A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance

Greg Kopp

Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Judith L. Lean

Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C., USA


The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m&#8722;2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m&#8722;2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view&#8208;limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument. We assess the accuracy and stability of irradiance measurements made since 1978 and the implications of instrument uncertainties and instabilities for climate research in comparison with the new TIM data. TIM's lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun's output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations on climate&#8208;relevant time scales and in improving estimates of Earth energy balance, which the Sun initiates.

 

[code1211]

But CO2 is not the only affect. As Arrhenius point out in 1896, a small increase in heat from CO2 draws more H2O into the atmosphere, which is a much more effective GHG. Of course that rains out in ten days or less, just ask anyone living along the Missouri and Mississippi this year about that, but the CO2 is still there, as it takes geological processes to remove that in any significant amount.

Code, I know you know this, and are playing to the ignorant audience here. Here's hoping Karma for you.

We've run around this bush before. I'm usually the one saying that water vapor, due to it being 95% of the total GHG's in the air, has a far greater impact than does CO2 and cannot be affected by man due to its short "shelf life".

Due to the way the air works, water vapor gets shed pretty quick when there is too much of it. Natural cycle. When the Sun sets, it rains. Pretty simple.

 

[code1211]

Freeper. LOL. And that is not what that article states.

What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?

What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...
CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming


"The new [CERN] findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth...CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science" [Lawrence Solomon]

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."


CERN scientist Jasper Kirby, about his recent cosmic ray experiment:

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

At CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, scientists created an experiment to test how clouds are formed. The experiment ties in with a climate "skeptic" hypothesis that cosmic rays (charged particles from space) are causing global warming. As the hypothesis goes:

Solar magnetic field gets stronger => More cosmic rays are blocked from reaching Earth => Clouds, which are hypothetically seeded by cosmic rays, are less likely to form => Fewer clouds means more sunlight reaches Earth's surface => More sunlight means warmer temperatures => global warming!

Many climate "skeptic" bloggers and commenters have claimed that the CERN experiment has proven that cosmic rays are causing global warming, and that the experiment is "the final nail in the man-made global warming coffin" (i.e. here and here and here and here).

In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining
In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).

Are we gauging the possiblitiy of a conspiracy in the responses to the CERN conclusions?

 

[Old Rocks]

But CO2 is not the only affect. As Arrhenius point out in 1896, a small increase in heat from CO2 draws more H2O into the atmosphere, which is a much more effective GHG. Of course that rains out in ten days or less, just ask anyone living along the Missouri and Mississippi this year about that, but the CO2 is still there, as it takes geological processes to remove that in any significant amount.

Code, I know you know this, and are playing to the ignorant audience here. Here's hoping Karma for you.

We've run around this bush before. I'm usually the one saying that water vapor, due to it being 95% of the total GHG's in the air, has a far greater impact than does CO2 and cannot be affected by man due to its short "shelf life".

Due to the way the air works, water vapor gets shed pretty quick when there is too much of it. Natural cycle. When the Sun sets, it rains. Pretty simple.

Yep. So when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, such as the 40% increase we have created, the additional heat that is trapped evaporates more H2O, which traps even more heat. And draws more water up. Then night comes, from day one to day ten, and the water falls out. Saw major examples of that this summer in the Dakotas and Montana.

Now, Code, maybe a two digit IQ would fall for that little gambit of water vapor cannot be affected by man, but anyone with the slightest logic realizes that the initiating factor is the CO2. So when we put that into the air with the massive burning of fossil fuels, we absolutely affect the amount of H2O in the air.

The primary effect predicted by global warming is weather swings that are wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend. Didn't expect to see as much as we have seen in just the last 14 months in that period in my lifetime.

 

[Old Rocks]

Freeper. LOL. And that is not what that article states.

What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?

What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...
CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming


"The new [CERN] findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth...CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science" [Lawrence Solomon]

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."


CERN scientist Jasper Kirby, about his recent cosmic ray experiment:

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

At CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, scientists created an experiment to test how clouds are formed. The experiment ties in with a climate "skeptic" hypothesis that cosmic rays (charged particles from space) are causing global warming. As the hypothesis goes:

Solar magnetic field gets stronger => More cosmic rays are blocked from reaching Earth => Clouds, which are hypothetically seeded by cosmic rays, are less likely to form => Fewer clouds means more sunlight reaches Earth's surface => More sunlight means warmer temperatures => global warming!

Many climate "skeptic" bloggers and commenters have claimed that the CERN experiment has proven that cosmic rays are causing global warming, and that the experiment is "the final nail in the man-made global warming coffin" (i.e. here and here and here and here).

In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining
In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).

Are we gauging the possiblitiy of a conspiracy in the responses to the CERN conclusions?

Little tin hat time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now look at the graphs here, showing cosmic rays, CO2, and surface temperatures. Care to comment how the Cosmic rays in any way match the surface temperatures?

Cosmic rays &#8211; again

 

[code1211]

But CO2 is not the only affect. As Arrhenius point out in 1896, a small increase in heat from CO2 draws more H2O into the atmosphere, which is a much more effective GHG. Of course that rains out in ten days or less, just ask anyone living along the Missouri and Mississippi this year about that, but the CO2 is still there, as it takes geological processes to remove that in any significant amount.

Code, I know you know this, and are playing to the ignorant audience here. Here's hoping Karma for you.

We've run around this bush before. I'm usually the one saying that water vapor, due to it being 95% of the total GHG's in the air, has a far greater impact than does CO2 and cannot be affected by man due to its short "shelf life".

Due to the way the air works, water vapor gets shed pretty quick when there is too much of it. Natural cycle. When the Sun sets, it rains. Pretty simple.

Yep. So when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, such as the 40% increase we have created, the additional heat that is trapped evaporates more H2O, which traps even more heat. And draws more water up. Then night comes, from day one to day ten, and the water falls out. Saw major examples of that this summer in the Dakotas and Montana.

Now, Code, maybe a two digit IQ would fall for that little gambit of water vapor cannot be affected by man, but anyone with the slightest logic realizes that the initiating factor is the CO2. So when we put that into the air with the massive burning of fossil fuels, we absolutely affect the amount of H2O in the air.

The primary effect predicted by global warming is weather swings that are wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend. Didn't expect to see as much as we have seen in just the last 14 months in that period in my lifetime.

So the climate now is different than in the past?

Demonstrate. Remember, of course, that weather is not climate and that climate takes centuries to manifest.

 

[code1211]

Now look at the graphs here, showing cosmic rays, CO2, and surface temperatures. Care to comment how the Cosmic rays in any way match the surface temperatures?

Cosmic rays – again

Is this a peer reviewed source?

You're putting this guy up against CERN?

Alrighty then!

 

[Old Rocks]

He did not do the graphs. They are from sources as trustworthy as CERN. And what they show is little to no corelation of cosmic rays with the warming.