Liberal fantasies & the new global warming report

[Hamiltonian]

Confidence not based on fact is nothing more than science by consensus.

What do you mean based on fact. Quantum mechanics illustrates the mechanism of radiative forcing quite well.

How do we know that it can't be explained by natural causes? We know so little about this subject that to come to that conclusion is absurd. So we are experiencing some warming these days....great! Things have been much warmer in the past. Did you know that in the past they even used to grow wine grapes in England? Was that not a natural occurrence?

Natural cycles are just that, cycles with a sinusoidal shape. The issue is not that at a peak we've had higher temperatures, or higher carbon dioxide levels. The issue is that there is a natural point on a curve where we ought to be, and we're heading way above that point.

Page 15. The charts indeed show increased measurements of CO2 and associated radiative forcing but this does not necessarily equate to causation of global warming. The last couple articles I posted dealt with the CO2 issue. And according to Singer/American Geophysical Society CO2 concentrations have been at least 20x higher in the past than today. So today's increases are not out of historical norm.

This is not simply correlation implies causality. The Earth absorbs energy from the sun. It has a natural tendency to release some of this energy back into the space in the form of black body radiation. Carbon dioxide has a spectral line within the frequency of the radiation heading back to space, so carbon dioxide absorbs that radiation and reflects it back to Earth, thus creating global warming.

OK, let's stay away from the wingnuts (does that include Al Gore?). Here is a much more rational article on the subject:

Perhaps it includes Al Gore. I have not seen his movie, so I can't say.

Understand that what we have to do to avoid Global Warming is inevitable and will have to happen sometime. Would this country not be a better place if we reduced our dependence upon foreign oil? We could take away such power from the Middle East if we had a cheap alternative to oil.

 

[glockmail]

...

*Why would you pay somebody to say something unless you wanted to hide the truth?*

ACLU lawyers and Damnocrat legislators all work for free?

 

[red states rule]

ACLU lawyers and Damnocrat legislators all work for free?

Don't forget ABC, NBC, ABC, Cnn, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, NY Times, LA Times, and the Washington Post

 

[glockmail]

Don't forget ABC, NBC, ABC, Cnn, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, NY Times, LA Times, and the Washington Post

Sorry, I don't watch or read any of that.

 

[red states rule]

Sorry, I don't watch or read any of that.

I do not either. I read the highlights on newsbusters

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What do you mean based on fact. Quantum mechanics illustrates the mechanism of radiative forcing quite well.

Meaning there is no factual proof that increased co2 causes global warming. Can you explain why there was quite a bit of temp increase before 1940 when there was relatively little human activity (& co2 emissions) during that time? And why, after 1940 when human production did start booming with increasing co2 emissions, there was a temp drop between 1940 and 1975?

Natural cycles are just that, cycles with a sinusoidal shape. The issue is not that at a peak we've had higher temperatures, or higher carbon dioxide levels. The issue is that there is a natural point on a curve where we ought to be, and we're heading way above that point.

How do you explain the sudden heating up in Greenland since the last ice age that they've discovered? According to ice core samples it heated up to 10C in regions within only one decade. That climate change can occur rather abruptly is a whole new paradigm of climate science.

This is not simply correlation implies causality. The Earth absorbs energy from the sun. It has a natural tendency to release some of this energy back into the space in the form of black body radiation. Carbon dioxide has a spectral line within the frequency of the radiation heading back to space, so carbon dioxide absorbs that radiation and reflects it back to Earth, thus creating global warming.

You are just describing the greenhouse effect. The real question is whether or not higher levels of co2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Even though levels of co2 are rising this does not equate to future global warming. You can't assume a linear relationship between greenhouse gas forcing and climate change. There are other natural feedbacks that can counter a major warming. One factor that has not substantially been addressed is cloud cover.

Perhaps it includes Al Gore. I have not seen his movie, so I can't say.

Understand that what we have to do to avoid Global Warming is inevitable and will have to happen sometime. Would this country not be a better place if we reduced our dependence upon foreign oil? We could take away such power from the Middle East if we had a cheap alternative to oil.

