Please post all scholarly articles opposed to anthropogenic global warming here

[JohnStOnge]

Well, Spiderman, there are a lot of posts in this thread so I don't know if anybody has already posted this one:

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

A quote:

"Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed
warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of
alarm–assuming current observed surface and tropospheric trends and model
depictions of greenhouse warming are correct."

I'll tell you something else, Spiderman, the attitude behind your request displays a dismissal of the possibility that there is bias associated with the process that determines what is published in scientific journals and what is not. I think that is a mistake, especially when one is dealing with a politically charged issue. I think what you need to do is look at the rationale, evidence, etc., included with arguments made instead of resorting to the "published in peer reviewed journals" cop out. The "peer review" process as a control on validity is very over rated.

 

[FactFinder]

Pubes, nothing absurd about it.

Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Venus' atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide (this is what we breathe out) and the rest is mostly nitrogen. There is a very thick layer of poisonous clouds covering the entire planet. These clouds are made up of sulfuric acid droplets. (The clouds on earth are made up of water droplets.)

It's the clouds

 

[FactFinder]

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?
ScienceDaily (June 12, 2008) — Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.

When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?

 

[Chris]

Pubes, nothing absurd about it.

Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Venus' atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide (this is what we breathe out) and the rest is mostly nitrogen. There is a very thick layer of poisonous clouds covering the entire planet. These clouds are made up of sulfuric acid droplets. (The clouds on earth are made up of water droplets.)

It's the clouds

Wrong answer....

Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Venusian clouds are thick and are composed of sulfur dioxide and droplets of sulfuric acid.[26] These clouds reflect about 75%[27] of the sunlight that falls on them, which is what obscures the surface of Venus from regular imaging.[1]

 

[Chris]

The greenhouse effect on Venus...

Venus is hotter than it should be. At its distance from the Sun, it receives an amount of solar insolation enough to maintain its surface temperature at about the boiling point of water (373 Kelvin, 100 Celsius, 212 Fahrenheit). But radio measurements from the Earth proved that Venus has the hottest solid surface in the solar system, at a constant 750 Kelvin (480 Celsius, 900 Fahrenheit), day and night. That temperature is hot enough to melt lead, and to give Venus’ rocks a warm glow.

Where did all the heat come from? The carbon dioxide in Venus’ atmosphere is partially transparent to relatively short-wavelength, visible and near-infrared radiation coming from the Sun. That radiation is absorbed by rocks, which then re-emit the radiation at a longer wavelength (called “thermal” or “mid-infrared&#8221. Carbon dioxide is much less transparent to the thermal radiation, so much of the radiation is bounced back to the planet or absorbed and re-radiated, in part back to the surface, keeping its energy inside the blanket of Venus’ atmosphere. This process is called the “greenhouse effect” even though it’s not why greenhouses keep warm.

Venus Facts and Pictures - Explore the Cosmos | The Planetary Society

 

[Old Rocks]

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?
ScienceDaily (June 12, 2008) — Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.

When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?

Spencer is a damned charalatan. Not only that, the climate models are all wrong. I have stated that many times, as has the best modeler, Dr. James Hansen. They are wrong because the warming is proceeding far faster than they have predicted. The North Polar Ice Cap was not supposed to be diminished to this extent until 2050. Antarctica should be gaining ice, not losing it according to the models. The warming in Antarctica should be nowhere near what the Polar Year researchers have found.

 

[Old Rocks]

Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C.[22] This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. Because of the lack of any moisture on Venus, there is almost no relative humidity (no more than 1%) on the surface, creating a heat index of 450 °C to 480 °C.

Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[23

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are you really this stupid? *







* strictly rhetorical

Not rhetorical, are you this ignorant, Del? Is your only capability to dis other peoples posts while contributing nothing at all worthwhile?

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting data on Spencer and the rest;

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
There are a small number of skeptical scientists who genuinely beleive what they're saying and it appears that in order to maintain this belief they have dispensed with some of the most important principles of science - to keep an open mind about everything, to be guided by fact not opinion and to remain impartial.

