 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 28/600) |
|
ryan.hess
|
NOV 22, 12:25 PM
|
|
I was on board the solar flux driving global warming, but after seeing that, I don't buy it anymore. A 0.08% change in solar irradiance does not have that much effect. 1 watt per square meter? and how much of that is reflected? 40%?
Second, like a really good anti-global warming nut... or a good global warming nut for that matter... you've selectively ignored the evidence that goes against your beliefs. Your solar irradiance and temperature graphs line up everywhere else, shouldn't they line up here?
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
NOV 22, 12:26 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
BRRRR! This global warming is sure getting chilly...
Brrrr... Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth
Brrrr... South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years
Brrrr... Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting
Brrrr... Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China
Brrrr... China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years
Brrrr... Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years-- 260 Dead
Brrrr... Record Cold Hits Central Asia-- 654 Dead in Afghanistan
Brrrr... Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir
Brrrr... Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years!
Brrrr... Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India
Brrrr... Snow and Ice in San Diego?
Brrrr... Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered
Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick
Brrrr... Turkey's snowiest winter continues.
Brrrr... Record Cold & Snow Blankets Acropolis in Greece (Video)
Brrrr... Longest Ever Cold Spell Kills Cattle & Rice in Vietnam
Brrrr... Most Snow Cover Over North America Since 1966
Brrrr... Australia Suffers Through Coldest Summer in 50 Years
Brrrr... Record Snowfall Slams Ohio River Valley
Brrrr... New Data Gives Global Warming the Cold Shoulder
Brrrr... Global Cooling Causes Armed Clashes in Canada
Brrrr... Snake Oil Salesman Admits to Ca$hing In on Global Warming Hysteria
Brrrr... New Research Claims Earth Sliding Into an Ice Age
Brrrr... Blizzard Blasts South Dakota-- 4 Feet of Snow Reported
An Inconvenient Debate... Czech Pres. Challenges Gore On Warming
Brrrr... Record Snow Blankets Spokane, Washington In June!
Brrrr... Peru Declares Emergency-- Record Cold Kills 61 Children & 5,000 Alpacas
Brrrr... Arctic Sea Ice Levels Are Up By 1,000,000 Square Kilometers
Brrrr... Denver Breaks 118 Year-Old Cold Record-- Arctic Ice Refuses to Melt |
|
Gorites have one word for you. Anecdotal.
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
NOV 22, 12:30 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
I was on board the solar flux driving global warming, but after seeing that, I don't buy it anymore. A 0.08% change in solar irradiance does not have that much effect. 1 watt per square meter? and how much of that is reflected? 40%?
Second, like a really good anti-global warming nut... or a good global warming nut for that matter... you've selectively ignored the evidence that goes against your beliefs. Your solar irradiance and temperature graphs line up everywhere else, shouldn't they line up here?
|
|
There are other factors. Like magnetic field strength, solar wing speed and pressure, Solar is the primary ( but not only ) driver not CO2 like the media and Gorites would fool you into believing.
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
NOV 22, 12:36 PM
|
|
0.6 watts per square meter is nothing. Radiational losses to outer space is probably 1000x that.
Peeing in the ocean will not cause sea levels to rise 3 feet. Not even if you're a whale.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
NOV 22, 12:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
I was on board the solar flux driving global warming, but after seeing that, I don't buy it anymore. A 0.08% change in solar irradiance does not have that much effect. 1 watt per square meter? and how much of that is reflected? 40%? |
|
Here is a link to the footnote/reference to the "Northern Hemisphere Temperature" trace of which you have issue. You'd have to purchase the entire paper to read it, but here's the abstract:
The Sun is by far the most important driving force of the climate system. However, only little is known how variable this force is acting on different time scales ranging from minutes to millennia and how the climate system reacts to changes in this forcing. Changes of the global insolation can be related to the nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun, the energy transport through the radiative zone and the convection zone, the emission of radiation from the photosphere, and the distance between Sun and Earth. Satellite based measurements over two decades show a clear correlation between the solar irradiance and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The irradiance amplitude is about 0.1%. This is too small to affect significantly the climate. However, there are indications that, on longer time scales, solar variability coluld be much larger. The analysis of cosmogenic nuclides stored in natural archives provides a means to extend our knowledge of solar variability over much longer time periods.
