|
Post by ron on Dec 8, 2008 22:45:45 GMT
Some animals are much more flatulent than others.
Ask my brother's wife.
|
|
|
Post by lamont on Dec 9, 2008 8:25:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Dec 9, 2008 9:11:25 GMT
If sun which has a larger impact in our climate, his abnormalities does not affect our climate, imagine how much much much fewer human affects it. This CO2 , just 20% percent producing from man, the other 80% from oceans, and only the 20% of the greenhouse substances is affecting climate and sun is not? That sounds a bit hilarious to me... I have links suggesting the exact opposite, so its not clear yet... That is at my opinion at least...
|
|
|
Post by sfbmikey on Dec 9, 2008 15:38:33 GMT
um. except the oceans have NOT been warming over the last 5 years.
the argo data (arguably the first reliable data on the subject) ~had~ shown somewhat significant cooling 2003-2007, and after recent corrections (using dubious methodology), still shows trivial cooling over the same time frame.
we are worlds away from the constant addition of energy to the system predicted by the models.
since 1998 the atmosphere has cooled, even according to the deliberately "adjusted" GISS data.
energy into the system is not increasing, and solar output is decreasing (albeit trivially, ~0.1%)
I honestly don't consider myself as having a dog in this fight . but the data over the last several years does not agree with the climate models the IPCC used. every new data we get seems to point toward cooling, yet warming is the only thing we hear about on mainstream news. it is really looking more and more like a cult. A cult with a great deal of scope.
I will say that the discussions here have led me toward a desire for more knowledge.....
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 9, 2008 17:59:12 GMT
I hate the argument of "The sun is so big compared to us little humans, what could we possibly do to the climate". It is just silly. We could launch 50,000 nuclear weapons and blank out the sun for a couple of years. That might affect the temp, don't you think? We could launch a bunch of spacecraft to hover between the earth and the sun and open huge umbrellas to block out a bit of the sun's energy. That would work. Of course it might send us into an ice age, but that's a different argument. How ridiculous is it to think that a tiny fragment of fiber could have any impact on the warmth of the human compared to his home's central heating system! Yet when we get cold, we pull a blanket over the top of us made up of those tiny itsy bitsy little pieces of ginned fluffy cotton, and it keeps us warm. It is a specious argument to say that man could not possibly be affecting our climate. Some good physics and physicists think we might already be. The effect might be temporary, the effect might be long lived. The effect might be minuscule or huge. But we likely have an effect. In my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Dec 9, 2008 19:22:08 GMT
Excuse me but i did not say that... I said if sun isnt affecting climate then human doesnt either. How can human affect our climate and sun does not? That is also silly...I didnt say the sun is bigger, at least i didnt mean that. It is also silly to think that sun is just a huge fireball... Its more complex thing and that, well, no one can doubt it... And i didnt ever said what human can do to climate, but what human does to climate with CO2. Do not change my words. And it is not my personal opinion and these are not words brought out of my head, there are also many scientists stating that CO2 is affecting climate surely much more less than some claim, and there is evidence proving it. But there is no evidence to prove that CO2 is the cause just because the global warming started at the same time with global industrialisation. As i said again, not just words of mine...
|
|
|
Post by tilmari on Dec 10, 2008 22:38:10 GMT
Sometimes it makes good to look at those studies made before the global warming religion. B. J. Mason has in Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 1976 the power spectrum of the detrended central England temperature record for the period 1700 to 1950. There are two peaks above all others: 76 yr (Gleissberg cycle) and 23 yr (Hale cycle).
For comparison: The longest Gleissberg since the Maunder Minimum lasted 82.5 years (1784-1867) and contains the coldest decades during the last 300 years. The shortest Gleissberg lasted 72.8 years (1923-1996) and contains the warmest decades during the last 300 years.
The Hale cycles during the 1800's were in average about 24 years and in 1913-1964 and 1976-1996 in average 20.5 years. Again the long cycles contained the coldest periods and the short ones the warmest.