Then of course, there are those funded by and connected to the oil and power indusrty.

Take the letter written to the Sec Gen of the UN. There's 100 signatories on the letter, as normal for any letter or document coming from the skeptics it's necessary to first discount all the irrelevant names.

START WITH 100 NAMES...

It's claimed that the letter is from climate experts but the signatories include politicians, computer programmers, wildlife consultants, engineers etc. Weeding out all the non experts there's a total of 25 signatories that claim to have qualifications or a professional background linked to some form of climate science.

25 NAMES REMAIN...

5 of the 25 have no relevant qualifications or expertise despite claims to the contrary...

• Richard Courtney - Claims to be a climate scientist, is a spokesperson for the coal industry, several links to tobacco and oil funded organisations

• Hans Erren - Described as a climate specialist, is a geographer / geologist

• Asmun Moene - Claims to be former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway. The Forecasting Centre state he was employed in the 'administration of weather forecasting'. Linked to George C Marshall Instutute which is funded by Exxon, refutes smoking is harmful but unable to find direct links to tobacco industry.

• Gary D Sharp - Listed as working for Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, his job is a tuna researcher

• Roy W Spencer - Listed as a climatologist, is a scientific advisor to the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance which is funded by Exxon, has links to multiple organisations also funded by Exxon and the tobacco industry

20 NAMES REMAIN...

11 of these are funded by or directly connected to the oil and power industries...

• Tim Ball - Consultant at Freinds of Science - funded by the oil industry; also an executive of NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

• Ian Clark - An executive of NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

• Vincent Gray - An executive of NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

• William Kininmouth - Funded by Western Mining Corporation

• Douglas Leahey - President of Freinds of Science which is funded by the oil industry

• David Legates - Spokesman for Exxon funded organisations

• Richard Lindzen - Unspecified 'oil and coal interests', funding from OPEC and Western Fuels Alliance. Member of organisations such as Cato, Heartland, George C Marshall etc - all receive funding from Exxon

• James J. O'Brien - Member of several organisations linked to and funded by oil companies. However, he's associated with more organisations that are not funded by oil / coal than ones that are.

• R Timothy Patterson - On the board of Friends of Science, funded by the oil industry

• S Fred Singer - Where to start. Directly funded by, has organisartions funded by, multiple links to Exxon, Western Fuels Alliance, American Petroleum Institute etc etc

• Hendrik Tennekes - Close links to Fred Singer's Exxon funded organisation - SEPP

LEAVING JUST 9 FROM THE ORIGINAL 100...

• Reid Bryson (meteorologist), Stewart Franks (hydroclimatologist), Marcel Leroux (climatologist), Horst Malberg (meteorologist and climatologist), John Maunder (climatologist), David Nowell (meteorologist), Garth W Paltridge (atmospheric physicist), R G Roper (atmospheric scientist) and Gerrit J. van der Lingen (paleoclimatologist).

It's possible that by doing some research on the internet that some of these 9 would be found to have links with the oil or related industries.

So it all boils down to a maximum of nine credible names from a pool of tens of thousands of potential signatories. It's like the Oregon Petition all over again.

It must be really annoying for the skeptics having the IRS make people like Exxon publish accounts that show where their money is going and for foundations etc to have to state where their money is coming from.
Do you think skeptical scientists believe what they say, or are they purposefully dishonest? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[Chris]

Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C.[22] This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. Because of the lack of any moisture on Venus, there is almost no relative humidity (no more than 1%) on the surface, creating a heat index of 450 °C to 480 °C.

Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[23

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are you really this stupid? *







* strictly rhetorical

Not rhetorical, are you this ignorant, Del? Is your only capability to dis other peoples posts while contributing nothing at all worthwhile?

Yes.

This is all del does. It's pretty pathetic.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

hey, rain man, i already told you-no atmosphere.

find a NEW stupid question, otay?

You are half right.

Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2 and absorbs heat.

That's the reason.

So CO2 makes Venus warmer than Mercury, even though Mercury gets FOUR TIMES as much solar radiation.

