Summary of how Climatologists know Gl...

Summary of how Climatologists know Global Warming could be catastrophic.

Posted in the Global Warming Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#1 Jan 17, 2013
Summary of how Climatologists know Global Warming could be catastrophic.

I give 9 proofs below to give a general area that climatologists have studied to conclude global warming is not only dangerous, but could be catastrophic.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2 Jan 17, 2013
PROOF 1. Despite regional variations, the overall mean temperature of the earth is rising. This is confirmed by:
--weather station data going back to 1880
--satellite data going back to 1979
--balloon data going back to the 1960s

Here is NASA’s weather station data which shows the strong slope upwards of global temperature.

Notice the strong temperature upward trend.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/F...

Climate models (that use as inputs solar radiation, global warming gases, deforestation, aerosols (including volcanic eruptions))-- can explain -- using PHYSICS equations -- global average temperature. These can explain the last 130 years of data collected from land weather station data.

When all the forcings are combined in Figure 6, the net forcing shows good approximation of global temperature going back to 1880. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Cha...

==========

PROOF 2. We have used proxies (bore holes, tree rings, and most important – ice cores) to measure the long term temperature and concluded, while global mean temperature is relatively stable over time: The difference between the Little Ice Age of the 1600s and today is only about 1 ½ degree Centigrade. This is why a 1-2 degree global mean increase is HUGE!!

Proxies also show it is likely hotter now than thousands of years in the past.

Natural cycles:

The long term ice cores show there are natural cycles approximately 120,000 years in length, broken by short warm periods called interglacials. These Milankovitch natural cycles are thought to be primarily due to long term changes in the Earth's orbit flavor that affect how much sunlight hits the earth.
Notice the ice cores show a 95+% long term correlation of temperature with CO2:

Below is a picture from the Vostok ice core. The blue line is the temperature; the green line is CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Peti...

Here is the mechanism: When there is an initial increase in sunlight from Milankovitch cycles - this triggers an initial warming which warms the oceans and melts ice sheets. After a few hundred years this releases more CO2. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes further warming for 99% of the cycle.

When the Milankovitch cycle switches to cooling, the reverse happens.

We are in a COOLING phase of the Milankovitch cycles right now, but temperatures have been increasing.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#3 Jan 17, 2013
PROOF 3. We know our warming cycle is not natural (Milankovitch) and not due to the sun because of the following:
A study by Usoskin (2008) is considered the definitive study on solar activity.

"Solar Activity over the last 1150 years - Does it Correlate with Temperature?"

In summary he says yes there is a correlation with a very high (95%) confidence rate between sunspot number index and proxies of solar irradiance from as far back as 850 AD to 1975. However after 1975, this correlation breaks down completely.

"During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown and significant trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode (since 1975) must have another source." [which Usoskin has said elsewhere is likely Co2 warming.)

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen...

MORE IMPORTANT: There are other clues the warming we have experienced in previous decades is from CO2 and not from the sun:

(i) The sun has been flat in terms of irradiance for the past 50 years.
-- But the average global temperature has been warming.

(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)

(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)

(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.

(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.

see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html who gets it from the IPCC.
==========

PROOF 4. We have the evidence that our glaciers and both poles are melting.
ARCTIC - The ice in the Arctic is about half now about what it was 30 years ago (as measured by satellites); and most of it is “new” ice; not old ice.

ANTARCTIC:
NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002 and at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/201...
GLACIERS: Glaciers are melting around the world
"There is no doubt that most mountain glaciers are shrinking worldwide in response to a warming climate."

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...

Here is a Wikipedia link that compiles the dramatic global loss in glaciers.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Gla...

Here is a description of the worldwide loss of glaciers around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaci...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#4 Jan 17, 2013
PROOF 5. CO2 levels have increased 40% since the Industrial Age and are now at the highest levels since at least 400,000 years [i.e., are higher than any shown in the ice cores].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_i...
Lab studies have validated that CO2 has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas.

We also have strong evidence CO2 has a warming effect by looking at our own solar system.
The planet Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun, because of CO2.[The equations that estimate planetary history can be used fairly accurately to apply to Venus and Mars as well as the Earth.]
Remember the high correlation in the ice cores between CO2 and temperature?
--Notice we are at much higher levels now of CO2, but the warming hasn’t hit yet. Scientists think it is indirect FEEDBACKS from extra CO2 in effect that could make warming catastrophic. Here is why:
-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts to reflect sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth (temperatures will increase substantially), when the ice has fully melted.

