Please post all scholarly articles opposed to anthropogenic global warming here

An interesting fellow, indeed. However, his observations concerning CO2 do not explain the PETM. Nor does his polar circulation theory explain the rapid heating that we are seeing in the Arctic. He seems to have been in a very small minority of climatologists that claim that the CO2 increase has no affects on weather.

It's volcanic activity. Same thing for arctic ice. Global warming hoax does not account for glaciers that are expanding.

Geological Society - Puddingstone - second slice

An early (and still favoured) explanation is that the PETM was triggered by destabilisation of subsea methane hydrate deposits at quite shallow depths within the sediments draping the continental slopes (Dickens, 1999). But what could cause such destabilisation? One possible process is uplift of the sea floor – reducing the weight of water bearing down on the unstable hydrates (Maclennan and Jones, 2006). The key to their idea lies in modern-day Iceland, with its volcanoes, and the hot springs in which field geologists can relax happily in the worst of the weather (Figure 6). The Iceland hotspot already existed 55 million years ago (Figure 7).

No, the present volcanic activity in the Arctic is down on the spreading ridge, where it should be. The volcanic activity that triggered the PETM was on the shelf where the clatherates were. And once those clathrates added their CH4 to the atmosphere, and, after it added heat to the atmosphere, and oxidized to H20 and CO2, trapping even more of the sun's heat, then the oceans warmed, and other clathrates outgassed, leading to a rapid warming.

Today, we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more rapidly than the increase at the beginning of the PETM. We are already beginning to see an outgassing of the Arctic clathrates.

There are damned few glaciers that are expanding, and, yes, global warming theory does account for them. What part of increased local precipitation do you not understand?


Mt. Shasta glaciers expand in spite of global warming

Wednesday, July 9, 20

(07-09) 04:00 PDT Mount Shasta --

Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks are a rare exception: They are the only long-established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of the state's tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California. Nearby Indian tribes referred to its glaciers as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth. Hikers flock to Shasta every summer to scale them.

With glaciers retreating in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, those on Mount Shasta - a volcanic peak at the southern end of the Cascade range - are actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."

Climate change has cut the number of glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park from 150 to 26 since 1850, and some scientists project there will be none left within a generation. Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University, has projected that the storied snows at Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro might disappear by 2015.

But for Shasta, scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air. On the mountain, precipitation falls as snow, adding to the glaciers enough to overcome a 1.8-degree rise in temperature in the last century, scientists say.
 
No, the present volcanic activity in the Arctic is down on the spreading ridge, where it should be.

They just discovered that and didn't think that was possible at those depths. So the bottom line is they just don;t know. The activity they have found is extensive and extremely powerful on the magnitude of Pompeii.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/c...the-arctic-ice



But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.

What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth’s mantle onto the ocean floor…

The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometres (52,000 miles) beneath all the world’s major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.
 
Sweetness and light article has been moved. So, let us go to the source, Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institute.


Deeply Submerged Volcanoes Blow Their Tops : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

The water in the Arctic Ocean is also stratified—layered like a cake—with lighter layers lying atop denser layers of water, like oil atop water. (Colder and/or saltier seawater is denser than warmer and/or less salty seawater.) Waters in the Arctic depths remain trapped near the bottom. They do not mix much with surface waters. Almost no heat is transmitted all the way up to the underside of the ice from volcanoes 3,000 to 4,000 meters (approximately 2.5 miles) below.
 
Sweetness and light article has been moved. So, let us go to the source, Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institute.


Deeply Submerged Volcanoes Blow Their Tops : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

The water in the Arctic Ocean is also stratified—layered like a cake—with lighter layers lying atop denser layers of water, like oil atop water. (Colder and/or saltier seawater is denser than warmer and/or less salty seawater.) Waters in the Arctic depths remain trapped near the bottom. They do not mix much with surface waters. Almost no heat is transmitted all the way up to the underside of the ice from volcanoes 3,000 to 4,000 meters (approximately 2.5 miles) below.

Since these guys are the same who theorized that volcanoes would be impossible at those depths, guess what? I place zero credibility in their theories. Last I heard heat rises. It does so whether water is moving below it or not. Heat don't care what water does.
 