The response of the climate system to solar forcing depends not only on the amount of radiation, but also on its spectral composition (e.g. UV contribution), seasonal distribution over the globe, and feedback mechanisms connected with clouds, water vapour, ice cover, atmospheric and oceanic transport and other terrestrial processes. It is therefore difficult to establish a quantitative relationship between observed climate changes in the past and reconstructed solar variability. However, there is growing evidence that periods of low solar activity (so called minima) coincide with advances of glaciers, changes in lake levels, and sudden changes of climatic conditions. These findings point to an active role of the Sun in past climate changes beside other geophysical factors, internal variability of the climate system, and greenhouse gases. In fact a non-linear regression model to separate natural and anthropogenic forcing since 1850 is consistent with a solar contribution of about 40% to the global warming during the last 140 years.
=================
That means there are other factors. However, given that CO2 could not be a significant contributor until fairly recently, then factors *other* that CO2 must be in effect.
| quote | Second, like a really good anti-global warming nut... or a good global warming nut for that matter... you've selectively ignored the evidence that goes against your beliefs. Your solar irradiance and temperature graphs line up everywhere else, shouldn't they line up here?
|
|
Look at the *years* that you're using, approximately 1820-1880. I'd expect our temperature data got better as our technology improved, and the data to be less accurate the further back you go. It's a damn good correlation as you get closer to present.
Anyway, this is from published, scientific literature. I'm not making this stuff up. So your assertion that I'm "cherry picking" is aimed at the wrong guy. Fault the scientists' research, if you can.
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
NOV 22, 01:41 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
Here is a link to the footnote/reference to the "Northern Hemisphere Temperature" trace of which you have issue. You'd have to purchase the entire paper to read it, but here's the abstract: |
|
It's okay, I have a subscription.
| quote |
With an increase of the solar irradiance of 2.2 Wm
during the last 140 years on the basis of our solarirra-
diance reconstruction, we get a solar forcing at the top of
the atmosphere of 0.55 Wm and corrected for short-
wave refections 0.4 Wm . In case of an assumed
sensitivity of 0.5K/(Wm ) which includes all feedbacks
solar variability accounts for an increase of 0.2K for the
global mean annual temperature during the last 140 yr.
This is in good agreement with the results of the separ-
ation of the solar forcing component based on the
regression model. In contrast to the estimation of
the solar forcing component by Friis-Christensen and
Lassen(1991) who attributed almost all variability of
the northern hemisperic temperature anomalies between
1865 to 1985 to the Sun leaving no room for the anthro-
pogenic greenhouse effect and other forcings(aerosols,
internal climate variability) our separation approach
provides a more realistic balance between the anthropo-
genic and the solar component and leaves room for
other variability sources as well. According to the
model at present about half of the temperature varia-
bility is attributable to greenhouse gases, somewhat less
to solarforcing and 10-20% to internal climate
variability. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
Fault the scientists' research, if you can. |
|
I don't need to. They said the same thing I did.[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 11-22-2008).]
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
NOV 22, 04:40 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
According to the
model at present about half of the temperature varia-
bility is attributable to greenhouse gases, somewhat less
to solarforcing and 10-20% to internal climate
variability.
|
|
Is their conclusion based on modeling, or actual observation?
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
NOV 23, 02:49 AM
|
|
Here's some possible irony coming. Obama made a taped speech to the recent governor's conference, and he promised that the U.S. would lead in cutting CO2 emissions. You know, the "back to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% more by 2050" crap. On this web site:
http://motls.blogspot.com/s...search/label/climate
...the commentary brought up an interesting notion. Evidently, the reality of what it will *really* cost to cut carbon emissions is hitting home in Europe. They're starting to back off from these promises to cut CO2. That's after they discovered that it's actually going to cost a bunch of money, and hurt the economy and consumers. Imagine that!
So here's the irony. It's possible that Obama is going to go for the whole enchilada on cutting emissions just as the rest of the world says "whoa! wait a minute!" and backs off. Like the commentary says...
"America should be ready to a new, somewhat unprecedented global situation in which it will stand on the political left side from the rest of the world and no one will be interested in its extreme policies. In the Asia-Pacific region and Europe, the support for all kinds of climate regulation is evaporating rapidly these days.
Germany is pretty much joining Italy and the Eastern Europe in rejecting any specific post-Kyoto regulations and other regions seem to follow a similar evolution. The Czech prime minister - who will probably take over the EU since January 2009 - announced today that he will reject proposals that would increase energy prices. He also opposes a "brutal" introduction of carbon indulgence markets that would be useless because other countries will ignore it."
and
Don't expect any smooth sailing. The inclusion of Poland that critically depends on coal and that simply won't give it up is very entertaining but the other nations will oppose similar dictates, too, as soon as they realize that the projects to regulate the economies are becoming real rather than abstract nonsense used to bash America - which is what they have been so far.
