Global Warming Update......

[orangeblooded2]

The latest.



Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say | Reuters



Hey, global warming skeptics, take your heads out of the sand | csmonitor.com

 

[MG1968]

Carbon dioxide and other gases generated by human activities overwhelmed a 21,000-year cycle linked to gradual changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun, an international team of researchers reported on Thursday in the journal Science.

show me a peer reviewed example where a claim like this has been proven in a lab environment.

also noted were references to methane. now that the alarmists can no longer say it's carbon dioxide, they've moved on to another bugaboo.

 

[hndog609]

Any claim has to be able to stand up to some scrutiny. Here's some on the subject.

DMI arctic temperature data animation doesn’t support claims of recent Arctic warming Watts Up With That?

 

[tarunkjuyal]

SOME species of Australian birds are shrinking and the trend will likely continue because of global warming, a scientist said.

Janet Gardner, an Australian National University biologist, led a team of scientists who measured museum specimens to plot the decline in size of eight species of Australian birds over the past century.

The research, published last week in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, found the birds in Australia’s southeast had become between 2 per cent to 4 per cent smaller.

Over the same century, Australia’s average daily temperature rose 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.7 deg C), with the sharpest increase since the 1950s.


Source:- Global Warming Shrinks Birds: Study By Janet Gardner, An Australian National University Biologist | Lifeofearth.org

 

[MG1968]

oh the horrors...chicken wings are going to be smaller in Oz.

 

[gsvol]

The latest.



Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say | Reuters



Hey, global warming skeptics, take your heads out of the sand | csmonitor.com

This reminds me of a Santo del Prete painting titled; "between illusion and reality."

Can you spot any one of the many nonsequiters and false assumptons OB???

I never click on Reuters, they have worn out their credibility with me as has CS Monitor which is known to have been a Kremlin mouthpiece during the cold war.

I did read probably the same article by a Washington Post aka 'Pravda on the Potomac' writer reporting the same study, along with radical environmental mouthpiece, World Wildlife Fund, which is about as credible as PETA.

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent article putting this report in perspective dated Sept. 2, 2009.

Its not and never was about carbon or energy or beingg clean and green... it was and is and will always be about leftist statist agenda.

BTW, I replied to your post concerning America's energy policy here.

 

[gsvol]

I did a little research on the David Schneider (visiting scientist) mentioned in the update which isn't really an update at all, just more global warming propaganda.

One David Schneider was Barrack Obama's personal physician in Chicago for twenty years and says the proposed healthcare program won't work because it has no cost control mechanism.

This might well be by design since many of those who promote Obama programs subscribe to the marxist/socialist theory that the total economic colapse of the industrialized world is part of the solution to our problems. (imagined and otherwise.)

That is weirdly ironic in that those who subscribe to such idiotic theory are some of the least capable of sustaining themselves in a stone age world.
-------------------------------------

This is probably the David Schneider in question:

Dr. Stephen Scheider is one of the foremost proponents of global warming theory. He holds a Ph.D. in plasma physics from Columbia University, and appears to be all over the map, even in his core research area of global warming...which gives us an interesting set of quotes. I wonder if he checks back to see what he's said in the past before opening up in present? I just offer these up...you decide.


"A cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." - Twenty-year-old Schneider quote cited in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992

"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in CO2... Even an eight-fold increase... might warm earth's surface less than two degrees Centigrade, and this is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years." - from paper Schneider co-authored in 1971 cited in Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (1993)

"[Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January 23, 1989

""It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global warming theory] as though it were a question of balance. " - Quoted in the Boston Globe, May 31, 1992

"Looking at every bump and wiggle... is a waste of time.. I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." -Quoted in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992

"[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)

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

One can hardly think of Columbia University without thinking of Carrol Quigley, anyone who hasns't read "Tragedy and Hope" and is interested in politics on a more than skin deep level, is handicapping himself without reading that tome.

Quigley was voted 'most influential professor' by students at Columbia for 28 straight years and was cited by Slick Willy Clinton in his inaugural address as having been one of the people who had most influenced his own thinking, no doubt Quigley had a strong influence on Schneider as well.