Timo
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Dec 11, 2008 11:01:00 GMT
...It'd be nice to see a strong El Nino in the Pacific in order to measure global temperatures against those in 1998 in order to get an apples-to-apples comparison with another strong El Nino year. I expect that the 1998 temperature records across all the different global surface datasets would all solidly be exceeded by around 0.2C if the pacific produced another really strong El Nino year... Yeah... thanks Lamont. We Aussies will be happy to see another el Nino year where the cattle & sheep die, where food prices go through the roof, where the Govt sells off our water to private companies and farmers lose properties that have been in their families for 4 - 5 generations - so you can do a temperature comparison to see if all the current data about falling temps are real or not. Ever eager to please, perhaps we can send a supply of black textas to your favourite temperature measuring facility so they can make regular adjustments to the measured temperatures to further enhance the gospel of GW? If people would simply look at the measurements & react with vigour at the 'adjustments' & 're-analysis' applied by agw'ers so they can continue to 'believe their Gore... I mean God given 'truth' about us evil humans, we wouldn't need to be wishing a nation to suffer just to show how right we are.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Dec 16, 2008 3:02:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 16, 2008 18:22:34 GMT
sfbmikey said: "energy into the system is not increasing, and solar output is decreasing (albeit trivially, ~0.1%) "
And that is precisely the problem with using TSI to quantify the earth-sun relationship. Not all forms of radiation interact with matter equally. Microwave will cook you, IR will make you warm, visible lets you see, while UV will give you topical burns, move on to x-ray and gamma and again it will again cook you.
As a case and point: Earth’s Ionosphere drops to a new low
"During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day."
"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-ionosphere-drops-to-a-new-low/"
If the atmosphere is thinner, that will allow heat to escape to space at a faster rate.
Solar XUV is down about 50%, Soft X-rays about by about 1/10,000 since solar max.
Could there possibly be a sun-earth atmosphere connection beyond the simplistic TSI?
Note that this doesn't even go into the interaction of UV & solar particles that interact with ozone (which is a more potent ghg), the auroral phenomenon which releases hundreds of billions of joules, the "magnetic tubes that directly connect the polar atmosphere to the sun" during geomagnetic storms. etc, etc.
We have relegated the suns influence to TSI because we don't completely understand the sun-earth relationship. But it is politcally expedient to say we know enough about CO2 to predict future weather, but only 100 years out, just not in the first 5 years of predictive model iterations! For some reason those don't count.
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Dec 17, 2008 22:03:16 GMT
SKY news just announced 2008 warmest year on record. ? ? ! !
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 18, 2008 6:45:45 GMT
Anyone watching TV news last night could have been forgiven for thinking that 2008 was a very hot year. Here is a different slant on the same story: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stmHere is an extract: This year is coolest since 2000By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website Winter brought unfamiliarly cold weather to large swathes of Europe The world in 2008 has been cooler than at any time since the turn of the century, scientists say. Cooling La Nina conditions in the Pacific brought temperatures down to levels last seen in the year 2000.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 19, 2008 0:14:43 GMT
Ratty, articles such as the one referred to are meaningless. What temperatures are being referred to: ambient, surface, ocean, ionosphere, troposphere, etc.? What baseline from 1960-1990? This morning I read a newspaper article which once again forecast ever rising sea levels. I think science in grade 3 dealt with this one. Ninety-five percent of ice is sea ice - ice is .98 specific gravity of water. Therefore, when sea ice melts, the water level becomes lower, not higher. And glaciers and continental ice are up to 50% atmospheric. The world's oceans are now at about the highest level they have ever been - even when there was no ice - anywhere. Look at the KT line. The KT line came into existence when they world was "iceless". Ask the dinosaurs. It is above the ocean margin throughout the world, and has never been below sea level. Indeed, a theme consistent through all I have read is that we are now in an ice age, that in the past thousands of years the earth and its atmosphere has cooled, and has been doing so since the Bronze Age, with limited, interim periods of warmth. Over the past ten years, astronomers have witnessed a solar energy fluctuation which caused a significant brightening of the solar system (5x), and over the past 3-5 years a great dimming of solar light. Now the sun's activity is at a very low level. There is no no way of determining for certain whether this will change - ever. All projections are guesses. One guess would be that given the ordinarily glaciated state of the earth, one period being a 400 million year ice ball, we probably are entering a very cold period. And it might be very cold for a very long time. If this is to be deemed incorrect, it must be demonstrably shown and proven to be so. And a long time from now, the earth will once again be very warm. Much warmer than today. Or very cold. And all that will be left from our "civilization", is plastic. Just like George Carlin said, the earth brought us along to make plastic because it couldn't. Well, we made it, and that's the end of it.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 19, 2008 5:26:08 GMT
Yeah ... I knew the TV reports, the newspaper reports and the SkY news report that I responded to are meaningless. Maybe I should have had a [Sarcasm Starts Here] line? The more I read, the less I know ....
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 19, 2008 6:43:06 GMT
Ratty - apologies - no criticism intended - Don Easterbrook, above, thinks much the same as I.
|
|