The Earth is no different. The 40% increase in CO2 is warming the Earth.

ROFLMNAO... Uh... Chrissy... Let's try to understand this together...

Now you're saying that the atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2... which is true... like almost but ALL of it: 96%... then there's 3.5% nitrogen... with small dose of the usual suspects which boil up sulfuric acid clouds and other such cool crap......

The question becomes... where did all that CO2 come from Chrissy?

Was it unbridled Capitalism? Was there a highly productive culture which unfairly used the majority of the Venutian resources for themselves at the expense of the other, less fortunate Venutians? Did this UNFAIRLY FORTUNATE VENUTIAN CULTURE pump massive quantities of hydro-carbons into the Venutian atmosphere and stubbornly refused to listen to their feminized opposition and reduce emmissions in time to "SAVE MOTHER VENUS!"?

Well, Chrissy? What's the word on that?

Isn't it true that Venus is nothing like earth... except that it has an atmosphere... and from there the similarities fall right off... Isn't it true Chrissy, that the magnetic field of Venus is nearly non-existant, compared to that of Earth's; and given it's atmosphere, this accounts for the marginal increase in the Venutian surface temp over that of Mercury which sits 36 million miles closer to the sun with NO atmosphere...

The analogy is AS USUAL: absurd... a function of pure ignorance.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?
ScienceDaily (June 12, 2008) — Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.

When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?

Spencer is a damned charalatan. Not only that, the climate models are all wrong. I have stated that many times, as has the best modeler, Dr. James Hansen. They are wrong because the warming is proceeding far faster than they have predicted. The North Polar Ice Cap was not supposed to be diminished to this extent until 2050. Antarctica should be gaining ice, not losing it according to the models. The warming in Antarctica should be nowhere near what the Polar Year researchers have found.

Yet ALL of the available evidence shows the planet COOLING... Not warming...

This nonsense has been advanced for a GENERATION and the planet keeps getting cooler...

AGW is a deamned LIE... as was the LAST "Progressive" farce... "Eugenics"... it's a lie... a deception and it's not supportable, no where... no how and only the most PATHETIC FOOLS BUYT IT!

 

[Chris]

Pubes, I am worried about you.

No evidence of global warming?

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, rising temperatures?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubes, I am worried about you.

No evidence of global warming?

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, rising temperatures?

ROFLMNAO...

Oh GOD that's precious... you're mystified by MELTING ICE?

LOL... funny stuff.

Chrissy... Here's the thing about ice... it tends to melt...

Of course the bulk of the northern hemisphere was fairly recently incased in ice... and here's the cool part... IT MELTED.

Does that scare ya sis?

Here's your chance to tell us about "RISING SEA LEVELS"... of course I live about a quarter mile from the Gulf and it's not risen an inch in 40 years

 

[Chris]

Actually the sea level has risen 8 inches in the last century, so you are wrong, Pubes.


Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea-level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[10] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[11]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Actually the sea level has risen 8 inches in the last century, so you are wrong, Pubes.


Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea-level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[10] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[11]

Well I guess the Gulf of Mexico must be immune sport, cause I've lived her for nearly half of that 100 years and the thing about SW FL is that the land isn't much higher than the Gulf... so I think we'd have noticed a 4" increase (Assuming an average of half that which you've asserted... over half the asserted period.) Many of the coastal islands are only a few inches over mean high tide... the costal gradient is such that an 8" increase in sea level translates to dozens if not hundreds of feet in some places... yet the coast line is pretty much as it was 100 years ago, minus the normal ebb and flow shifting due to normal tidal actions.

What's funny Chrissy is that when I was young, I used to listen to such nonsense about weather and the rising sea levels... and it used to bother me, because I bit on the whole authority of 'SCIENCE!.' Then a funny thing happened... decades went by and NONE IF IT CAME OT PASS!

Of course when I was a kid, Chicken Littles, such as yourself were POSITIVE that the earth was COOLING... that we were heading for an ICE AGE... The Oceans were RECEDING! And by 'The Year 2000 Canada and a large percentage of North America would be under many feet of Glacial Ice...' Blah blah blah...

Then over the years I came to realize that the people who make these dooms day predictions are LEFTISTS... and that Leftists are IDIOTS; all of them... that idiocy in leftists is not limited to individual pockets; that leftism itself is an excellent indicator of idiocy and only fools and children lend them credence; and given that I'm neither... go sell your Chicken Little bullshit somehwere else Weatherboy... we aren't buying any of it over here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The question becomes... where did all that Venutian CO2 come from Chrissy? Venus is 96% CO2... You've made a BIG DEAL of the Venutian atmosphere BEING THE REASON VENUS IS TOO HOT! And you've stated that HUMANITY IS THE REASON FOR CLIMBING C02 IN EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE... So, AGAIN, where did all that c02 come from on VENUS?

Was it unbridled Capitalism?

Was there a highly productive culture which unfairly used the majority of the Venutian resources for themselves at the expense of the other, less fortunate Venutians? Did this UNFAIRLY FORTUNATE VENUTIAN CULTURE pump massive quantities of hydro-carbons into the Venutian atmosphere and stubbornly refused to listen to their feminized opposition and reduce emmissions in time to "SAVE MOTHER VENUS!"?

SO ANSWER ME SIS: What's the word on ALL THAT VENUTIAN C02? Where did it come from? HOW DID HUMANITY MANAGE TO SCREW VENUS OVER WITH IT'S CAPITALISM?

 

[Chris]

You can't disprove my point can you?

CO2 makes Venus hotter than Mercury because it is a very powerful greenhouse gas.

 

[del]

Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C.[22] This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. Because of the lack of any moisture on Venus, there is almost no relative humidity (no more than 1%) on the surface, creating a heat index of 450 °C to 480 °C.

Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[23

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are you really this stupid? *







* strictly rhetorical

Not rhetorical, are you this ignorant, Del? Is your only capability to dis other peoples posts while contributing nothing at all worthwhile?

no, i'm also a very fine dancer. is your only capability to c n p anything with the word "warm" in it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?
ScienceDaily (June 12, 2008) — Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.

When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?

Spencer is a damned charalatan. Not only that, the climate models are all wrong. I have stated that many times, as has the best modeler, Dr. James Hansen. They are wrong because the warming is proceeding far faster than they have predicted. The North Polar Ice Cap was not supposed to be diminished to this extent until 2050. Antarctica should be gaining ice, not losing it according to the models. The warming in Antarctica should be nowhere near what the Polar Year researchers have found.

Yet ALL of the available evidence shows the planet COOLING... Not warming...

This nonsense has been advanced for a GENERATION and the planet keeps getting cooler...

AGW is a deamned LIE... as was the LAST "Progressive" farce... "Eugenics"... it's a lie... a deception and it's not supportable, no where... no how and only the most PATHETIC FOOLS BUYT IT!

Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus
Jump to Comments

Yet another idiotic claim by “sceptics”: Netpune is brightening, therefore global warming on earth cannot be caused by humans. This has already been ripped apart by tamino and Stoat. Actually, all you need is look at the pictute to the left: Neptune had an increase in cloud formation, increasing its brightness. And why? It’s called summer. One Neptune year is 164.88 years, so the seasons can be quite long.

And another thing: its brightness changed by 0.15 magnitudes, this translates with 2.512^0.15 = 1.15 to 15%. So if the sun were responsible, it would have to have changed its brightness by the same ratio. Clearly, stellar models must be wrong, the sun is entering its red giant stage. We are all doomed, and that’s what climate scientists are trying to hide from us.


Okay, and now for something completely different. According to a paper by Leslie A. Young et al., Uranus is cooling! So, do we now conclude that the sun is getting dimmer?
Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus « Fermi Paradox

Care to demonstrate your ignorance some more there, Pubes, old boy?