 

[IPorange]

So can't have had a different opinion 20 and 40 years ago? A lot of new technologies and information have come about since then. just sayin'. Seems hardly damning to be taking a quote from 20 years before i was born. The prevalent thinking of the day in the 70's was that we were entering a cooling period, because of the small scale cooling trend at the time. The warming trend that people speak of now actually encompasses this cooling trend.

 

[TennTradition]

IP - when you say the prevalent thinking of the day was that we were entering a cooling period - you don't mean a mini-Ice Age, do you? Because, though that was thrown around in the popular press a lot, there are VERY few scientific papers suggesting that, IIRC.

 

[IPorange]

IP - when you say the prevalent thinking of the day was that we were entering a cooling period - you don't mean a mini-Ice Age, do you? Because, though that was thrown around in the popular press a lot, there are VERY few scientific papers suggesting that, IIRC.

No, I don't mean a mini-ice age. As you said, that was media sensationalism. The 70's were the some of the coolest years in the last 70 years, and some people thought it might be the start of a longer trend. Just like we have a tiny cooling trend the last couple of years and a few people are pointing to it as the start of a longer trend. That's what people do: look for possible patterns and try to be the first to point them out.

 

[TennTradition]

No, I don't mean a mini-ice age. As you said, that was media sensationalism. The 70's were the some of the coolest years in the last 70 years, and some people thought it might be the start of a longer trend. Just like we have a tiny cooling trend the last couple of years and a few people are pointing to it as the start of a longer trend. That's what people do: look for possible patterns and try to be the first to point them out.

Thank you, sir....I just wanted to clarify that.

 

[orangeblooded2]

Additionally.




http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/techtalk53-26.pdf

 

[gsvol]

So can't have had a different opinion 20 and 40 years ago? A lot of new technologies and information have come about since then. just sayin'. Seems hardly damning to be taking a quote from 20 years before i was born. The prevalent thinking of the day in the 70's was that we were entering a cooling period, because of the small scale cooling trend at the time. The warming trend that people speak of now actually encompasses this cooling trend.

First of all, that wasn't prevelent thinking then, it was well publicised radical fringe thinking just as current catastropic global warming is radical fringe thinking.

Here are a couple more examples to this idiotic sort of philosophy/theology.

"We must... reclaim the roads and the plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions and tens of millions of [acres of] presently settled land." - Dave Foreman, quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet

"We advocate bio-diversity for bio-diversity's sake. That says man is no more important than any other species... It may well take our extinction to set things straight." - Dave Foreman, quoted Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb in their book Trashing the Economy

"If you are bing interviewed by the media and don't know the statistics, make them up on the spot." Prominent eco leader.

A perfect example is the tens of tons of foodstuff doled out in the San Joaquim valley in California recently because radical ecologists have been able to prevent irrigation of one of the most productive farming areas in the world for the sake of the "delta smelt", a minnow that would supposedly be threatened if irrigation wasn't banned.

"Offering up scary scenarios" is the only thing that is consistent about Sneider.

Sneider's comment; "I don't put much store in direct evidence", clearly defines his MO that he is tring to make evidence suit his theory, which is bassackwards to any serious scientific enquiry.

One would think Sneider's accademic credentials would at least be consistent about CO2 causal effect, whether ice age or global warming should be the outcome.

Putting things in perspective.

Every bit as up to date and the original post.

But such humility and skepticism seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don’t, it’s a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.
..........................
But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that’s a distraction. Don’t you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky — it’s just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.
........................

What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT’s Richard Lindzen says that “there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.”) What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?

I don’t know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions (trillions if you consider costs passed on to the American consumer)gs to “solve” a problem we don’t understand so well.

Sneider is only trying to divert attention from current legitimate scientific focus to promote his radical theology.

 

[IPorange]

First of all, that wasn't prevelent thinking then, it was well publicised radical fringe thinking just as current catastropic global warming is radical fringe thinking.

That's one hell of a "fringe."

 

[TennTradition]

That's one hell of a "fringe."