Do you really think we are capable of avoiding Global Warming if Mother Nature is going to make it happen? Do you really think that even if we closed down ALL our factories, stopped heating ALL our houses and offices, stopped driving ALL our cars we could stop it? No way.

Instead, why don't we start figuring out how to build better and cheaper air conditioners? Or start putting restrictions on building in and/or moving people out from low-lying areas that may become flooded? Maybe we should stop wasting money on rebuilding New Orleans. Perhaps you might like to become a Canadian and move northward. And if you don't like fossil fuels creating co2, then let's start building nuclear power plants.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Meaning there is no factual proof that increased co2 causes global warming. Can you explain why there was quite a bit of temp increase before 1940 when there was relatively little human activity (& co2 emissions) during that time?

Sure. The industrial revolution started the higher greenhouse gas levels through the burning of coal. Greenhouse gasses, volcanic debris, and solar intensity caused those higher temperatures.

And why, after 1940 when human production did start booming with increasing co2 emissions, there was a temp drop between 1940 and 1975?

Sulfate aerosols.

How do you explain the sudden heating up in Greenland since the last ice age that they've discovered? According to ice core samples it heated up to 10C in regions within only one decade. That climate change can occur rather abruptly is a whole new paradigm of climate science.

That is because the measurement in Greenland were not taken exactly correctly. There was a compound in the same, which is not found in Antartica, and some of that compound degrades into their indicator for temperature, resulting in artificially inflated temperatures in the past from Greenland samples.

You are just describing the greenhouse effect. The real question is whether or not higher levels of co2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Even though levels of co2 are rising this does not equate to future global warming. You can't assume a linear relationship between greenhouse gas forcing and climate change. There are other natural feedbacks that can counter a major warming. One factor that has not substantially been addressed is cloud cover.

It is obvious how increasing C02 increases radiative forcing. Here's a little experiment you can do it if is still unclear: put some small, lightweight styrofoam balls into a glass box, which contains a fan to create airflow and keep the balls moving around. Put a large light source on one side of the box in a dark room and have the other box about one meter away from the wall. You will be able to see the light go through the box and become projected on the wall. Now as you dump in more styrofoam balls, you will notice that you're not seeing as much light on the wall. In this experiment light is taking the place of black body radiation, and the styrofoam balls are taking the place of C02. Now, since C02 is much smaller than those styrofoam balls, the effect of increasing C02 is even more dramatic.

Do you really think we are capable of avoiding Global Warming if Mother Nature is going to make it happen? Do you really think that even if we closed down ALL our factories, stopped heating ALL our houses and offices, stopped driving ALL our cars we could stop it? No way.

Yes we can still avoid it. Even if we didn't think we could, we should still ought to try. Say you are driving and car and you're accelerating. You see that you're going to perhaps crash because somebody pulled out in front of you. Would you keep accelerating, or would you hit your brakes to stop, even if you weren't sure you could stop in time? Most people would argue the sane thing to do would be to hit the brakes.

Instead, why don't we start figuring out how to build better and cheaper air conditioners? Or start putting restrictions on building in and/or moving people out from low-lying areas that may become flooded? Maybe we should stop wasting money on rebuilding New Orleans. Perhaps you might like to become a Canadian and move northward. And if you don't like fossil fuels creating co2, then let's start building nuclear power plants.

So you are saying you just want to cut and run from global warming .

Having a higher dependence upon nuclear power would be good.

 

[red states rule]

The left wants you fired from your job if you do not buy in to the junk science of global warming



Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

06:09 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007

By VINCE PATTON, kgw.com

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.


Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.


“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.


Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.


So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.


In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.


“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.


Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.


In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.


A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.


Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."


Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.


The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....59f5d04a.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sure. The industrial revolution started the higher greenhouse gas levels through the burning of coal. Greenhouse gasses, volcanic debris, and solar intensity caused those higher temperatures.

Granted, mankind does cause some warming, but is co2 actually the cause of global warming? This is the question which has not been definitively answered.

Sulfate aerosols.