 

[Meister]

Spencer is a damned charalatan. Not only that, the climate models are all wrong. I have stated that many times, as has the best modeler, Dr. James Hansen. They are wrong because the warming is proceeding far faster than they have predicted. The North Polar Ice Cap was not supposed to be diminished to this extent until 2050. Antarctica should be gaining ice, not losing it according to the models. The warming in Antarctica should be nowhere near what the Polar Year researchers have found.

Yet ALL of the available evidence shows the planet COOLING... Not warming...

This nonsense has been advanced for a GENERATION and the planet keeps getting cooler...

AGW is a deamned LIE... as was the LAST "Progressive" farce... "Eugenics"... it's a lie... a deception and it's not supportable, no where... no how and only the most PATHETIC FOOLS BUYT IT!

Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus
Jump to Comments

Yet another idiotic claim by “sceptics”: Netpune is brightening, therefore global warming on earth cannot be caused by humans. This has already been ripped apart by tamino and Stoat. Actually, all you need is look at the pictute to the left: Neptune had an increase in cloud formation, increasing its brightness. And why? It’s called summer. One Neptune year is 164.88 years, so the seasons can be quite long.

And another thing: its brightness changed by 0.15 magnitudes, this translates with 2.512^0.15 = 1.15 to 15%. So if the sun were responsible, it would have to have changed its brightness by the same ratio. Clearly, stellar models must be wrong, the sun is entering its red giant stage. We are all doomed, and that’s what climate scientists are trying to hide from us.


Okay, and now for something completely different. According to a paper by Leslie A. Young et al., Uranus is cooling! So, do we now conclude that the sun is getting dimmer?
Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus « Fermi Paradox

Care to demonstrate your ignorance some more there, Pubes, old boy?

Old Rocks...can you get me some of this global warming stuff...it's been snowing here all day.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pubes;
Well I guess the Gulf of Mexico must be immune sport, cause I've lived her for nearly half of that 100 years and the thing about SW FL is that the land isn't much higher than the Gulf... so I think we'd have noticed a 4" increase (Assuming an average of half that which you've asserted... over half the asserted period.) Many of the coastal islands are only a few inches over mean high tide... the costal gradient is such that an 8" increase in sea level translates to dozens if not hundreds of feet in some places... yet the coast line is pretty much as it was 100 years ago, minus the normal ebb and flow shifting due to normal tidal actions.



Abstract: Relative Sea-Level Rise History in Louisiana

Relative Sea-Level Rise History in Louisiana

Sarah Fearnley1, Shea Penland1, Mark Kulp1, Karen Ramsey1, S. Jeffress Williams2, and Jack Kindinger3
1Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana; sfearnle@uno.edu
2U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
3U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, Florida

The analysis of tide gauge records provides an opportunity to quantify changes in sea-level elevation relative to another datum, such as land, to which the gauge is fixed or referenced. Relative sea-level change describes the time-averaged difference in elevation that develops between these datums as eustatic sea-level changes or land subsidence occurs. On the Mississippi River delta plain subsidence takes place in response to regional (e.g. crustal flexure) as well as local mechanisms (e.g. compaction of Holocene sediments). Absolute elevation changes affecting these two datums cannot be individually distinguished within a tide gauge record. In the Gulf of Mexico, there are more than 100 tide gauges maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, collectively providing a 100-year record of regional relative sea-level change in the 20th century. Using these tide gauges, we present an updated record of relative sea-level change for the Gulf of Mexico that includes previously unused tide gauges and a longer record of change. Comparison of our recent analysis to previous results indicates that rates of maximum relative sea-level rise in Louisiana have remained relatively constant at 1cm/yr for the period 1939 to 1999. The comparison also indicates that the Mississippi River delta plain in Louisiana is experiencing some of the highest rates of relative sea-level rise in the Gulf of Mexico. The overall highest rates of relative sea-level rise are located within the south-central part of the delta plain and proximal to the modern birdfoot depocenter. Toward the western chenier plain and Texas the rates become less, as well as toward the east across Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.



AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90080©2005 GCAGS 55th Annual Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana

It appears that you are one blind son of a bitch.