The article you referenced seems to have omitted this...
But, as of right now, their climate models can't account accurately for clouds, and are so far completely WRONG.
Dr. Roy Spencer HAS done some work on this, and his studies show the feedbacks to be negative. The bottom line is, NONE of the disaster scenarios they're screaming about are looking to be likely.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Perhaps. But perhaps not. What if I remark this article, which raises the possibility that doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would actually be double the disaster that current climate models are predicting? The report closes with this:
"All the global climate models we analyzed have serious deficiencies in simulating the properties of clouds in present-day climate. It is unfortunate that the global models' greatest weakness may be in the one aspect that is most critical for predicting the magnitude of global warming," said lead author Axel Lauer.
==========================
Their climate models, upon which a lot of the scary scenarios you mention are based, are insufficient. I'm not willing to bet huge money on this.
But, as of right now, their climate models can't account accurately for clouds, and are so far completely WRONG.
Dr. Roy Spencer HAS done some work on this, and his studies show the feedbacks to be negative. The bottom line is, NONE of the disaster scenarios they're screaming about are looking to be likely.
Wait....which arguement are you going with now? Are you disregarding the article you posted now and moving on to something else?
Please show the disaster scenarios "they" have been screaming about? Who are you talking about?
I think the point of the climate models is that they are always gathering information to try and make them as accurate as possible.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-10-2010).]
Wait....which arguement are you going with now? Are you disregarding the article you posted now and moving on to something else?
Geez, man, are you kidding? I showed in that article that CO2 might be mitigated by plants. Someone pointed out that the article still says that CO2/warming will be a big problem.
quote
Please show the disaster scenarios "they" have been screaming about? Who are you talking about?
The fact that the article authors still think there will be a dangerous level of warming.
quote
I think the point of the climate models is that they are always gathering information to try and make them as accurate as possible.
The point is, they have not accurately predicted conditions to this point, are not accurate now, and in any case are and always will be *models*, and never real world data.
Geez, man, are you kidding? I showed in that article that CO2 might be mitigated by plants. Someone pointed out that the article still says that CO2/warming will be a big problem.
That's kind of the point isn't it, you didn't actually get the whole story when you "showed" that CO2 might be mitigated by plants, in fact the study the article referred to qualified any statement to that affect.
Like I said the Scientists seem to be seeking more accurate models at all times, which is a good thing.
The deniers often like to edit and cherrypick what the science says to muddy the waters and create miscommunication. You're learning their tactics very well, grasshopper.
I don't think that we will see the end of scientific controversies about this anytime soon.
So what is the prudent course? If the world does nothing to reduce current GHG emissions and the worse (or worst) greenhouse scenarios prove to have been more accurate, the situation by the end of the present century would be close to or completely out of hand. This is why I look with favor on efforts to reduce GHG emissions that also address other problems (such as diminishing world oil reserves) at the same time.
One could argue that FutureGen is an especially worthwhile project. It's a concept for generating electricity from coal (a more abundant resource than oil) in a new way that eliminates most of the air pollution associated with conventional coal-fired power plants, produces hydrogen for fuel cell applications and also sequesters the carbon dioxide byproduct deep underground, thereby eliminating the greenhouse effect.
Is FutureGen THE answer? I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. But I think it makes good sense to look for methods to reduce GHG emissions in as optimal a way as possible (with the least negative side-effects) -- and not any sense at all to passively await the conclusion of a scientific debate which could go on for many more years, and may ultimately reach a consensus that is in line with what the global warming "alarmists" are predicting.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-11-2010).]
That's kind of the point isn't it, you didn't actually get the whole story when you "showed" that CO2 might be mitigated by plants, in fact the study the article referred to qualified any statement to that affect.
Like I said the Scientists seem to be seeking more accurate models at all times, which is a good thing.
The deniers often like to edit and cherrypick what the science says to muddy the waters and create miscommunication. You're learning their tactics very well, grasshopper.
I can quote the data from your own Holy Men in the IPCC.