Up until now, the U.S. hasn't been willing to cut emissions. Now that Obama wants to actually do it, and the U.S. no longer being the worlds whipping boy, we may find ourselves alone in the willingness (at least Obama's willingness) to cut emissions. If no one else does it, what are the chances the U.S. would follow through? The warming crap would collapse. Wouldn't that be a deliciously ironic victory over the warming hype?
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
NOV 23, 11:56 AM
|
|
PRUDEN: The killer frost for global warming
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Turn up the heat, somebody. The globe is freezing. Even Al Gore is looking for an extra blanket. Winter has barely come to the northern latitudes and already we've got bigger goosebumps than usual. So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one.
The polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995. You may have noticed, in fact, that Al and his pals, having given up on the sun, no longer even warn of global warming. Now it's "climate change." The marketing men enlisted by Al and the doom criers to come up with a flexible "brand" took a cue from the country philosopher who observed, correctly, that "if you've got one foot in the fire and the other in a bucket of ice, on average you're warm." On average, "climate change" covers every possibility.
This is similar to the science practiced by Dr. James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the source of much of the voodoo that Al Gore has been peddling since the doctor showed up at a Senate hearing in 1988 and told ghost stories that Al swallowed whole. Only last month Dr. Hansen's institute announced that October was the hottest on record, and then said "uh, never mind." The London Daily Telegraph calls this "a surreal blunder [that] raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming."
In this account, the institute had to make the humiliating climb-down after two leading skeptics of the global-warming scam, Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, discovered that temperature readings from September had been carried over and repeated for October.
We should sigh, shrug and give the scientists at NASA the benefit of the doubt that this was a mistake and not a deliberate howl at the moon. A spokesman for the institute explains that readings borrowed from Russia, which had been described as 10 degrees higher than normal for October, distorted the figures but, after all, the data had been obtained from others. So we should blame someone else.
This is the science we're expected to take on faith. The false figures - we must be generous and not say "faked" - were supplied by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change. These are the most widely quoted readings, and consistently show higher temperatures than other "data sets." Would the United Nations lie? (No giggling, please.)
This sets a new standard for hubris, arrogance and haughty self-importance. Skeptics of the global-warming scam, even those with unquestioned academic and real-world credentials, are treated as ignorant pariahs by pundits, presidential candidates and other politicians who know better, or ought to.
Al Gore
This is not the first time, writes Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph, that Dr. Hansen's methodology has been sharply questioned. Two years ago, Messrs. Watts and McIntyre, the bloggers who caught the October fiasco, forced him to withdraw his published findings on surface temperatures in the United States, to correct his claim that the hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1990s. It was the 1930s, when the much-maligned sport utility vehicle was still a truck and Detroit made economical cars everybody wanted.
Man's notion that his science can realign the stars, adjust the orbit of planets and reorganize the universe leads him to say silly things and assert goofy claims. Saying silly things and asserting goofy claims is usually harmless as entertainment, so long as the claims are subjected to rigorous analysis and debate. But contrarian arguments about global warming, climate change and freezing heat are not tolerated by the scientists with an uneasy grip on the research money.
It's clear now that the earth has been cooling for the past decade, to the sorrow of the special pleaders and despite everything Al can do about it. The solar cycle peaked, the sun is quieter, the sunspots have faded and everybody but Al is cooling off.
Even the United Nations says so. The director of the U.N.'s panel on climate change concedes that nature has overwhelmed everything man can do and it might even be another decade before man can rally and the warming resumes. Until then, like it or not, nature rules the cosmos.
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
NOV 23, 08:24 PM
|
|
Another interesting commentary, this on how the hype and hysteria could die after stuff like carbon credits and other anti-warming efforts would be put in place. If we did everything the enviroloonies want, what would they have to shout about?
The answer is quite simple. Since you are already paying tax for hot air, there is no more need to spend money advertizing the product. In US, the AGW hysteria and jobs will too disappear with once the Carbon Tax payments commence.
Look at the Ozone Hhole hysteria prototype of the science scam scheme. Where are the Ozone Hole scientists now? Did you hear any passionate fluorocarbon discussions lately?
|
|
|
|