Last edited:
Sweetness and light article has been moved. So, let us go to the source, Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institute.


Deeply Submerged Volcanoes Blow Their Tops : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

The water in the Arctic Ocean is also stratified—layered like a cake—with lighter layers lying atop denser layers of water, like oil atop water. (Colder and/or saltier seawater is denser than warmer and/or less salty seawater.) Waters in the Arctic depths remain trapped near the bottom. They do not mix much with surface waters. Almost no heat is transmitted all the way up to the underside of the ice from volcanoes 3,000 to 4,000 meters (approximately 2.5 miles) below.

Since these guys are the same who theorized that volcanoes would be impossible at those depths, guess what? I place zero credibility in their theories. Last I heard heat rises. It does so whether water is moving below it or not. Heat don't care what water does.

Thermohaline circulation. Rather critical to all the weather on this planet. Your depths of ignorance are once again apperrant to anyone that has done any research on how ocean currents and layers actually work.
 
Sweetness and light article has been moved. So, let us go to the source, Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institute.


Deeply Submerged Volcanoes Blow Their Tops : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

The water in the Arctic Ocean is also stratified—layered like a cake—with lighter layers lying atop denser layers of water, like oil atop water. (Colder and/or saltier seawater is denser than warmer and/or less salty seawater.) Waters in the Arctic depths remain trapped near the bottom. They do not mix much with surface waters. Almost no heat is transmitted all the way up to the underside of the ice from volcanoes 3,000 to 4,000 meters (approximately 2.5 miles) below.

Since these guys are the same who theorized that volcanoes would be impossible at those depths, guess what? I place zero credibility in their theories. Last I heard heat rises. It does so whether water is moving below it or not. Heat don't care what water does.

Thermohaline circulation. Rather critical to all the weather on this planet. Your depths of ignorance are once again apperrant to anyone that has done any research on how ocean currents and layers actually work.

case in point, fuckface.
 
Since these guys are the same who theorized that volcanoes would be impossible at those depths, guess what? I place zero credibility in their theories. Last I heard heat rises. It does so whether water is moving below it or not. Heat don't care what water does.

Thermohaline circulation. Rather critical to all the weather on this planet. Your depths of ignorance are once again apperrant to anyone that has done any research on how ocean currents and layers actually work.

case in point, fuckface.

Your erudite and informative posts are a thing of beauty.
 
Thermohaline circulation. Rather critical to all the weather on this planet. Your depths of ignorance are once again apperrant to anyone that has done any research on how ocean currents and layers actually work.

case in point, fuckface.

Your erudite and informative posts are a thing of beauty.

as are your pompous assed posts, which are filled with contempt for all who don't bow down the man-made global warming gods.
 
An interesting fellow, indeed. However, his observations concerning CO2 do not explain the PETM. Nor does his polar circulation theory explain the rapid heating that we are seeing in the Arctic. He seems to have been in a very small minority of climatologists that claim that the CO2 increase has no affects on weather.

Perhaps, perhaps not - but the point is that there ARE highly credible figures within the science community who dispute the blanket assessment made by others that man-made global warming is fact - not conjecture. These are the figures of science who shake their heads in disgust when those like Al Gore, who was a middling science student at best, make declarations that the "debate is over", and likens such scientists who dispute his claims as "flat earthers".

An increasing number of scientists are dismayed over the corruption of money and big business that has directly influenced the creation of data to support a model that has grown increasingly dependent upon more money. Scientists such as Doctor William Gray, who blasted James Hansen's 30-year global warming campaign that has proven time and again to be based less in fact and more on persistent propoganda, taking minimal and quite possibly normal warming trends and turning them into impending global doom.

Famed Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Rips AMS, NASA's Hansen
 
OK, you state that an increasing number of scientists are skeptical of the AGW theory of global warming. Yet the only scientific society to change it's position on global warming changed it to the overwhelming consensus on global warming. Your statement would carry a bit more weight if even a single scientific society, National Academy of Science, or major university would change it's postition. Apperantly these 'scientists' do not carry enough weight within their own scientific societies to influence the policy statements.
 