But the sulphate aerosols were primarily only in the northern hemisphere where industrialization took place, yet global temps went down during that period. So, even though they may have had some effect, how can you link aerosols specifically to the world-wide downward temps of that period?

"The sulfate aerosol theory is politically correct, because some explanation is needed for why the early climate models flopped so badly. They served as the basis for the United Nations climate treaty, recently modified in Kyoto to force the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 45 percent in 8.5 years. Even though the treaty would devastate the U.S. economy, Wigley thinks it is not enough, saying we need "nine more Kyotos."

Sulfates don't do a good job of explaining the failure of the models noted above. NASA scientist James Hansen, who essentially ignited the greenhouse issue 11 years ago with his flamboyant congressional testimony, has become very skeptical about sulfates. University of Washington scientist Peter Hobbs found that sulfates off the East Coast are overwhelmed in their own plume by black carbon particles that absorb radiation and cancel sulfate cooling. And throughout the eastern United States, where sulfates have been in decline for the last 30 years, the temperature hasn't budged during the entire century.

Any or all of these observations could have been offered by "respected climatologists" if MSNBC had bothered to do a little legwork. The real "story behind the story" is why they didn't."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-08-99.html[/QUOTE]

That is because the measurement in Greenland were not taken exactly correctly. There was a compound in the same, which is not found in Antartica, and some of that compound degrades into their indicator for temperature, resulting in artificially inflated temperatures in the past from Greenland samples.

Really? There have been many ice core measurements taken in Greenland, not just one that was taken erroneously. Also, ice cores have been taken in Antarctica which show mirror images of same.

"Temperatures during the last Ice Age, the cores revealed, had swung repeatedly up and down -- "by more than 10 degrees within a few decades," Fischer explains.

Scientists have long wondered if these enormous swings in temperature were only a regional phenomenon. This latest research now shows that they weren't. The 2,774 meter-long ice core the EPICA team finished extracting out of the Antarctic ice in February reveals a mirror image of the temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere. "When it was warm in the north, the ocean surrounding Antarctica cooled down," says Fischer. "And vice versa: the Southern Hemisphere warmed up when it got colder in the north."

These temperature swings seem to be caused by the system of currents in the Atlantic Ocean."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448089,00.html

It is obvious how increasing C02 increases radiative forcing. Here's a little experiment you can do it if is still unclear: put some small, lightweight styrofoam balls into a glass box, which contains a fan to create airflow and keep the balls moving around. Put a large light source on one side of the box in a dark room and have the other box about one meter away from the wall. You will be able to see the light go through the box and become projected on the wall. Now as you dump in more styrofoam balls, you will notice that you're not seeing as much light on the wall. In this experiment light is taking the place of black body radiation, and the styrofoam balls are taking the place of C02. Now, since C02 is much smaller than those styrofoam balls, the effect of increasing C02 is even more dramatic.

Despite your entertaining example, the point you're missing is that increasing co2 does not necessarily cause global warming. Why has co2 historically been a lagging indicator?

"Early Vostok data analysis looked at samples centuries apart, and concluded (correctly) that there is a very strong relationship between temperatures and CO2 concentrations. The conclusion for many was obvious: when CO2 goes up, temperatures go up, and vice-versa. This became the basis for a number of scary-looking graphs in books by the scientist Stephen Schneider, former Vice President Al Gore, and others, predicting a much warmer future (since most scientists agree that CO2 will continue to go up for some time).

Well, it's not as simple as that. When the Vostok data were analyzed for much shorter time periods (decades at a time rather than centuries), something different emerged. H. Fischer and coauthors reported in Science (283: 1712-1714, 1999) that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years." In other words, CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes! Many other recent studies have shown similar results. Studies by Indermuhle et al (2000), Monnin et al (2001), and Mudelsee et al (2001) indicated a lag of 800-1500 years between temperature and CO2. References are available on request."

http://www.techcentralstation.com/

Yes we can still avoid it. Even if we didn't think we could, we should still ought to try. Say you are driving and car and you're accelerating. You see that you're going to perhaps crash because somebody pulled out in front of you. Would you keep accelerating, or would you hit your brakes to stop, even if you weren't sure you could stop in time? Most people would argue the sane thing to do would be to hit the brakes.

