the glacier thread. please post your glacier info here.
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
This was proven experimentally in 1859.
Plus, the planet Venus is hotter than the planet Mercury, in spite of the fact that Venus receives only 25% as much solar radiation as Mercury
Why is Venus hotter with less radiation?
Venus has a CO2 atmosphere.
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
The Missing Greenhouse
Conclusions
The theoretical combined signature expected by the IPCC contains a prominent and distinct hotpot over the tropics at 8 – 12 kms. This hotspot is the signature feature of an increase in greenhouse warming.
The observed signature at 8 – 12 km up over the tropics does not contain a hotspot, not even a little one.
Therefore:
1. The IPCC theoretical signature is wrong. So the IPCC models are significantly wrong.
2. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is missing. So the global warming from 1979 to 1999 was not due predominately to increased greenhouse warming, and was therefore not due to carbon emissions.
The observed signature shows cooling above 16 km, which strongly suggests that the global warming was not due to increased solar irradiation, volcanoes, or increased industrial pollution (aerosols). The observed signature looks like a combination of increased ozone depletion, possibly a decrease in industrial pollution, and an unknown signature or signatures.
Conclusions
The theoretical combined signature expected by the IPCC contains a prominent and distinct hotpot over the tropics at 8 – 12 kms. This hotspot is the signature feature of an increase in greenhouse warming.
The observed signature at 8 – 12 km up over the tropics does not contain a hotspot, not even a little one.
Therefore:
1. The IPCC theoretical signature is wrong. So the IPCC models are significantly wrong.
2. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is missing. So the global warming from 1979 to 1999 was not due predominately to increased greenhouse warming, and was therefore not due to carbon emissions.
The observed signature shows cooling above 16 km, which strongly suggests that the global warming was not due to increased solar irradiation, volcanoes, or increased industrial pollution (aerosols). The observed signature looks like a combination of increased ozone depletion, possibly a decrease in industrial pollution, and an unknown signature or signatures.
Last edited:
Midnight Marauder
Rookie
- Feb 28, 2009
- 12,404
- 1,939
- 0
- Banned
- #24
Which has, zero to do with Earth.
- Thread starter
- #25
It's an oft-repeated statistic that the glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park will disappear by the year 2030.
But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park's namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region's plants and animals.
The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model," Fagre said. "What we've been saying now is 2020."
No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?
But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park's namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region's plants and animals.
The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model," Fagre said. "What we've been saying now is 2020."
No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations | ScienceBits
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations
Posted May 27th, 2007 by shavivglobal warming personal research Science weather & climate
One of the "scientific" highlights in Al Gore's movie is the discussion about the clear correlation between CO2 and temperature, as is obtained in ice cores. To quote, he says the following when discussing the ice-core data (about 40 mins after the beginning for the film):
“The relationship is actually very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”
Any laymen will understand from this statement that the ice-cores demonstrate a causal link, that higher amounts of CO2 give rise to higher temperatures. Of course, this could indeed be the case, and to some extent, it necessarily is. However, can this conclusion really be drawn from this graph? Can one actually say anything at all about how much CO2 affects the global temperature?
To the dismay of Al Gore, the answer is that this graph doesn't prove at all that CO2 has any effect on the global temperature. All it says is that there is some equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature. Of course, the temperature itself can depend on a dozen different factors, including CO2, but just the CO2 / temperature correlation by itself doesn't tell you the strength of the CO2→ΔT link. It doesn't even tell you the sign.
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations
Posted May 27th, 2007 by shavivglobal warming personal research Science weather & climate
One of the "scientific" highlights in Al Gore's movie is the discussion about the clear correlation between CO2 and temperature, as is obtained in ice cores. To quote, he says the following when discussing the ice-core data (about 40 mins after the beginning for the film):
“The relationship is actually very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”
Any laymen will understand from this statement that the ice-cores demonstrate a causal link, that higher amounts of CO2 give rise to higher temperatures. Of course, this could indeed be the case, and to some extent, it necessarily is. However, can this conclusion really be drawn from this graph? Can one actually say anything at all about how much CO2 affects the global temperature?
To the dismay of Al Gore, the answer is that this graph doesn't prove at all that CO2 has any effect on the global temperature. All it says is that there is some equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature. Of course, the temperature itself can depend on a dozen different factors, including CO2, but just the CO2 / temperature correlation by itself doesn't tell you the strength of the CO2→ΔT link. It doesn't even tell you the sign.
- Thread starter
- #28
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
Blog: Science
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
NASA Scientists Predict A Period Of Global........Cooling???!!! | Progressive U
NASA Scientists Predict A Period Of Global........Cooling???!!!
By DeanVX - Posted on January 13th, 2008
According to NASA scientists, the greatest influence on climate change isn't human activity. It turns out that solar activity has the greatest impact on our climate. The Space & Science Research Center (SSRC) recently posted an article on spaceandscience.net that states a period of global cooling will be taking place in the coming years. I've attached the weblink to the article here (Video & Audio Clips). In a nutshell, the sun isn't generating as many sunspots, which have a tremendous impact on our planet. As a result of there being fewer sunspots, the Earth will begin to cool. Also, these periods of warming & cooling have long been a part of the Earth's history, even before man came into being.
NASA Scientists Predict A Period Of Global........Cooling???!!!
By DeanVX - Posted on January 13th, 2008
According to NASA scientists, the greatest influence on climate change isn't human activity. It turns out that solar activity has the greatest impact on our climate. The Space & Science Research Center (SSRC) recently posted an article on spaceandscience.net that states a period of global cooling will be taking place in the coming years. I've attached the weblink to the article here (Video & Audio Clips). In a nutshell, the sun isn't generating as many sunspots, which have a tremendous impact on our planet. As a result of there being fewer sunspots, the Earth will begin to cool. Also, these periods of warming & cooling have long been a part of the Earth's history, even before man came into being.
Midnight Marauder
Rookie
- Feb 28, 2009
- 12,404
- 1,939
- 0
- Thread starter
- #33
Here is the evidence...
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf
- Thread starter
- #35
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
Signs of the Times News for Mon, 02 Mar 2009
When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. "The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the "Bi-Centennial Cycle" solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the 'last great subsistence crisis.' With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle's impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the 'perfect storm of global food shortages' in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected."
Fire up them Peterbuilts, everyone get Escalades. We need all the CO2 we can get.
When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. "The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the "Bi-Centennial Cycle" solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the 'last great subsistence crisis.' With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle's impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the 'perfect storm of global food shortages' in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected."
Fire up them Peterbuilts, everyone get Escalades. We need all the CO2 we can get.
- Thread starter
- #39
Ha!
“What evidence
is there that
more CO2 forces
temperatures
up further?”
The planet Venus!
Midnight Marauder
Rookie
- Feb 28, 2009
- 12,404
- 1,939
- 0
- Banned
- #40
Let's say for a moment this is true. You're believing the idiocy that CO2 is solely responsible?
A gas the planet cannot support any life without, which is present in an infinitesimally low amount in the atmosphere, is doing all of this?
Do you know what a parts per million concentration is? Or even what a million is?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
‘A trucker who couldn’t speak English killed my husband – Trump is right to ban them- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
Germany’s Foreign Ministry answer Rubio about the potential ban of the AfD party
- Latest: Captain Caveman