Using their carbon figures, we see that CO2 as a total from all sources forms only .039% of the earth`s atmosphere. Of that total, by your own IPCC figures, mankind produces only 29 of the 801 total gigatonnes, or just .033% of the total carbon emissions. This means that mankind produces CO2 amounting to (.039% x .033%) or .001287% of total world atmosphere ,and you are arguing over mitigation of plants? CO2 is absorbed by plants and they absorb far and away more CO2 than man can produce. In fact they absorb all of what the oceans produce, or pretty much all of the 801 gigatonnes. The more CO2 the more they grow and the more they absorb CO2.
Talk about cherry picking. Look at the big picture.
I can quote the data from your own Holy Men in the IPCC.
Using their carbon figures, we see that CO2 as a total from all sources forms only .039% of the earth`s atmosphere. Of that total, by your own IPCC figures, mankind produces only 29 of the 801 total gigatonnes, or just .033% of the total carbon emissions. This means that mankind produces CO2 amounting to (.039% x .033%) or .001287% of total world atmosphere ,and you are arguing over mitigation of plants? CO2 is absorbed by plants and they absorb far and away more CO2 than man can produce. In fact they absorb all of what the oceans produce, or pretty much all of the 801 gigatonnes. The more CO2 the more they grow and the more they absorb CO2.
Talk about cherry picking. Look at the big picture.
Arn
Been through this all before with you, should I give you the pages? I'll assume you forgot.
Here's a refresher
quote
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-11-2010).]
One could argue that FutureGen is an especially worthwhile project. It's a concept for generating electricity from coal (a more abundant resource than oil) in a new way that eliminates most of the air pollution associated with conventional coal-fired power plants, produces hydrogen for fuel cell applications and also sequesters the carbon dioxide byproduct deep underground, thereby eliminating the greenhouse effect.
Does it also turn lead into gold, eliminate aging and stop boobs sagging as women get older? Call me when the technology gets to that point.
Newf I don't understand if you are actually a genuine dullard or just don't get the significance of what I've posted.
Let's try again using the IPCC figures. We produce .001287% of the atmosphere (29 gigatonnes) and they are complaining about an increase of 100 parts per million which is a change of .0001%. This becomes .000001287 of a single percent of total atmosphere.
Putting it another way, our portion is .001287% of the atmosphere and 100 parts per million of .001287% is really very tiny in terms of the total atmosphere. It amounts to about 1 millionth of one percent of the total. Man's output could actually double and we would still be only .002574% which is about 2.5 thousandths of a single percentage point.
You are talking infinitesimally small amounts in the atmosphere. You can argue all day about 1.287 thousandths of a single percentage changing by .0001% but it makes virtually no difference to a planet. And don't forget what Fierobear posted. Mars and Venus are going through similar climate changes. The reason is the variability of the sun's output, not my 1985 Fiero or even a million like it.
I really don't think you understand scale. But I forget, you do live on an island.
Newf I don't understand if you are actually a genuine dullard or just don't get the significance of what I've posted.
Let's try again using the IPCC figures. We produce .001287% of the atmosphere (29 gigatonnes) and they are complaining about an increase of 100 parts per million which is a change of .0001%. This becomes .000001287 of a single percent of total atmosphere.
Putting it another way, our portion is .001287% of the atmosphere and 100 parts per million of .001287% is really very tiny in terms of the total atmosphere. It amounts to about 1 millionth of one percent of the total. Man's output could actually double and we would still be only .002574% which is about 2.5 thousandths of a single percentage point.
You are talking infinitesimally small amounts in the atmosphere. You can argue all day about 1.287 thousandths of a single percentage changing by .0001% but it makes virtually no difference to a planet. And don't forget what Fierobear posted. Mars and Venus are going through similar climate changes. The reason is the variability of the sun's output, not my 1985 Fiero or even a million like it.
I really don't think you understand scale. But I forget, you do live on an island.
Arn
Wow, you figured all that out on your own did ya? And all the scientists must have missed it, why don't you present your brilliant rebuttal of their years of study which so easily proves them wrong.
Think of how famous you'll be when you show that they never took the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to account.
Obviously you're the genius that we needed to figure this all out for us.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-11-2010).]
So sarcasm negates hard figures eh? The same figures supplied by IPCC.
Those aren't my invention, they are simply taking time to understand what we are reading.
Arn
The figures are correct just that your interpretation seems way off. Please...please submit your analysis to a scientific body or university. I'll see if I can find you an appropriate email for your theories.
anyways here's something for you to consider.
quote
Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions
Originally posted by newf: The figures are correct just that your interpretation seems way off. Please...please submit your analysis to a scientific body or university. I'll see if I can find you an appropriate email for your theories.
anyways here's something for you to consider. [QUOTE]Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions
[/QUOTE]
Let's assume your figures are correct and your scientific data confirmed. You are still talking about an amount that is just .000001287 % of total atmosphere. The ratio of C13/C12 can change but, it does not prove the change has any effect on Global Temperature.
Let's assume your figures are correct and your scientific data confirmed. You are still talking about an amount that is just .000001287 % of total atmosphere. The ratio of C13/C12 can change but, it does not prove the change has any effect on Global Temperature.
The irony: As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F. Climate-change skeptics are gleefully calling Cancun's weather the latest example of the "Gore Effect" — a plunge in temperature they say occurs wherever former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist, makes a speech about the climate. Although Gore is not scheduled to speak in Cancun, "it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival," jokes former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer. The reaction: ClimateGate was "bad enough," says Duncan Davidson in Wall Street Pit, but Cancun's weather is particularly "inconvenient" for global-warming alarmists. It's a reminder that global temperatures have "flatlined" despite rising carbon dioxide levels, "which is decidedly chilling against the concept of hampering economic growth to limit Co2 emissions." Grow up, says Tony Juniper in The Independent. "Sure, it's cold outside," but "the trend data show that the world is warming, that the climate is changing, and that the release of greenhouse gases is the cause." The longer we use every cold snap as an excuse to put off reducing emissions, "the bigger the risk we run. Tick tock, tick tock."
My relatives in the Caribbean are also reporting temperatures in the 50s. These cold temperatures are way below normal lows for the area.
Gotta love the media spin on another worldwide climate meeting producing absolutely nothing (thank God). Note the headline, then read the text of the article:
UN talks in Cancun have reached a deal to curb climate change, including a fund to help developing countries.
Nations endorsed compromise texts drawn up by the Mexican hosts, despite objections from Bolivia.
The draft documents say deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed, but do not establish a mechanism for achieving the pledges countries have made.
Some countries' resistance to the Kyoto Protocol had been a stumbling block during the final week of negotiations.
However, diplomats were able to find a compromise.
Delegates cheered speeches from governments that had caused the most friction during negotiations - Japan, China, even the US - as one by one they endorsed the draft.
BBC environment correspondent Richard Black said the meeting did not achieve the comprehensive, all-encompassing deal that many activists and governments want.
But he said it was being "touted as a platform on which that comprehensive agreement can be built".
Mexico's President Felipe Calderon said the summit had allowed leaders to "glimpse new horizons" where countries had the "shared task to keep the planet healthy and keep it safe from [humans]".
The UK Prime Minister David Cameron said: "Now the world must deliver on its promises. There is more hard work to be done ahead of the climate change conference in South Africa next year."
The Green Climate Fund is intended to raise and disburse $100bn (£64bn) a year by 2020 to protect poor nations against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon development.
A new Adaptation Committee will support countries as they establish climate protection plans.
And parameters for funding developing countries to reduce deforestation are outlined.
But the deal is a lot less than the comprehensive agreement that many countries wanted at last year's Copenhagen summit and continue to seek. It leaves open the question of whether any of its measures, including emission cuts, will be legally binding.
"What we have now is a text that, while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward," said chief US negotiator Todd Stern.
His Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, sounded a similar note and added: "The negotiations in the future will continue to be difficult."
Bolivia found faults both with elements of the deal and with the way the texts were constructed through private conversations between small groups of countries.
Delegation chief Pablo Solon said that what concerned him most was that commitments would not be made under the Kyoto Protocol.
"We're talking about a [combined] reduction in emissions of 13-16%, and what this means is an increase of more than 4C," he said.
"Responsibly, we cannot go along with this - this would mean we went along with a situation that my president has termed 'ecocide and genocide'," Mr Solon said.
But Claire Parker, senior climate policy adviser for the global conservation group IUCN, said: "We have moved away from the post-Copenhagen paralysis.
"Developing countries can now see new money on the table which they can draw on to adapt to the impacts they're already facing and reduce emissions."