So you are saying you just want to cut and run from global warming .

Having a higher dependence upon nuclear power would be good.

No, I am not saying I want to "cut and run" from global warming. I just gave you a few alternative responses to the global warming problem. I do believe that global warming exists. However, unlike you, I have not bought into the hypothesis that global warming is man-made. I think the 1500 year climate cycle is what is actually happening. We are in for some warming but mankind can use technology to adapt to the changes. There is no need to reorganize the world politically due to temporary hysteria or spend untold billions to perpetuate UN fraud.

Media Promote Global Warming Fraud
By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

When it comes to Iraq, our media have been preoccupied with the issue of whether there was adequate intelligence to justify the invasion and if policy-makers made up evidence before the war. But on the matter of global intervention to stop global warming, there seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax of 35 cents a gallon of gas on the American people.

It's difficult to figure out which is the bigger fraud-the U.N. or our media.

Incredibly, the much-publicized United Nations climate change report, which blames global warming on people, has no published science to back it up.

cont.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/kincaid020707.htm

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

You're fired. ^

The left wants you fired from your job if you do not buy in to the junk science of global warming.

Deviation from groupthink will NOT be tolerated, heretic:

A Delaware scientist's contrarian stand on global warming and climate change has earned him national attention in a series of critical reports -- including some that lump his views in with industry-backed disinformation campaigns.

The controversy surrounding Delaware State Climatologist David R. Legates and other climate change skeptics peaked last week with the publication of an updated summary report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris.

Shortly before the Paris climate change report emerged, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a study listing Legates among several scientists it described as "familiar spokespeople from ExxonMobil-funded organizations" that have regularly taken stands or sponsored reports questioning the science behind climate change warnings.

"I certainly think that Legates is a good example of someone who has chosen, for whatever reason, to have much of his work sponsored indirectly by ExxonMobil," said Seth Shulman, primary author of the Union of Concerned Scientists report.

"In these cases, these people are often putting out information as the 'state climatologist,' whereas it's really at best an incomplete accounting of their affiliation," Shulman said.

ExxonMobil, which posted a record $39.5 billion profit last year, was accused by UCS of funneling $16 million to advocacy groups over a seven-year period in an effort to "confuse the public on global warming science," including some groups that have worked closely with Legates or other climate change critics.

ExxonMobil has since branded the claims as "deeply offensive and wrong," and described its position on climate change as "misunderstood."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its fourth report described human-contributions to higher global temperatures as "unequivocal," and warned that rising seas and shifting climates were likely.

Legates, a University of Delaware professor, has criticized the panel's previous summary reports as offering "a lot of misinformation," despite the work by thousands of scientists from dozens of nations worldwide who teamed to produce the document.

Legates, who has referred to himself as a contrarian in public, could not be reached Monday. He has confirmed serving in various unpaid roles with groups that question global warming science, including as an adjunct scholar for the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank.

Although Legates holds the title of Delaware State Climatologist, Gov. Ruth Ann Minner's office said that it had no direct role in the selection. The University of Delaware also supported the appointment, but has no direct oversight. Minner and the university both signed a four-way acknowledgement of the position.

Others around the country, meanwhile, have asked for a closer look at Legates' role in the debate over global warming.

California's attorney general last year asked a federal judge to force automakers to disclose their dealings with climate change skeptics, including Legates, in a dispute over greenhouse gas limits for new cars. General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are defendants in that suit.

"The climate skeptics have played a major role in spreading disinformation about global warming," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer wrote.

The request included a quote from the book "The Heat is On," by former reporter and author Ross Gelbspan: "The tiny group of dissenting scientists have been given prominent public visibility and congressional influence out of all proportion to their standing in the scientific community on the issue of global warming."

Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and other organizations have cited Legates' ties to several groups that have supported or emphasized skeptical stands on climate change, while they also received regular contributions from ExxonMobil. Those organizations include the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has received about $421,000 from ExxonMobil, and the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000.