I thought the same thing, but then I questioned what he meant by catastrophic. There is no way that those who actively research AGW are fringe - they represent the mainstream view of dynamic climatologists, for example. However, making predictions about temperature increases and warning of world-wide *catastrophe* are different, in my eyes. There are very respectable scientists who warn of dire consequences....I'm not sure they are all catastrophic, though...

 

[volinbham]

SOME species of Australian birds are shrinking and the trend will likely continue because of global warming, a scientist said.

Janet Gardner, an Australian National University biologist, led a team of scientists who measured museum specimens to plot the decline in size of eight species of Australian birds over the past century.

The research, published last week in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, found the birds in Australia’s southeast had become between 2 per cent to 4 per cent smaller.

Over the same century, Australia’s average daily temperature rose 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.7 deg C), with the sharpest increase since the 1950s.


Source:- Global Warming Shrinks Birds: Study By Janet Gardner, An Australian National University Biologist | Lifeofearth.org

Ahh, the miracles of correlation.

Apparently global warming is causing people to live longer and be fatter since both have increased over the same time period that global temps have increased.

Other "effects" of GW:

Stock market increase - interestingly it appears to grow faster when it's hotter.

Improvement in UT football - I believe we peaked right around the time of the temp peak.

More micro-brews - the number of micro-breweries has gone up substantially.

Faster computing speeds and cheaper memory...

You get the idea.

 

[gili4]

Just imagine all that global warming pollution manufactured during that game last Saturday!! We're ALL heading for doom and gloom if the VOLS keep winning with all that excitement and breathing out of all those heated up fans in Neyland Stadium! What on earth are we going to do?!! Ouch! I think I just felt a piece of the sky hit me on the head! Oh please, please save us Barack (aka BIG EARS)!!

 

[gsvol]

SOME species of Australian birds are shrinking and the trend will likely continue because of global warming, a scientist said.

Janet Gardner, an Australian National University biologist, led a team of scientists who measured museum specimens to plot the decline in size of eight species of Australian birds over the past century.

The research, published last week in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, found the birds in Australia’s southeast had become between 2 per cent to 4 per cent smaller.

Over the same century, Australia’s average daily temperature rose 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.7 deg C), with the sharpest increase since the 1950s.


Source:- Global Warming Shrinks Birds: Study By Janet Gardner, An Australian National University Biologist | Lifeofearth.org

Recent engineering studies have indicated that a rudder on a duck's ass could be an alternative to eco-alarmist's warnings that things may change on Earth because of human habitation.

Where do you stand on the DHMO controversy???

The whole thing is a scam perpetuated by aliens who want to rid Earth of humans so they can migrate here from a planet whose star is predicted by radical eco-hysterics to explode within the next fifty years.

That's one hell of a "fringe."

The mainstream brainwashed masses buying of global warming hysteria has rendered 'going green' to be the sexy thing.

Don't that make you want to hug a polar bear cub or what?? :shades: :yes:

September 3, 2009.

Count the sun spots.

I thought the same thing, but then I questioned what he meant by catastrophic. There is no way that those who actively research AGW are fringe - they represent the mainstream view of dynamic climatologists, for example. However, making predictions about temperature increases and warning of world-wide *catastrophe* are different, in my eyes. There are very respectable scientists who warn of dire consequences....I'm not sure they are all catastrophic, though...

Dynamic climatologists are fringe, mainstream scientists agree that activity of the sun determines Earth's temperature.

William Ayers is very respectable by some, to me he is a scum sucking pos and I no longer have any respect for Northwestern University for paying him to spew his venom.

Stupid in = stupid out.

Tip of the iceberg concerning skewed weather data.

Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, edited the first three IPCC reports between 1990 and 2001.

One cause of the blunders that have made the Met Office a laughing stock is less widely appreciated, however. It is that the multi-million pound (sterling)gs computer it uses to assist its short-term forecasting for Britain is also one of the four main official sources of data used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict global warming. In this respect the IPCC's computer models have proved just as wrong in predicting global temperatures as the Met Office has been in forecasting those mild winters and heatwave summers.

Back in 1990, Mrs Thatcher, temporarily under the spell of the prophets of runaway global warming, authorised lavish funding for the then-head of the Met Office, Sir John Houghton, to set up its Hadley Centre in Exeter, as a "world-class centre for research into climate change". It was linked to the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, to create a record of global temperatures based on surface weather stations across the world, a data set known as HadCrut. Sir John himself played a key role at the top of the new IPCC as chairman of its scientific working group.