Tara Rao, senior policy adviser with environmental group WWF commented: "There's enough in it that we can work towards next year's meeting in South Africa to get a legally binding agreement there."
The final day of the two-week summit had dawned with low expectations of a deal.
But ministers conducted intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy to formulate texts that all parties could live with.
Russia and Japan have secured wording that leaves them a possible route to escape extension of the Kyoto Protocol's legally binding emission cuts, while strongly implying that the protocol has an effective future - a key demand of developing countries.
The Green Climate Fund will initially use the World Bank as a trustee - as the US, EU and Japan had demanded - while giving oversight to a new body balanced between developed and developing countries.
Developing countries will have their emission-curbing measures subjected to international verification only when they are funded by Western money - a formulation that seemed to satisfy both China, which had concerns on such verification procedures, and the US, which had demanded them.
=================================================== "THINGS ACHIEVED Fund to channel money from the West to developing nations"
BULLSHIT, not if I have anything to say about it. Not one single dollar of my tax money is going to this redistribution bullshit scheme.
When Republicans take control of the House in January, they plan to eliminate a global warming committee that was created by Democrats three years ago.
The Republican leadership says disbanding the panel is part of the GOP pledge to cut waste in government, and James Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, thinks that is a great place to start bringing budgets back in line.
"The committee cannot initiate any legislation. So essentially, all it is is a showcase for Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) to parade up sympathetic witnesses to tell us how quickly we're destroying the earth through global warming," Taylor contends.
He says this will ultimately save a lot of money and resources.
"You have to have staff for this, you're carving out time...and also, they've produced a website that also takes time, energy and economic resources to administrate nothing more than global warming propaganda -- for example, telling us that within 20 years the Arctic Ocean is going to be ice free," the senior fellow notes. "Just about everyone [has] realized that that's a joke, but nevertheless, it's on the House committee's website."
Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, who was in line to become chairman, had urged the committee's preservation so Republicans could use it to rein in the Obama administration's efforts to curb so-called "global warming." But Taylor says that can be accomplished through other venues in Congress.
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
Well, that solves it - we just need to get rid of all the humans on the planet in order to save it... The simple fact remains, that until people start to give up their conveniences (and this includes Al Gore - not just paying money to offset his footprint) the problem will never go away. ANY TYPE of manufacturing creates pollution plain and simple - there is NO CLEAN way to build that electric car.
I personally think that this time wasted on climate change could be better spent solving the worlds garbage problem - a fair number cities are starting to have problems in dealing with this issue.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Gotta love the media spin on another worldwide climate meeting producing absolutely nothing (thank God). Note the headline, then read the text of the article:
UN talks in Cancun have reached a deal to curb climate change, including a fund to help developing countries.
...has anyone noticed that when these clowns hold a climate conference it is always someplace nice and warm? What are they too scared to talk about 'global warming' in the artic in the winter? Just using it as an excuse for a tropical holiday at taxpayers expense - they can call it what they want, I've been to conferences before and they are far from real work.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-15-2010).]
...has anyone noticed that when these clowns hold a climate conference it is always someplace nice and warm? What are they too scared to talk about 'global warming' in the artic in the winter? Just using it as an excuse for a tropical holiday at taxpayers expense - they can call it what they want, I've been to conferences before and they are far from real work.
I guess they got smart after the Copenhagen debacle. But then, Cancun had record low temperatures during the conference. They call it the "Gore effect", LOL:
"About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions."
Who says it is true or even reality? When climate warms and CO2 goes up, the plants thrive. They, in turn, use up more CO2 and produce more oxygen. It is kind of a self-generating thing in nature. The more plants, the more animals feeding on them. While I disagree that the earth is warming significantly, (it has net warmed since the last ice age) you really can't have it both ways. Remember that the IPCC has FALSIFIED DATA. The "fact" that CO2 has risen in the atmosphere at all is suspect. Their measuring stations are largely in cities for Pete's Sake. Forest fires and volcanoes can produce huge carbon signatures on a short term basis, and the world goes back to equilibrium very quickly. The ability of the oceans and forests of the world to clean air and put in Oxygen is very robust. Look at how it cleaned itself up after World War II and all the above surface atomic testing.
What is more to the point is that many parts of the Northern Hemisphere have and are enduring record winter conditions. In my own back yard we have just had the highest snow fall in December of any month on record. Europe and Asia are in the same boat.
The ability of the oceans and forests of the world to clean air and put in Oxygen is very robust. Look at how it cleaned itself up after World War II and all the above surface atomic testing.
What is more to the point is that many parts of the Northern Hemisphere have and are enduring record winter conditions. In my own back yard we have just had the highest snow fall in December of any month on record. Europe and Asia are in the same boat.
We continue in a cooling trend.
Arn
Can't have it both ways but you quote the science sometimes to come up with your "theories" and then say that the data can't be trusted. Interesting.
Ability for the earth to adapt is an interesting topic. The earth itself will adapt to Climate change or pollution or whatever man decides to do to it however I guess the point is will it be as inhabitable for people and animals when changed. Sure Nuclear test sites may look fine now, never mind that some estimate 2 million people will die from cancer related illnesses as a result from such testing. Just as man will adapt to climate change even though there is a good chance that it will eventually cause much hardship and death due to extreme weather phenomena and other environmental situations.
Again using the evidence of a event of snow or cold as no Climate Change? If that were true I guess if you lived in San Diego this week you would have changed your mind. Those pesky scientists like to look at the full picture from what I have seen.
Instead of the cherry picked opinion piece you linked why not read the second link you have posted.
It doesn't invalidate the previous data it seems to be an effort to help refine it. Damn those scientists searching for the truth and more accurate data.
Ability for the earth to adapt is an interesting topic. The earth itself will adapt to Climate change or pollution or whatever man decides to do to it however I guess the point is will it be as inhabitable for people and animals when changed. Sure Nuclear test sites may look fine now, never mind that some estimate 2 million people will die from cancer related illnesses as a result from such testing. Just as man will adapt to climate change even though there is a good chance that it will eventually cause much hardship and death due to extreme weather phenomena and other environmental situations.
...the earth adapted and made changes/corrections after (as the theory goes) an asteroid slammed into the surface and killed off a majority of the earths population and plunged it into an ice age as the debris (aka pollution) had taken over the atmosphere and blocked out the sun's radation.
BTW >> I guess you could call this 'global warming' as well - suppose man was to blame for that one too...
Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).
The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation. When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way. Image of current northern sea ice (latest). Check the S. hemisphere sea ice (latest).
Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An alternative view, is that the Earth has been cooling since the 1930s when we had 3 of the 5 warmest years since 1860 in the US, and probably globally if the world environmental data base were cleaned up as is happening in the US. This site will be developed to show the science and the impacts related to global cooling, a very scary event compared to warming. It corresponds in the opposite way to the thousands of global warming sites. An unbiased view is at our sister-site: Climate Change Facts. The Editor started his interest in climate change in the 1970s, charged with helping industry adapt to the certainty of global cooling. Tim Ball has documented the cooling trend and its implications.
Global Warming?: Time for a Reality Check?
quote
In the prior inter-glacial period about 125,000 years ago, there was no summer ice at the North Pole and the sea level was 15 feet (5m) higher than today. Is this going to happen anyway? Is our temperature just naturally rising and if our own CO2 is helping it along, won't temperature still rise, even when we stop breathing?
IPCC 2007 reports the prior inter-glacial warmth was driven by orbital mechanics that are not present today. Nevertheless, this prior warmth tells us much about what the true impacts will likely be because nearly all the plant and animal species on Earth now were present then also.
Resource alarmists believe we will soon run out of fossil fuels. As soon as this happens, it seems, prices will rise and the CO2 problem will simply go away as plants clear out the CO2, that seems to be getting ahead of their ability to remove it. For reason to prevail, as depicted in the GCMs (Global Circulation (or Climate) Models), somebody must know of magnificent petroleum reserves hidden from the prophets of doom. Different parts of certain NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) ought to get together to get their story straight. If we were to take the IPCC approach, we would look at the literature and note the range of projections and include all these impacts. Doing so would show that the US Energy Information Agency seems alone in showing a growth in oil and gas production for 20 years (limit of projection), driven by increased prices as demand outstrips supply. This is not unreasonable. Other energy advisors in the private sector see a 25% drop in production in about the same period. The projection to the end of the century ranges from sharp reductions to zero output of oil and gas. The reserves of coal are much greater and production will peak later, but soon, within 10 years being often proposed. For most coal producing countries, coal output is in steady decline. Shortages will drive prices making recovery of presently marginal sources and types of fossil fuels feasible. But, it is all a matter of time before CO2 production from all fossil sources declines. The upheaval to society will likely surpass even the most extreme visions of global warming impacts. In March 2008, the price of coal had risen 50% over sixmonths, and the upheavel was documented by the Washington Post. The Earth's ability to absorb CO2 has apparently been underestimated and the climate models need revision per the 31 December 2009 validation of work by Wolfgang Knorr that shows "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years". The IPCC 2007 Climate Forecast for this Century:■CO2 (the most important gas) has risen from 280 ppm to 379 since pre-industrial times and its growth seems to be accelerating. Whether it does or not is the basis for 7 assumptions about future temperatures. ■Temperature increase. For the next 2 decades, 0.2 deg. C (0.4 F) temperature rise per decade, slightly higher later in most models. The models are all different and respond differently to different assumptions. For the end of this century, IPCC provides 7 best estimates (for 7 assumptions) ranging from 0.6 - 4.0 C (1.1-7.2 F). Warming is likely to lie in the range 2-4.5 deg. C (3.6-8.1 F), with a most likely value of about 3 deg. C (5.4 F). Since the 1800s the temperature has risen 0.76 deg.C (1.4 F). The warming is to be greater on land, in high northern latitudes. ■Sea level rise. For 6 sets of assumptions, the mid-points are about 0.3 meters ( 1 ft.) Since 1850 sea level has risen about 200 mm (9 in.), a little less than 2 mm/yr. More recently the rate appears to be 3.1 mm/yr, now measured by altimetry satellites. (However, we learned on 22 June 2007 that the data were manipulated to achieve this!!). In a 2009-published study, the authors used GPS measurement to correct for local vertical movement of the Earth at key tide gages, finding a "global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19mm/yr over the past century" with no acceleration. ■Other attributes. Ocean acidity should rise with reduced ph units of 0.14 to 0.35; hurricanes become more intense, perhaps less numerous; heat waves and heavy precipitation more frequent; less sea ice and snow cover; higher westerly winds in mid-latitudes; more precipitation in high latitudes, less in sub-tropics inland areas. Impact Assessments Require Trust in the Climate Forecast My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar regions), not the science of climate change. However, to determine impacts correctly, one must understand the nature of change and its likelihood to continue. It is necessary to have trust in what the climate scientists tell you is going to happen in the future. In the IPCC structure, the science has been led by the UK and US scientists, and they have used modeling as their primary tool, with some paleoclimate analysis coming later. The Impact Assessments have been led by the Russians, who have had an intense distrust of modeling. They viewed paleoclimatology as the most valid tool: if you want to know what will happen when CO2 rises or the temperature changes, they say to look at the history of the earth. As an American, working with the Russian teams, I was often caught in the middle of both camps. I learned to listen to both views, and continue to do so. In particular, we learned to distrust any science literature or impacts assessment that did not consider all data available, whether modeling, the instrumented record back into the 1800s and/or the paleo and historical temperature reconstructions. If the data are truncated, there is likely an agenda. Many of us have learned, either formally, or informally, how to detect misrepresentation by statistical treatments and graphics.
How To Tell If an Impact Assessment Is Biased When reviewing impact assessments, look for bias. Often the authors think only of negative changes. This is not necessarily because of personal agendas (such as to assist animals, clean the air, or reduce the birth rate), but is primarily due to human nature. To guard against having a biased report, one should look for balance. Does the material articulate that things will be different and that there are pluses and minuses? There may well be more of one than another. Sometimes balance is reflected in the amount of text, or graphics made to illustrate impacts and often it is reflected in the number of negative versus positive impacts, the latter often left out completely at the first draft stage. If missing, they tend to be only partially treated thereafter as the authors slowly yield to reviewer comments. Examples of balance:
■Discussions of increased summer heat waves and deaths should also include the reductions of winter cold waves and hypothermia deaths. ■Increased costs of home air conditioning need to be discussed in the same context as reduced heating costs. ■Increased mismatches between food availability in ecosystems need to also include reduced energy demands needed to maintain body temperature, such as for marine mammals and the fact that plants and cold-blooded animals usually grow faster when warmer rather than colder. Thus the food of most fish and mammals grows faster when warmer. ■Discussions of coral reef bleaching need to include the expansion of coral reef habitats. ■Discussions of agriculture and forestry problems such as regional droughts and changing types of plants must include the expansion of production areas, general increased precipitation, and CO2 fertilization. ■Discussions of poison ivy becoming more prolific because of wetter environments, warmer temperatures, and CO2 fertilization, should similarly treat agricultural crops and forests. ■Discussions of polar bear food contraints must include the impact on the seals and other items they kill. The IPCC Projections do not Comport with Reality■CO2 has usually been associated with temperature rise throughout the history of the Earth. It is indeed a greenhouse gas but it operates on a logarithmic function. The Earth's natural processes also contribute, and remove, copious amounts of CO2. Since plants first appeared on the Earth, they have converted nearly all available CO2 to oxygen, fossil fuels, and other longterm removals from the atmosphere. Today less than 4/100 of 1% (379 ppm) of our atmosphere is CO2. This pales in comparison with other periods in Earth's history. Common IPCC scenarios rely on an increasing supply of fossil fuels, yet we know that this is not possible and that production will soon peak (if not already) while prices will continue to rise. It is absolutely unrealistic to think CO2 emissions will rise for the duration of this century. ■The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible. Even after the release of the new data set and procedures by NOAA on May 1, which addressed some of the urban heat island issues and dropped the warming 44% (below IPCC 2007), significant other urban heat island issues still remain. There are also issues of calibration as measurement protocols have changed, issues about the design and placement of the temperature stations, and even the strongly held view by many skeptics that this is a natural rise as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age (circa 1500-1900). ■Sea level rise may have increased recently, but other studies have consistently shown no increase. Even if there is an increase, it is in the order of 1 mm per year on top of the 1-2 mm per year that has been happening for the last century, this additional amount is 4 inches (10 cm) over the century. This is not trivial if you are in a low-lying region wrestling with land subsidence, but it is barely more than what would be coming anyway. ■The other forecasts, such as for hurricanes, rainfall, and snow cover, are not significantly different than under natural variability, and will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations. In particular, if ocean acidity were a problem for shell formation, it would have shown up already in areas where there are naturally high levels of CO2. It has not. Further, the lead hurricane expert for IPCC, Chris Landsea, resigned over the misrepresentation of data by IPCC
Was the Earth Warmer Before? Sea Level Higher? CO2 Higher?
quote
There are many frequently asked questions (FAQs), some of which are addressed here. IPCC: Global average sea level in the last interglacial (Eemian) period (130,000-111,000 years ago) was likely 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average Arctic temperatures at that time were 5.7 to 9.5 deg. F (3 to 5 deg. C) higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit. The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed no more than 13 feet (4 meters) of the observed sea level rise. There may also have been a contribution from Antarctica. Note in the chart how the rate of sea level rise is very low compared to that when the ice age wanes. (Chart/text IPCC 2007).
NOAA: The Mid-Cretaceous period is one period in the geologic past that stands out as distinctly warmer than today, particularly at high latitudes. During the mid-Cretaceous Period, 120-90 million years ago, fossil remains of plants and animals believed to inhabit warm environments, were found at much higher latitudes. Breadfruit trees apparently grew as far north as Greenland (55° N), and in the oceans, warm water corals grew farther away from the equator in both hemispheres....... The mid-Cretaceous was characterized by geography and an ocean circulation that was vastly different from today; as well as higher carbon dioxide levels (at least 2 to 4 times higher than today). This indicates that the mid-Cretaceous climate system was different from that of today or any we might have in the future. Explanations evoking ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns radically different from today have been proposed to explain the climate of the mid-Cretaceous; however, there is no scientific consensus on how the Mid-Cretaceous warm climate came about (source: NOAA Paleo Climatology program). In some ancient times when CO2 levels were very high, ocean organisms with shells based on silica replaced those with shells based on calcium.
During the Mid-Pliocene (about 3 million years ago) global temperatures were substantially warmer for a sustained period and are similar to those forecast by IPCC, with similar CO2 and sea levels of 15-25 meters (50-82 ft.) greater than today. Most of the warming was in the high northern latitudes with little warming in the tropics. Even just 7 thousand years ago, in the midst of the present period (Holocene) between glaciation, the Russian Arctic, at least, was 2.5-7 deg.C (4-12 F) warmer than today (Quartenary Research).
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (leading expert on sea level): "If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer modeling." Dr. Mörner's credentials. In a 2009 study, using GPS measurements to correct for local vertical movement of the Earth at key tide gages, finding a "global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61 ± 0.19mm/yr over the past century". Their study shows no acceleration and no changes in rate during warm or cold periods of the last 110 years. It is virtually a straight-line rate of increase, independent of Earth's temperature.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-15-2010).]
Opponents of the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill would do well to invoke recent scientific studies that show global surface temperatures have not increased since 1998, contrary to what climate models have predicted.
U.S. policymakers who cite “consensus” on man-made global warming as justification for anti-emission regulations are relying upon outdated and misleading material from the United Nations that deliberately omits the influence of natural forces, according to climate skeptics. In fact, a growing body of evidence now points to the emergence of another cooling cycle that could persist for decades. Dr. Don Easterbrook, a geologist and professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has presented data that shows a cooler and wetter climate is in order for the next 25 to 30 years. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO, he said in a recent study.
The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study. However, the PDO has now reverted back over to a cool mode, Easterbrook has concluded. This data raises questions about the reliability of models used by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook has said. This U.N. prediction of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 appear to be very much off track.
Meanwhile, some scientists are convinced earth could experience more than just cooling over the next few decades. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics with the National Autonomous University of Mexico sees evidence that points to the onset of a “little ice age” in about 10 years that could last for much of the 21st Century. The IPPC models are not correct because they do not take into account natural factors like solar activity, he said in a lecture.
This view is also advanced in a paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia. The authors anticipate that sun’s activity will diminish significantly over the next few decades.
Up until now, critics of the Waxman-Markey bill inside and outside of Congress have focused mostly on the severe economic costs of emission caps. During the August recess, it might be helpful to ask members why they continue to pursue regulatory schemes unattached to what new scientific data now shows.
I'll cite some current data. Due to the ice storm, it took me 2.5 hours to make my 25 minute ride home tonight, and I'm VERY thankful to be here. My wife, son, and father in-law (who all were driving their own vehicles) are spending the night at the Catholic Church (thank you Lord!). So far this winter has been miserable, and last year's was unusually cold too. I'm starting to buy in into this no global warming thing.
I'll cite some current data. Due to the ice storm, it took me 2.5 hours to make my 25 minute ride home tonight, and I'm VERY thankful to be here. My wife, son, and father in-law (who all were driving their own vehicles) are spending the night at the Catholic Church (thank you Lord!). So far this winter has been miserable, and last year's was unusually cold too. I'm starting to buy in into this no global warming thing.
Haha. yeah that sucks, Glad you are all safe though. We're having unusual weather also but fortunately it's been unseasonably mild and no snow to speak of as of yet. I guess I'm allowed to continue to buy into the Science
Haha. yeah that sucks, Glad you are all safe though. We're having unusual weather also but fortunately it's been unseasonably mild and no snow to speak of as of yet. I guess I'm allowed to continue to buy into the Science
I'll give you credit for tenacity. You're one of a dwindling number who do.
Actually, Al Gore's data, if it were true, would apply to pre-2000 figures. Of course Gore's data is false and misleading, concocted by unscrupulous fellows.
Yes, Avengador your year old article siting 2 year old data is a great read.
I'll stick with the 70's theories, they are more closely matched with what I learned in thermodynamics. In the end, this rock we call home, will be a cold, lifeless, orb and it won't be from overheating. The good news is that we will all will have been dead and turned to dust, for a very long, long, time, before any of this happens.
The simple fact remains, that until people start to give up their conveniences (and this includes Al Gore - not just paying money to offset his footprint) the problem will never go away. ANY TYPE of manufacturing creates pollution plain and simple - there is NO CLEAN way to build that electric car.