Both groups have published work by Legates, and Legates has reported working as an adjunct scholar for the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which also once listed Legates as an adjunct scholar, received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil at a time when the company was publicly fighting climate change policies.

During a speech last July at an event sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation, Legates described some claims about warming and climate shifts as "overblown," although he said that he was not disputing scientists whose work led to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

"I think in general there's very much of a disagreement," Legates said at the time.

Washington State Climatologist Philip Mote, who generally agrees with the panel's findings, said that few scientists disagree that the planet is warming, and said that an "inclusive and exhaustive" study found that humans "very likely" contributed to the change.

"It's pretty much the same eight or 10 people any time you see a skeptical point of view," Mote said. "It's pretty certain that it's going to be one of those folks."

But Mote also said that scientists who work on behalf of environmental groups also should have to disclose their backing.

"I don't know what number of scientists have accepted money from environmental groups to grind their ax, but I believe it's more than the eight or 10 listed in the UCS report."

Last year, Legates wrote a "policy report" for the National Center for Policy Analysis. It was released at about the same time as Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth." The center's paper questioned several cornerstones of the argument supporting links between human activities and global warming.

"The complexity of the climate and the limitations of data and computer models mean projections of future climate change are unreliable at best," Legates wrote. "In sum, the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

Attention to Legates' views increased in Delaware when he disputed arguments used to support Delaware efforts to control greenhouse gases as one of several authors in a "friend-of-the-court" brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed the brief.

Virginia state climatologist Patrick Michaels, who received a $100,000 contribution from a Colorado electric cooperative that supported Michaels' labeling of climate change supporters as "alarmists," was another co-author on the brief.

http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS01/70206001/1002

LOL, Greenpeace is worried about the special-interest groups. You WILL believe in man-made global warming or else!

 

[red states rule]

Arctic cold wave in US dumps heavy snow in northeast

An Arctic cold wave gripping the central and northeastern United States is dumping heavy snow in New York and other states near the Great Lakes, the National Weather Service said.
"It's still pretty darn cold" in the mid-section of the country and the east, particularly in the northeast, Dennis Feltgen, an NWS meteorologist, told AFP.

Temperatures are 10 to 20 degrees (Fahrenheit) below normal in the frigid front that moved in last week and was expected to last through the weekend, he said.

The big chill is roaring in from "the Arctic door wide open," he said. Relief should come by early or mid-week next week when the air flows shift, bringing in warmer air from the Pacific.

Temperatures this winter, though unseasonably cold, are "not record-breaking," he said.

The harshest cold weather on Wednesday was in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois, he said.

Lake-effect snow, produced by cold air blowing over the warmer Great Lakes, had dumped "big snows," he said.

In Oswego, New York, lake-effect snow was expected to drop between six to 10 inches (15-25 centimeters) during the day. CNN television network reported that 62 inches (158 centimeters) had fallen in the past five days in the city on the eastern end of Lake Ontario.

In Chicago, a high temperature of near 15 degrees F (minus nine Celsius) was forecast, with a wind-chill factor bringing it to between minus five and zero.

The Windy City, on the shores of Lake Michigan, saw scores of road accidents -- from fender-benders to 30-vehicle pileups -- Tuesday on slick roads, the Chicago Tribune newspaper reported. At least one death was attributed to icy roads.

The influence on the US of a moderately strong El Nino, which had an unusual warm winter in many states, has weakened in the last few weeks, he said.
http://www.physorg.com/news90085268.html





Snow Squalls Bury Upstate New York


OSWEGO, N.Y. Feb 9, 2007 (AP)— While the northern Plains and Northeast shiver in dangerously cold temperatures, the folks in upstate New York are keeping warm shoveling snow lots of snow.

Since Sunday, the small towns of Parish and Mexico have recorded more than 6 feet of snow, and forecasters with the National Weather Service say it isn't over yet.

The area received a short reprieve Thursday as the squalls shifted south into Syracuse, where between 4 and 8 inches fell. The lake-effect bands moved back north in the evening and were expected to strengthen overnight.