Sir John was a fervent believer in the theory that the cause of global warming is man-made CO2, and the HadCrut computer models, run by his CRU ally Professor Phil Jones, were programmed accordingly.

When Mr McIntyre made Freedom of Information requests to see the data used to construct the HadCrut record (as he has chronicled on his ClimateAudit blog) he was given an almighty brush-off, the Met Office saying that this information was strictly confidential and that to release it would damage Britain's "international relations" with all the countries that supplied it.

The idea that temperature records might be a state secret seems strange enough, but when the policies of governments across the world are based on that data it becomes odder still that no outsider should be allowed to see it. Weirdest of all, however, is the Met Office's claim that to release the data would "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector".

I can give you a book length list of links to articles and books that show the whole global warming theory to be based on inaccurate and sometimes falsified data if you wish, the link above is only one example.

 

[TennTradition]

Not a fringe, gs. It doesn't matter how you slice it. If they are wrong, then they are an incorrect majority. In my experience, those who accept AGW (if we are including those who don't think we will see *catastrophic* consequences) represent a majority of scientists. Again, that is my experience, I haven't seen a good poll...

 

[gsvol]

Additionally.




http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/techtalk53-26.pdf

Your link only shows up as a little red x on my computer. :ermm:

Additionally:

MIT Physics E&M, spring 2003. Professor Gunther Roland: ""I firmly believe this value [for the mass of a quark] is correct, because the guy who measured it has his office two doors down from me."

Give me your definition of a quark OB and I'll give you mine.

Sunspots.

 

[TennTradition]

GS - I know that you have mentioned that world temperatures go as sun's output goes, and that is true (it is just that the fluctuations are usually small enough to not make that much of a difference). Extended downturns would obviously cool us off, because our temperature is obviously dependent first and foremost on the getting radiation from the sun. The point is that this variable doesn't change to a great extent, so while it is a huge driver of climate, it isn't a large driver of climate change, unless it enters prolonged changes. If we are entering a sustained and deep solar minimum, then we could see temperatures drop. If they don't, and the solar activity is decreasing as might be indicated by the sunspot plot you show, then it may be masking warming that would otherwise be happening at constant solar output.

If man does contribute to warming that might be catastrophic, maybe we'll get early and the earth will wobble in its orbit to nudge us cooler - why not?

 

[gsvol]

Not a fringe, gs. It doesn't matter how you slice it. If they are wrong, then they are an incorrect majority. In my experience, those who accept AGW (if we are including those who don't think we will see *catastrophic* consequences) represent a majority of scientists. Again, that is my experience, I haven't seen a good poll...

Let's say you are on the high dive board about to plunge into the deep end but can't tell if there is water in the pool, you shout down to others near the pool and ask for their opinion and they can't agree.

Does is matter who is in the majority or does it matter who is right??

The presently proposed administraion policy is just too radical to be derived from the scientific indicators that we have and the worst part is that it doesn't even solve the perceived problem.

GS - I know that you have mentioned that world temperatures go as sun's output goes, and that is true (it is just that the fluctuations are usually small enough to not make that much of a difference). Extended downturns would obviously cool us off, because our temperature is obviously dependent first and foremost on the getting radiation from the sun. The point is that this variable doesn't change to a great extent, so while it is a huge driver of climate, it isn't a large driver of climate change, unless it enters prolonged changes.

I disagree;

1. That variable does change to a great extent.

2. It is a large driver of climate change because it does in fact enter prolonged changes.

A true comparison of what human contribution to CO2 levels and the effect that has on Earth's climate would be like trying to warm the oceans with scalding water, one eye dropper at a time.

If we are entering a sustained and deep solar minimum, then we could see temperatures drop. If they don't, and the solar activity is decreasing as might be indicated by the sunspot plot you show, then it may be masking warming that would otherwise be happening at constant solar output.

Well we have the Maunder Minimum to consider.

The maunder Minimum was a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 -- the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age.

I'm not trying to promote panic that we might be on the threshold of another ice age, large or small, as a matter of fact astronomers expect solar avtivity to pick up in the near future (2 to 4 years) in repeating an observed 11 years solar cycle. We have yet to find out and have no way of predicting what will happen, we don't have enough scientific knowledge to do so.

Here is a brief explanation in answer to your 'maybe.'

But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun (the sun isn't necessarily getting warmer) but rather with its magnetic cycles.

When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle --we are a few yrs away at the moment), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system).

The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth.

So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now -the next sunspot max is expected in about 2013, according to the latest predictions), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level, sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally.

Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When minute particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word.

The process by which the Sun's increased magnetic field deflects incoming cosmic rays is very similar to the way magnetic fields steer electrons in a cathode ray tube (old-time television tube) or electrons and other charged particles around the ring of a subatomic particle accelerator.

The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC (Danish National Space Center) investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth.

This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth."

"Sunspot numbersover the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations.

The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago.

The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode." (Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred & Beer, Jürg (2004), “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”)

From NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory's "Not So Frequently Asked Questions" section:

Q-Does the number of sunspots have any effect on the climate here on Earth?

A-Sunspots are slightly cooler areas on the surface of the Sun, due to the intense magnetic fields, so they radiate a little less energy than the surroundings.

However, there are usually nearby areas associated with the sunspots that are a little hotter (called falculae), and they more than compensate.

The result is that there is a little bit more radiation coming from the Sun when it has more sunspots, but the effect is so small that it has very little impact on the weather and climate on Earth.

However, there are more important indirect effects:

sunspots are associated with what we call "active regions", with large magnetic structures containing very hot material (being held in place by the magnetism).

This causes more ultraviolet (or UV) radiation (the rays that give you a suntan or sunburn), and extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV).

These types of radiation have an impact on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (e.g. producing ozone). Since some of these products act as greenhouse gases, the number of sunspots (through association with active regions) may influence the climate in this way.

Many active regions produce giant outflows of material that are called Coronal Mass Ejections.

These ejections drag with them some of the more intense magnetic fields that are found in the active regions. The magnetic fields act as a shield for high-energy particles coming from various sources in our galaxy (outside the solar system).

These "cosmic rays" (CRs) cause ionization of molecules in the atmosphere, and thereby can cause clouds to form (because the ionized molecules or dust particle can act as "seeds" for drop formation).

If clouds are formed very high in the atmosphere, the net result is a heating of the Earth - it acts as a "blanket" that keeps warmth in.

If clouds are formed lower down in the atmosphere, they reflect sunlight better than they keep heat inside, so the net result is cooling. Which processes are dominant is still a matter of research.

SOHO

There is a theory that sunspot activity is heavily influenced by the orbit of the planet Jupiter, there is far more evidence to indicate that to be true than the theory that manking is destroying Earth by his CO2 emissions. Not even close.


Finally Mars is also experiencing warming and I doubt that has a damned thing to do with Karl Marx and his wealthy mentors nor his fruitcake. power mad followers and other useful idiots.

If man does contribute to warming that might be catastrophic, maybe we'll get early and the earth will wobble in its orbit to nudge us cooler - why not?

In other words if the direction of the erection has to equal the angle of the dangle then does it follow that the wobble of the bobble will in all probability be determined by the sway of the way??

Why not??

Is this wheel turning clockwise or counter colockwise??

"Half the work that is done in this world is to make things appear what they are not." - E. R. Beadle

 

[TennTradition]

Let's say you are on the high dive board about to plunge into the deep end but can't tell if there is water in the pool, you shout down to others near the pool and ask for their opinion and they can't agree.

Does is matter who is in the majority or does it matter who is right??

I did not use the majority argument to 'sell' the idea of AGW. I bring it up to assert that it is not a fringe. A majority, or something even close to it, can't be viewed as a fringe.

 

[TennTradition]

I should have also said fluctuations in the sun are only a strong driver of climate 'when' the sun enters into prolonged downturns or upturns, not 'unless' it enters into prolonged change. Of course, those prolonged changes happen.

 

[kev20]

The Great Global Warming Swindle