--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2 that will now be released into the atmosphere.

--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)

-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.

PROOF 6. We also know we are emitted more CO2 because the oceans are more acidic and already creating problems.

--The chemistry of the oceans is changing faster than it has in at least the last 800,000 years because of the carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, according to the National Research Council an arm of the National Academy of Science. The RATE of change "exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years," the report said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/...

Ocean Dead-Zones May Be Linked To Global Warming

A review of all available ocean data records concludes that the low-oxygen events which have plagued the Pacific Northwest coast since 2002 are unprecedented in the five decades prior to that, and may well be linked to the stronger, persistent winds that are expected to occur with global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/...

Plankton may not be able to adapt to the acidic conditions of the oceans
Furthermore, our simulations show higher rates of environmental change at the surface for the future than the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, which could potentially challenge the ability of plankton to adapt.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/...
High temperatures have already destroyed some coral reefs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-i...

==========

Sound like the type of world you want your children and grandchildren to inherit?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#5 Jan 17, 2013
OK, After combining togetether some items in the rewrite, it adds up to 6 category of proofs.

Anyone want to talk about the SUBSTANCE?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#6 Jan 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Anyone want to talk about the SUBSTANCE?
Like to talk about Mars.
Many toxic topix AGW deniers play dumb(or act out their sub-sub-kindergarten comprehension, in truth), by screwing up the infra-red energy absorbing effect of GHG non-phase change CO2. They often say the atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO2, so why is it so cold. toxic topix AGW deniers love to forget that Mars is ~ 1.5 times the distance from the sun as the Earth, & due to the square of the distance, solar energy per unit area should be over double on the Earth as on the surface of Mars, while compensating for the albedo differences of Earth clouds & fog versus Mars dust clouds.

After that short elimination of those variables, speak about how the actual quantities of atmospheric CO2 are very roughly similar on Earth & Mars per square unit area & the relative increase of temperatures on each planet should be very roughly similar, compared to if each planet was essentially airless & without atmospheres.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#7 Jan 18, 2013
Hey Wallop,

Well you sure managed to post a lot of AGW CULT BS.

Why don't YOU POST some REAL SCIENCE like:

- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT ?
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH ?
- EVEN "ONE" LAW OF SCIENCE that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" and the AGW FRAUD?

But you can't do it, CAN YOU ?

Why?......BEACAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.

----------
Quotations:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.— Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.— Karl Popper
----------
More examples of AGW "Quack Science":

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18...
------
Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?
http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

KABOOM!....HAHAHA....HAHAHA
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#8 Jan 18, 2013
Penn & Teller : Crap - Global Warming


Are AGW'ers Cult Members?
YES 219 95%
NO 10 4%
Current Total 229
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Climate Cooking
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

A list of HUNDREDS of things caused by AGW.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#9 Jan 18, 2013
"WOW" the commanders of useless babble finally get together. Now that would be the real reason for global warming cooling climate change science fiction…
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#10 Jan 19, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
PROOF 3. We know our warming cycle is not natural (Milankovitch) and not due to the sun because of the following:
A study by Usoskin (2008) is considered the definitive study on solar activity.
"Solar Activity over the last 1150 years - Does it Correlate with Temperature?"
In summary he says yes there is a correlation with a very high (95%) confidence rate between sunspot number index and proxies of solar irradiance from as far back as 850 AD to 1975. However after 1975, this correlation breaks down completely.
"During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown and significant trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode (since 1975) must have another source." [which Usoskin has said elsewhere is likely Co2 warming.)
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen...
MORE IMPORTANT: There are other clues the warming we have experienced in previous decades is from CO2 and not from the sun:
(i) The sun has been flat in terms of irradiance for the past 50 years.
-- But the average global temperature has been warming.
(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)
(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)
(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.
(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.
see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html who gets it from the IPCC.
==========
PROOF 4. We have the evidence that our glaciers and both poles are melting.
ARCTIC - The ice in the Arctic is about half now about what it was 30 years ago (as measured by satellites); and most of it is “new” ice; not old ice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ZYaubXBfVqoXX
ANTARCTIC:
NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/201...
GLACIERS: Glaciers are melting around the world
"There is no doubt that most mountain glaciers are shrinking worldwide in response to a warming climate."
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...
Here is a Wikipedia link that compiles the dramatic global loss in glaciers.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Gla...
Here is a description of the worldwide loss of glaciers around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaci...
Oh so wrong. But what do you expect from cut and paste.