"We're just trying to keep up. It's almost an unreal amount," said Mayor Randy Bateman of Oswego, where 70 inches of snow had fallen by Thursday morning. "We catch up when it stops, but then it just comes again, even heavier."

Gov. Eliot Spitzer declared a state disaster emergency for the county Thursday, authorizing all state agencies to help assist municipalities and residents in the storm-wracked region along eastern Lake Ontario.

Late Thursday the northern parts of Oswego County were accumulating as much as 3 inches per hour, said Dave Sage, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Buffalo. At times, the snow has fallen at a rate of as much as 5 inches an hour.

"I'm sure before morning there's going to be three or four areas that have up to 100 inches (in Oswego County)," Sage said.

Whiteout conditions forced state police to temporarily close Interstate 81 between Central Square and Pulaski, a stretch of about 15 miles. Travel advisories against unnecessary travel were posted for Oswego and its neighboring counties. Mexico officials renewed a snow emergency declaration, and many government offices were closed.

Schools were closed for a fourth day in Oswego and Mexico.

Temperatures in the Northeast inched back up to something closer to normal for this time of year, but the upper Midwest and northern Plains still awoke to subzero temperatures Thursday minus-12 in Minneapolis and 3 below zero in Chicago.


The bitter cold and slippery roads have contributed to at least 20 deaths five in Ohio, four in Illinois, four in Indiana, two in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Wisconsin, New York and Maryland, authorities said.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2859494

 

[Hamiltonian]

Granted, mankind does cause some warming, but is co2 actually the cause of global warming? This is the question which has not been definitively answered.

No, the greenhouse effect is pretty well proven.

But the sulphate aerosols were primarily only in the northern hemisphere where industrialization took place, yet global temps went down during that period. So, even though they may have had some effect, how can you link aerosols specifically to the world-wide downward temps of that period?

"The sulfate aerosol theory is politically correct, because some explanation is needed for why the early climate models flopped so badly. They served as the basis for the United Nations climate treaty, recently modified in Kyoto to force the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 45 percent in 8.5 years. Even though the treaty would devastate the U.S. economy, Wigley thinks it is not enough, saying we need "nine more Kyotos."

Sulfates don't do a good job of explaining the failure of the models noted above. NASA scientist James Hansen, who essentially ignited the greenhouse issue 11 years ago with his flamboyant congressional testimony, has become very skeptical about sulfates. University of Washington scientist Peter Hobbs found that sulfates off the East Coast are overwhelmed in their own plume by black carbon particles that absorb radiation and cancel sulfate cooling. And throughout the eastern United States, where sulfates have been in decline for the last 30 years, the temperature hasn't budged during the entire century.


http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-08-99.html

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/462.htm

Really? There have been many ice core measurements taken in Greenland, not just one that was taken erroneously. Also, ice cores have been taken in Antarctica which show mirror images of same.

This was a compound found commonly in the Greenland ice, and therefore were in quite a few samples.

"Temperatures during the last Ice Age, the cores revealed, had swung repeatedly up and down -- "by more than 10 degrees within a few decades," Fischer explains.

Scientists have long wondered if these enormous swings in temperature were only a regional phenomenon. This latest research now shows that they weren't. The 2,774 meter-long ice core the EPICA team finished extracting out of the Antarctic ice in February reveals a mirror image of the temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere. "When it was warm in the north, the ocean surrounding Antarctica cooled down," says Fischer. "And vice versa: the Southern Hemisphere warmed up when it got colder in the north."

These temperature swings seem to be caused by the system of currents in the Atlantic Ocean."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448089,00.html

Well you seem to have found your own answer to your question. It's hard to know what you're referring to when you don't include a link in the first place.

Despite your entertaining example, the point you're missing is that increasing co2 does not necessarily cause global warming. Why has co2 historically been a lagging indicator?

Perhaps because when global warming starts it also caused co2 in a feedback cycle. The Siberian permafrost peat bogs hold greenhouse gasses which are being liberated as the permafrost melts.