OK, you state that an increasing number of scientists are skeptical of the AGW theory of global warming. Yet the only scientific society to change it's position on global warming changed it to the overwhelming consensus on global warming. Your statement would carry a bit more weight if even a single scientific society, National Academy of Science, or major university would change it's postition. Apperantly these 'scientists' do not carry enough weight within their own scientific societies to influence the policy statements.

$$$$ drives opinion my friend, and there is BIG $$$$ in the GW industry.

Secondly...

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

And these guys have stepped out very recently to oppose the GW mantra...

Japan Society of Energy and Resources

And the warnings of potential cooling is nothing new...

National Policy Analysis #388: New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling

And here is a post both informative and entertaining if you are interested in such debates...

St Andrews University: Global Warming Loses Formal Debate (AGW Can't Argue Facts, Must Insult)
 
OK, you state that an increasing number of scientists are skeptical of the AGW theory of global warming. Yet the only scientific society to change it's position on global warming changed it to the overwhelming consensus on global warming. Your statement would carry a bit more weight if even a single scientific society, National Academy of Science, or major university would change it's postition. Apperantly these 'scientists' do not carry enough weight within their own scientific societies to influence the policy statements.

$$$$ drives opinion my friend, and there is BIG $$$$ in the GW industry.

Secondly...

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

And these guys have stepped out very recently to oppose the GW mantra...

Japan Society of Energy and Resources

And the warnings of potential cooling is nothing new...

National Policy Analysis #388: New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling

And here is a post both informative and entertaining if you are interested in such debates...

St Andrews University: Global Warming Loses Formal Debate (AGW Can't Argue Facts, Must Insult)

No, money is driving the global warming deniers.

You don't know much about scientists, my friend. Most scientists would love to knock down another scientists theory. It is how reputations are made. But this requires facts and experimental data. All the facts such as melting ice caps and melting glaciers show that our 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the earth to warm. That's why there are no peer reviewed studies stating otherwise.
 
OK, you state that an increasing number of scientists are skeptical of the AGW theory of global warming. Yet the only scientific society to change it's position on global warming changed it to the overwhelming consensus on global warming. Your statement would carry a bit more weight if even a single scientific society, National Academy of Science, or major university would change it's postition. Apperantly these 'scientists' do not carry enough weight within their own scientific societies to influence the policy statements.

$$$$ drives opinion my friend, and there is BIG $$$$ in the GW industry.

Secondly...

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

And these guys have stepped out very recently to oppose the GW mantra...

Japan Society of Energy and Resources

And the warnings of potential cooling is nothing new...

National Policy Analysis #388: New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling

And here is a post both informative and entertaining if you are interested in such debates...

St Andrews University: Global Warming Loses Formal Debate (AGW Can't Argue Facts, Must Insult)

The Australians and the Canadians are all adjusting for global cooling.
Read the sunspots
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian
 
A PHD in climate science writes:

US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies
By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Imagine basing a country's energy and economic policy on an incomplete, unproven theory -- a theory based entirely on computer models in which one minor variable is considered the sole driver for the entire global climate system.
 
Lawsuit
In September 2006, Ball filed a lawsuit against The Calgary Herald, a division of CanWest MediaWorks, specifically naming four of its staff, as well as Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the Department of Geography at the University of Lethbridge and the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge. Ball's suit is over the publication of a letter to the editor published in April 2006 by Johnson responding to an opinion column by Ball. In his statement of claim, Ball objects to Johnson's letter in which statements about his academic record were disputed. Ball's claim seeks $250,000 in damages, special damages for loss of future income and punitive damages of $75,000.[9]

Johnson has filed an 18-page statement of defence denying "each and every allegation of fact and law" made by Ball.[9]

In the face of this and an even-more strident Statement of Defence by the Calgary Herald (“The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”), Ball withdrew the suit in June 2007.[9]

[edit]CFC's
In 2006 Ball has also questioned the science behind CFC's and the Ozone layer. Ball claimed that "CFC's were never a problem.... it's only because the sun is changing".[10]
Tim Ball - SourceWatch
 
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]
Tim Ball - SourceWatch
 

Forum List

Back
Top