First, we are cooling, just as the Milankovic cycles would suggest.

Second they call this the Modern Maximum. Here's Usoskin's graph of solar activity in the holocene. Take a look, is there any doubt why Solanki did not consider the last 30 years of solar activity in your reference.

http://www.aanda.org/images/stories/highlight...

The mass balance of European glaciers have been determined to be the result of the Arctic Oscillation. The largest extent of glaciation since the end of the Younger Dryas was during the LIA. Put another way, more glaciers existed during the LIA than at anytime in the previous 10,500 years.

Cooling down just as the Milankovic cycles would suggest.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#11 Jan 19, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
PROOF 5. CO2 levels have increased 40% since the Industrial Age and are now at the highest levels since at least 400,000 years [i.e., are higher than any shown in the ice cores].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_i...
Lab studies have validated that CO2 has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas.
We also have strong evidence CO2 has a warming effect by looking at our own solar system.
The planet Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun, because of CO2.[The equations that estimate planetary history can be used fairly accurately to apply to Venus and Mars as well as the Earth.]
Remember the high correlation in the ice cores between CO2 and temperature?
--Notice we are at much higher levels now of CO2, but the warming hasn’t hit yet. Scientists think it is indirect FEEDBACKS from extra CO2 in effect that could make warming catastrophic. Here is why:
-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts to reflect sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth (temperatures will increase substantially), when the ice has fully melted.
--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2 that will now be released into the atmosphere.
--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)
-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.
PROOF 6. We also know we are emitted more CO2 because the oceans are more acidic and already creating problems.
--The chemistry of the oceans is changing faster than it has in at least the last 800,000 years because of the carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, according to the National Research Council an arm of the National Academy of Science. The RATE of change "exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years," the report said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/...
Ocean Dead-Zones May Be Linked To Global Warming
A review of all available ocean data records concludes that the low-oxygen events which have plagued the Pacific Northwest coast since 2002 are unprecedented in the five decades prior to that, and may well be linked to the stronger, persistent winds that are expected to occur with global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/...
Plankton may not be able to adapt to the acidic conditions of the oceans
Furthermore, our simulations show higher rates of environmental change at the surface for the future than the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, which could potentially challenge the ability of plankton to adapt.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/...
High temperatures have already destroyed some coral reefs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-i...
==========
Sound like the type of world you want your children and grandchildren to inherit?
Maybe not. Take a look

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evid...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#12 Jan 19, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>Oh so wrong. But what do you expect from cut and paste..
LOL. You ignored the reputable links that can be traced to top science sources.
Is that really irrelevant in your definition of a “cut and paste”?
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>First, we are cooling, just as the Milankovic cycles would suggest.

and

The mass balance of European glaciers have been determined to be the result of the Arctic Oscillation. The largest extent of glaciation since the end of the Younger Dryas was during the LIA. Put another way, more glaciers existed during the LIA than at anytime in the previous 10,500 years.

Cooling down just as the Milankovic cycles would suggest..
No. I'm afraid uou have this backwards.

PROOF:

<<An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[19]>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_the...

where Footnote 19 has these citations

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980Sci...207.....
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4434/94...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17830447

And here is why:

Axial Tilt [from Milankovitch Theory citation]
Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder with an overall cooling trend leading to an ice age>>
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>Second they call this the Modern Maximum. Here's Usoskin's graph of solar activity in the holocene. Take a look, is there any doubt why Solanki did not consider the last 30 years of solar activity in your reference.

http://www.aanda.org/images/stories/highlight ...
.
This is sunspots. I do agree there is generally an inverse correlation of sunspots with temperature caused by solar radiation. However there are other variables involved in estimating global temperature.
Usoskin himself talks about the accuracy of going back that far though.

Notice I used your source, which is refreshingly a scientific reputable site.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php...

By the way, I acknowledge there is evidence that the Earth may have been warmer during parts of the Holicene that today.
But there were only about 10 million humans living on Earth, and these small populations were living on the most fertile areas of the Earth, constantly shifting cultivation to survive.

As a result, most of the land was in some stage of recovery.

Now we are near 7 billion in numbers with land used to the max and with half of the population extremely poor or near starvation. Harvest failure will lead to mass starvation. Yes, I agree, not extinction – but the suffering from lack of rain, harvest failures will also certainly lead to wars and attempts at mass relocations.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#13 Jan 19, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not. Take a look
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evid...
Sorry FF -- this guy isn't reputable.
Proof:
E.G Beck is a retired teacher for biology in germany.
and
<<Ralph Keeling noted the absurd implications of Beck's supposed record of atmospheric CO2 from unreliable chemical measurement data:
==========
"It should be added that Beck’s analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beck’s 11–year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck’s Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes. To make a credible case, Beck would have needed to offer evidence for losses or gains of carbon of this magnitude from somewhere. He offered none."
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Respon...
========
Beck also makes completely unjustifiable claims about cyclic patterns in temperatures at the millennial scale. Check out this graph, where Beck plots a cyclic patters that supposedly represents a fluctuating climate signal ... but weirdly enough, the cycle continues smoothly across a discontinuity (and scale change!) in the X-axis of the graph:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/anoth...
There is a reason why, for example, Steve McIntyre refuses to allow discussion of Beck's work on ClimateAudit. Lending any credence to that kind of nonsense is probably the fastest way to demolish your own credibility. >>
and
<<Why might we be skeptical of Beck's weird data with its absolutely massive rapid jumps and falls in CO2? Here's some pretty obvious reasons for skepticism:
(i) Beck assures us that the measures were precise (1-3%). But we're really more interested in their ACCURACY with respect to global atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We know that a large proportion of the measurements were made in individual scientists laboratories in cities (Paris, Kew gardens London, Belfast, Clermont Ferrand, Copenhagen, Vienna, Frankfurt, Giessen, Bern, Poona India, Rostock in Denmark, Ames Iowa...etc. etc. etc.). We know that if one goes to a city today and makes CO2 measurements in the air in our city laboratories, large variations in CO2 levels will be recorded, with high values relative to the true atmospheric concentrations. Just as in the 19th and early 20th century, we’re surrounded in cities by CO2 sources (pretty much all transport and heat/cooling generation). See for example point (ii) below.
Competent scientists understand the essential difference between PRECISION and ACCURACY. A local CO2 measure may be beautifully precise but wildly inaccurate with respect to the global atmospheric CO2 value. That's where Becks "analysis" is likely to fool the unskeptical.
(ii) We can look at this problem of accuracy in more detail by focusing on the individual series of measurements highlighted by Beck. For example, Beck highlights W. Kreutz’s series of very high CO2 measures in 1939/40. These measurements were made just S of the city of Giessen not far from the railway station. Beck fails to point out that Kreutz’s values differ by an astonishing 40 ppm between morning and afternoon (in other words measured atmospheric CO2 values are 40 ppm higher in the afternoons compared to the mornings), that atmospheric CO2 is much lower on windy days compared to windless days and so on. This is all outlined in Kreutz’s paper on the subject (translation available here:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/kre...
also
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-CO2...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#14 Jan 19, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
Hey Wallop,
Well you sure managed to post a lot of AGW CULT BS.
Why don't YOU POST some REAL SCIENCE like:
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT ?
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH ?
- EVEN "ONE" LAW OF SCIENCE that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" and the AGW FRAUD?
But you can't do it, CAN YOU ?
Why?......BEACAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
I'm afraid it is your science that SUX.

I'll try to describe the chart to you in EASY terms:
Certain chemicals -- such CO2, methane and water vapor have a chemical property than when they are heated, they re-radiate that heat in all directions [with a fraction of that heat radiating back downwards towards the Earth, having a warming effect.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_...

If the earth did not have these global warming gases in the atmosphere it is estimated the Earth would be colder by about 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The order is
#1 the sunlight hits and heats the Earth

#2 the heated Earth reflects back thermal radiation into the atmosphere.

If there was no global warming gases, all of the radiation would radiate back into space making the Earth roughly 60 degrees cooler than it is today.

#3 BUT: the presence of CO2, methane, and water vapor have a special chemical property, that when heated, it re-radiates some of that back downwards as heat and energy towards the Earth, effectively heating it a second time [on top of the sunlight hitting it].

#4 That second heating {sometimes compared to a blanket effect) is the impact of global warming. If you have more global warming gases, even more heat is re-radiated back to the Earth.

That's why global warming gases reheat the Earth.
It's in ALL the mainstream science text books. ALL of them.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#15 Jan 19, 2013
To all (especially FF)

This is a really good video of how AGW works.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#16 Jan 19, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
Penn & Teller : Crap - Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4v4Q9Wv10HoXX
He recanted, pal!

Global warming

Perhaps their most controversial opinion is that they were originally global warming denialists. Penn originally claimed that there was not enough evidence to make a decision, saying "we don't know." In the episode "Environmental Hysteria" in the first season of BS!, the pair present Bjorn Lomborg as an "expert" to "debunk" environmental hysteria, but neglect to mention the fact that his work has been excoriated by actual scientists and not just eco-nuts. Jerry Taylor of Cato is also trotted out to repeat some PRATTs like the mythical "global cooling" consensus of the 1970s and make up some figures about warming trends to conclude that future warming will be less than one degree Celsius.[3] A later episode, "Being Green," recycles some of their earlier bullshit, and adds in criticism of carbon offsets (which are often, but not always, bullshit), commits the Argumentum ad Gorem, and pulls off the classic dihydrogen monoxide hoax.[4] The general "expert interview" format for these episodes consists of hippies vs. think tank hacks -- the fact that scientists are ignored should set off your own bullshit detector. However, in 2008, Penn stated in an interview that anthropogenic global warming is real and that his reluctance to "come out" was due to the political climate surrounding the issue.[5]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#17 Jan 19, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry FF -- this guy isn't reputable.
God, is he still citing that trash? The number of times it's been pointed out that CO2 measurements in industrial cities near roads, factories and home tend to pick up CO2 emission from fossil fuel burning...

The really early measurements were wildly inaccurate due to the process not being very accurate, then you have some good measurements from an early researcher who understood the possibility of local sources of CO2 influencing the results (winds from respiring forests etc), and then some wild swings again before, sensibly, measurements were moved away from urban areas and vegetation.

How clued in do you have to be to realise that the differences in the measured values are due to these factors and not wild swings in global CO2 concentrations?

Not very.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#18 Jan 19, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. You ignored the reputable links that can be traced to top science sources.
Is that really irrelevant in your definition of a “cut and paste”?
<quoted text>
No. I'm afraid uou have this backwards.
PROOF:
<<An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[19]>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_the...
where Footnote 19 has these citations
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980Sci...207.....
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4434/94...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17830447
And here is why:
Axial Tilt [from Milankovitch Theory citation]
Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder with an overall cooling trend leading to an ice age>>
<quoted text>
This is sunspots. I do agree there is generally an inverse correlation of sunspots with temperature caused by solar radiation. However there are other variables involved in estimating global temperature.
Usoskin himself talks about the accuracy of going back that far though.
Notice I used your source, which is refreshingly a scientific reputable site.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php...
By the way, I acknowledge there is evidence that the Earth may have been warmer during parts of the Holicene that today.
But there were only about 10 million humans living on Earth, and these small populations were living on the most fertile areas of the Earth, constantly shifting cultivation to survive.
As a result, most of the land was in some stage of recovery.
Now we are near 7 billion in numbers with land used to the max and with half of the population extremely poor or near starvation. Harvest failure will lead to mass starvation. Yes, I agree, not extinction – but the suffering from lack of rain, harvest failures will also certainly lead to wars and attempts at mass relocations.


I read the Imbrie paper a few years back when I started researching the concept of man made global warming. At the time there was speculation in the IPCC about us skipping the next glacial cycle and the Imbrie paper was the beginning of three papers to explore the possible skip. Imbrie never really said we would skip glaciation but some of his premises were used by the two subsequent papers to support the possibility. All three of your first set of refernces are to the same paper.

I stated that we are cooling just as the Milankovic cycles would imply. We have been cooling since the thermal max. It was because we are cooling that the largest extent of glaciation since the Younger Dryas was during the LIA. But even in cool down of the LIA there were time periods of warmth.

Yes there are many people on this planet, yes resources are finite. Yes food can/has/will be insecure at various times for various reasons. Look at the famines of the LIA. China is not looking too good right now with the extreme cold they are experiencing and North Korea is a crisis.

But if it's population that is the problem, why is it the climate that needs adjusting?
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#19 Jan 19, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry FF -- this guy isn't reputable.
Proof:
E.G Beck is a retired teacher for biology in germany.
and
<<Ralph Keeling noted the absurd implications of Beck's supposed record of atmospheric CO2 from unreliable chemical measurement data:
==========
"It should be added that Beck’s analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beck’s 11–year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck’s Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes. To make a credible case, Beck would have needed to offer evidence for losses or gains of carbon of this magnitude from somewhere. He offered none."
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Respon...
========
Beck also makes completely unjustifiable claims about cyclic patterns in temperatures at the millennial scale. Check out this graph, where Beck plots a cyclic patters that supposedly represents a fluctuating climate signal ... but weirdly enough, the cycle continues smoothly across a discontinuity (and scale change!) in the X-axis of the graph:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/anoth...
There is a reason why, for example, Steve McIntyre refuses to allow discussion of Beck's work on ClimateAudit. Lending any credence to that kind of nonsense is probably the fastest way to demolish your own credibility. >>
and
<<Why might we be skeptical of Beck's weird data with its absolutely massive rapid jumps and falls in CO2? Here's some pretty obvious reasons for skepticism:
(i) Beck assures us that the measures were precise (1-3%). But we're really more interested in their ACCURACY with respect to global atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We know that a large proportion of the measurements were made in individual scientists laboratories in cities (Paris, Kew gardens London, Belfast, Clermont Ferrand, Copenhagen, Vienna, Frankfurt, Giessen, Bern, Poona India, Rostock in Denmark, Ames Iowa...etc. etc. etc.). We know that if one goes to a city today and makes CO2 measurements in the air in our city laboratories, large variations in CO2 levels will be recorded, with high values relative to the true atmospheric concentrations. Just as in the 19th and early 20th century, we’re surrounded in cities by CO2 sources (pretty much all transport and heat/cooling generation). See for example point (ii) below.
levels.html
Had to make space. The measurements are real, they were taken over 150 years from different locations in the northern hemisphere. They were taken using the approved methodology of the day and measured Co2 in situ. They're real.

Are you aware that CO2 values in Paris, in the summer daytime can reach 900 ppm, the surrounding countryside, 415ppm. Sure CO2 values differ from place to place. They are higher at low elevations, less CO2 in the atmosphere at 4000 ft elevation where I live. CO2 values at higher in the daytime than at night and higher in summer than in winter. Higher at low latitudes than at high latitudes.

CO2 values throughout the world look no more like the Manua Loa data than the temperatures throughout the entire world look like 57*C.

Vostok data, the CO2 values from antarctica, measuring 700,000 years of CO2 sequestered in the ice, comes from 11,000 ft elevation, and 95*S latitude, where it's nighttime 6 months of the year and always winter.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#20 Jan 19, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Had to make space. The measurements are real, they were taken over 150 years from different locations in the northern hemisphere. They were taken using the approved methodology of the day and measured Co2 in situ. They're real.[/quote]

They couldn't measure CO2 reliably in the 19th century.

[QUOTE who="Fun Facts"]<quoted text>
Are you aware that CO2 values in Paris, in the summer daytime can reach 900 ppm, the surrounding countryside, 415ppm. Sure CO2 values differ from place to place. They are higher at low elevations, less CO2 in the atmosphere at 4000 ft elevation where I live. CO2 values at higher in the daytime than at night and higher in summer than in winter. Higher at low latitudes than at high latitudes.
CO2 values throughout the world look no more like the Manua Loa data than the temperatures throughout the entire world look like 57*C.

[/quote]

yes. His graph makes the big mistake to compare continuous mesurements of well mixed atmosphere with historical discontinuous analysis of air in certain environments. It is obvious, that these historical data are strongly biased by environmental factors. They are taken in urban milieu which is known for higher CO2 levels.
If you make some analysis of the air in any lab you will never get co2 levels as low as Mauna Loa levels. In certain cities like Paris, Berlin, London you might get levels above 1000 ppmv.

[QUOTE who="Fun Facts"]<quoted text>
Vostok data, the CO2 values from antarctica, measuring 700,000 years of CO2 sequestered in the ice, comes from 11,000 ft elevation, and 95*S latitude, where it's nighttime 6 months of the year and always winter.
If you are measuring relative temperature, why is that a problem?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 9 hr Into The Night 11,923
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 37,509
global warming keeps on keeping on (Apr '17) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 177
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 1,648
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 14 hr doG mnaDed lyHo i... 64,310
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) 17 hr Talkin Bout daStupid 1,271
The Eco-Friendly Realtor’s Paradox? Thu Eco-FriendlySteve 1
More from around the web