No, I am not saying I want to "cut and run" from global warming. I just gave you a few alternative responses to the global warming problem. I do believe that global warming exists. However, unlike you, I have not bought into the hypothesis that global warming is man-made. I think the 1500 year climate cycle is what is actually happening. We are in for some warming but mankind can use technology to adapt to the changes. There is no need to reorganize the world politically due to temporary hysteria or spend untold billions to perpetuate UN fraud.

You mean you want keep our country dependent on oil coming from the Middle East. Many people seem to think that extremist Muslim factions are a more pressing problem than global warming, but if you find an alternative energy source, you take a lot of power away from them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, the greenhouse effect is pretty well proven.

No, it is not. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who will disagree with the Greenhouse Theory. A couple of them, S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery/Unstoppable Global Warming(2007) who are proponents of the 1500 year cycle have provided many reasons for the shortcomings of the Greenhouse Theory which I will list here:

1. The most obvious, co2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has recently had, including the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming, and the Little Ice Age. However, these variations fit into the 1500 year cycle very well.

2. The Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes. Most of the current warming occurred before 1940 before there was much human-generated co2 in the air. After 1940, temperatures declined until 1975 or so, despite a huge surge of industrial co2 during that period. These events run counter to the co2 theory but are in accord with the 1500 year cycle.

3. The early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric co2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating that the theory and climate models told us to expect. We must discount future increments of co2 in the atmosphere, because each increment of co2 increase produces less warming than the unit before it. The amounts of co2 already added to the atmosphere must already have "used up" much - perhaps most - of co2's forcing capability.

4. We must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands. We must take account of the changes in rural land use that affect soil moisture and temperatures. When meteorological experts reconstructed U.S. official temperatures "witout cities and crops" - using more accurate data from satellites and high-altitude weather balloons - about half of the recent "official" warming disappeared.

5. The Earth's surface thermometers have recently warmed faster than the temperature readings in the lower atmosphere up to 30,000 feet. Yet the Greenhouse Theory says that co2 will warm the lower atmosphere first, and then the atmospheric heat will radiate to the Earth's surface. This is not happening.

6. co2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator of global warming, not a causal factor.

7. The Greenhouse Theory predicts that co2-driven warming of the Earth's surface will start, and be strongest, in the North and South Polar regions. This is not happening either.

8. The scary predictions of planetary overheating require that the warming effect of additional co2 be amplified by increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Warming will indeed lift more moisture from the oceans into the air. But what if the moister, warmer air increases the efficiency of rainfall, and leaves the upper atmosphere as dry, or even dryer, than it was before? We have absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that the upper atmosphere is retaining more water vapor to amplify the co2.

To the contrary, a team of researchers from NASA and MIT recently discovered a huge vertical heat vent in the Earth's atmosphere. It apparently increases the efficiency of rainfall when sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees C. This effect seems to be big enough to vent all the heat the models predict would be generated by a doubling of co2. In 2001, NASA issued a press release about the heat vent discovery and the failure of the climate models to duplicate it but it attracted little media attention.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/462.htm

Inconclusive. Anyway, if sulfates have such a great cooling effect - hallelulah - looks like you've found the answer to global warming!
(it'll only cost us a few gas masks until the temps go down)

This was a compound found commonly in the Greenland ice, and therefore were in quite a few samples.

Well you seem to have found your own answer to your question. It's hard to know what you're referring to when you don't include a link in the first place.

sorry?

Perhaps because when global warming starts it also caused co2 in a feedback cycle. The Siberian permafrost peat bogs hold greenhouse gasses which are being liberated as the permafrost melts.

That could be. Still does not explain the temp increases in the first place.

You mean you want keep our country dependent on oil coming from the Middle East. Many people seem to think that extremist Muslim factions are a more pressing problem than global warming, but if you find an alternative energy source, you take a lot of power away from them.

I never said that. One of the suggestions I had was nuclear energy which would certainly take away a lot of power away from the Middle East. But, alas, the environMENTAL folks are against it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is great. This Klaus guy pulls no punches. We need more like him.

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 0909 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm