FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Latest on Global Warming Bunk
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice work, Shroom.

From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits Is Global Warming a Sin?
by Alexander Cockburn
May 2 2007

In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then, as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide.

Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.

The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica by offering a "plenary" indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.

Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.

And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.

I met Dr. Martin Hertzberg, the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001. He remarked that while he shared many of the Nation's editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the issue of supposed human contributions to global warming, as outlined in columns I wrote at that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy, an occupation which gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he's retired now in Copper Mountain, Colorado, still consulting from time to time.

Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a construct now accepted by many progressives as infallible as Papal dogma on matters of faith or doctrine. Among them was the graph described above so devastating to the hypothesis.

As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased about 21 per cent in the past century. The world has also been getting just a little bit warmer. The not very reliable data on the world's average temperature (which omit most of the world's oceans and remote regions, while over-representing urban areas) show about a 0.5Co increase in average temperature between 1880 and 1980, and it's still rising, more sharply in the polar regions than elsewhere. But is CO2, at 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 per cent of solar radiation that's absorbed in the atmosphere, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in humid tropical atmosphere, can be as high as 2 per cent, the equivalent of 20,000 ppm. As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, clouds, snow, ice cover and vapor "is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane." And water is exactly that component of the earth's heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.

It's a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show carbon dioxide concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled his first model T out of the shop, 300-400 per cent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties like the medieval warming period's higher-than-today's temperatures by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree-ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local, insignificant European affair.

We're warmer now, because today's world is in the thaw following the last Ice Age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the earth's elliptic orbit round the sun, and in the earth's tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the cyclical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by the Serbian physicist, Milutin Milankovitch, one of the giants of 20th-century astrophysics. In past postglacial cycles, as now, the earth's orbit and tilt gives us more and longer summer days between the equinoxes.

Water covers 71 per cent of the surface of the planet. As compared to the atmosphere, there's at least a hundred times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the postglacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, just like fizz in soda water taken out of the fridge. "So the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards," Hertzberg concludes. "It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." He has recently had vivid confirmation of that conclusion. Several new papers show that for the last three quarter million years CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.

It looks like Poseidon should go hunting for carbon credits. Trouble is, the human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, and that's not even to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the earth's increasingly hot molten core.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=12728[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alexander Cockburn produced a marvelous summary in the above article, creating a nice perspective on many of the most important points on global warming. But the most important point of all is being missed by proponents and critics. It's the fact that 95-97% of the heat which is picked up by the atmosphere gets there through conduction and convection, while only 3-5% of the heat enters the atmosphere through radiation. The so-called greenhouse gasses can only respond to the radiation, not the conduction and convection.

This point alone eliminates the entire argument over global warming. So of course there is no evidence of it existing in the global warming hype. It's not in the IPCC material, which only summarizes the science making it worthless as a reference. Therefore, I have to make this estimate myself.

I claim that only 3-5% of the heat which leaves the earth's surface and enters the atmosphere is in the form of radiation, because cool-temperature matter does not emit much radiation. This is demonstrated by night vision equipment. It is blinded by any light source, because it is sensitized to pick up minute quantities of radiation which is emitted by all matter. How much difference does moonlight make when photographing animals at night in Africa? A lot. How much heat is in the moonlight? Next to none. There is even less heat given off as radiation by cool matter than there is in moonlight, as night vision devices demonstrate.

Here's what the numbers mean: Both sides agree that the atmosphere is responsible for adding 33°C to the globe. If 5% gets into the atmosphere by radiation, that is 33 times 5%, which equals 1.65°C. This is the maximum amount of heating that can be done by all greenhouse gasses including water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.

No one denies that CO2 can only pick up 8% of the radiation, because only certain wavelengths are available to it. So 8% of 1.65°C is 0.13°C. This is the maximum amount of heating of the atmosphere that CO2 can produce—0.13°C.

So how do climate scientists account for conduction and convection? There is not a trace of visible evidence. What they account for is buried in the technicalities and obfuscation of the science. In fact, other scientists cannot dig it out, because computer models are used, and scientists are not allowed to know how the information is handled. Mostly, it's too complex, which prevents it from being communicated from one point to another, but apparently, the programs are also proprietary and not being divulged.

Regardless of the hocus pocus involved, the conduction and convection cannot be made to disappear. Yet the end results show no evidence of it existing.

I discuss this and other subjects on a web page titled "Explaining the Fraud," which is here:

http://nov55.com/fra.html

_________________
Global warming is caused by oceans heating, not greenhouse gasses.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dana



Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.

And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels."

Since co2 is stilll being added reducing the input by whatever number just slows down the rate of accummulation
Isn't this just showing that we would've reached 380ppm sooner than we did?

Thankyou, Dana
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NWO_Opposer



Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First time I've heard of Global dimming

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

Quote:
Global Dimming
Horizon producer David Sington on why predictions about the Earth's climate will need to be re-examined.


Questions and answers about global dimming


Programme transcript



We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling. Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. "There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me," he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall. There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population. "My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Prof Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world's leading climate scientists. "We are talking about billions of people."

But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect. They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) we have placed there. What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6°C.

This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of 6°C. But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers. As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control. "We're going to be in a situation, unless we act, where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. That means we'll get reduced cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards. That means a temperature rise of 10°C by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable. That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The British Institute of Geographers identified Reid Bryson as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. Now 86, he is often described as “the father of the science of modern climatology”.

Quote:
What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.


More: http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EddieT



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 477

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The British Institute of Geographers identified Reid Bryson as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. Now 86, he is often described as “the father of the science of modern climatology”.



It seems like it is almost exclusively members of climatology's "senior circuit" who are coming out with these "global warming is ridiculous" type statements. A couple cases in point

French scientist Claude Allegre (in his 70's):

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

William Gray of Colorado State University (also in his 70's):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

So is it possible that these fellas are given some press precisely because of their age? Easy for the anthropogenic global warming believers to dismiss these guys as senile, and maybe they are senile enough to be duped into the fake debate.

Or maybe these guys are kind of like "retired CIA?" Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antonino Zichichi, Italy's most renowned scientist, rejects AGW

Some restraint in Rome
Lawrence Solomon
Friday, May 11, 2007

President George Bush meets Pope Benedict in June. Some Vatican authorities are lobbying the Pope to press the U.S. administration to act on global warming.

"It's not for me to say what the Pope and President Bush should discuss, but certainly they will discuss current issues and therefore I imagine and I hope they will [discuss climate change]," said Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, the Vatican organization charged with developing policy for the environment and social issues.

Cardinal Martino spoke at the start of "Climate Change and Development," a Vatican study seminar two weeks ago designed to "search for solutions to the phenomenon of global warming." The 80 scientists, politicians, theologians and bishops in attendance were asked to consider that: "Global warming may bring about not only the imposition of drastic corrective means to protect the natural environment, but also a grave threat that destabilizes the world."

By the seminar's end, the 80 participants had heard dire warnings from some experts, but they heard much more, too -- that global warming is natural, the cause of warming being primarily solar and that it can be beneficial.

During the two-day event, tensions were often high -- the Catholic News Service, which interviewed participants at the private event, described how one pastor needed to calm down a distraught participant in the corridor, and used words like "bitter" and "heated" to set the early mood at the seminar. No one left the seminar thinking that the science of global warming is settled. To the dismay of those hoping that the high-level group would inspire a Church-led climatechange crusade, the Cardinal, in closing the seminar, urged caution in taking any position on global warming.

The man most responsible for quelling any potential call to action is one of the Vatican's own, Antonino Zichichi, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Dr. Zichichi, who made the seminar's most powerful presentation, set its tone. It amounted to a damning indictment of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body responsible for most of the dire warnings that the press reports daily.

Dr. Zichichi demonstrated "that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view," reported Zenit, a news service that acts as an extension of the Vatican administration. "On the basis of actual scientific fact 'it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes,' and that it is plausible that 'man is not to blame.' "

Dr. Zichichi has concluded that solar activities are responsible for most of the global warming that earth has experienced -- he estimates that man-made causes of global warming account for less than 10% -- and his conclusions have gravitas: This man is the president of the World Federation of Scientists, past president of the European Physical Society, past president of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, and past president of the NATO Science Committee for Disarmament Technology.

He is also Italy's most renowned scientist, credited with the discovery of nuclear antimatter, the discovery of the "time-like" electromagnetic structure of the proton, the discovery of the effective energy in the forces which act between quarks and gluons, and the proof that, despite its complex structure, it is impossible to break the proton.

"There is a need to do more work, with a lot more rigour, to better the models being used," he argued in a 60-page written paper that accompanied his speech to the seminar.

The Vatican seminar was extraordinary, participants agree: Faith and reason met in inspired discussion and debate about global warming, and despite the occasional heat, came away the wiser for it. How different from the debate on climate change conducted by environmental groups, or, for that matter, the Parliament of Canada, the U.S. Congress or the German Reichstag, where global warming discussions rely on faith alone, and result in one-sided dogma.


CV OF A DENIER:

Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna, has published over 800 scientific papers and 10 books, some of which have opened new avenues in subnuclear physics. He has received numerous awards and honorary degrees from academic institutions around the world, and is the subject of seven books published by others about his accomplishments. He founded and directs the Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture, an organization dedicated to voluntary scientific service, the elimination of secret laboratories, and scientific freedom.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=121163d6-d6b9-45bb-830c-5d27f88f899a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THANKS ALL -- for some great site cites and engaging reading. I've seen a little bit of a shift in the overall debate in the favor of calmer discourse in the last month. Whether the balance is tipping at all is difficult to determine -- and Internet centered folk should reserve some optimism I feel, because we are living in days where people with views dissenting from the mainstream tend to keep close counsel UNTIL they find themselves in a position where they can be heard. Hit and run.

***
An interesting read -- from Slashdot, a discussion 16-May-2007 in response to the New Scientist hit piece, 26 Most Common Climate Myths.

Slashdotters are a fascinating demographic. They tend to be young, are technological heavily vested in science consensus (all topics astronomical are guaranteed to engage them away from earthly pursuits), there is a level of sophistication in their humor that is not only high -- but confident, as observed when they intentionally take their humor down to the most banal levels. Whether or not they have any political clout as a unit there is no question in my mind that these are the people who will actually be running things in the years to come.

With a high population of outright pranksters in their midst it is not surprising then that Slashdotters have a fine perception for 'trolls' -- which will naturally include gainsayers fronting the Global Warming CO2 Causation psyop. So it is heartening to see how balanced the responses were -- a number of the comments tagged 'Insightful' seem to openly acknowledge that any debate of the issue there, there have been many, seems rife with deference to authoritative sources without a contributing discussion point. In places like Slashdot, where ideas brought to the table are under great pressure to be introduced and 'marked up' in proper debating fashion, the rote 'cut-n-paste' hit and run techniques we've seen dropped in 9/11 debates stand out more clearly.

That evolving thread at Slashdot contains too much to clip and paste here.-- but I think bears watching and is an interesting read, good stuff from all camps and some of it's pretty funny.

***
And thanks Marlin for the including Cockburn's "From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits Is Global Warming a Sin?", this parallel in behavior, this economic vetting of guilt (from those with deep enough pockets, without affecting the bottom carbon line) is so uncomfortably imitative to what is considered to be a historical breach of God's etiquette that it makes an excellent talking point to Christians and anyone of faith to help expose the transparent urgency of the hype.

The 'indulgences' connection is so obvious I'm not even tempted to say Cockburn's 02-May-2007 article may have been inspired by my 17-Apr-2007 post here at BFN ;-)

***
Three keywords that helped uncover a citation to urban surface temperature bias: airports asphalt albedo. In any hype scenario, while doing research I try to seek an old mainstream article, preferably from a source that (later) began to lean in the direction of the hype, that lays out points that may have been generally dismissed after.

This Google search on those words hit pay dirt -- the inclusion of 'airports' was the clincher because demands of gathering networked weather data for the safe airlining helped decide placement of many of the probes. It's a case of "This data really fits, so let's use it!"

Top ranked result for those three words was this year 2000 article at science.nasa.gov. Hmm. Seven years ago.

Quote:
Contrary Thermometers 21-July-2000
((( visit the original to see images and all links )))

Scientists are working to understand why the lower atmosphere isn't heating up as fast as some global warming models predict.

July 21, 2000 -- The question sounds like a Zen koan: How could the globe be warming and not warming at the same time?

That's the riddle posed to climatologists by satellite and radiosonde data which show that while the Earth's surface has been warming over the past decades, the lowest layer of the atmosphere shows a weaker warming trend.

The measurements are surprising, because computer simulations of the world's climate predict that the two lowest layers of the atmosphere -- which together form the "troposphere" -- should be warming faster than the Earth's surface.

Above: Satellite measurements show a highly complex temperature structure throughout Earth's atmosphere. Temperature measurements at the Earth's surface indicate a warming trend, whereas satellite measurements show both warming and cooling -- depending on where you look. [more information]

"I think it points out that the atmosphere is more complex than the computer models currently simulate," says Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC) at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "However, it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future."

Spencer and Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are trying to account for the unexpected temperature patterns. By explaining the contrary behavior of atmospheric and surface-level temperature trends, they hope to improve computer models used to simulate the world's climate. This would provide a better picture of how severe or mild global warming will be over the next century.

"I believe the data bolster the traditional scientific skepticism one must have when discussing predictions of the future," Christy said.

A recent National Research Council report states: "For the time period from 1979-1998, it is estimated that on average, over the globe, surface temperature has increased by 0.25 to 0.4 degrees C and lower to mid-tropospheric temperature has increased by 0.0 to 0.2 degrees C." These are stated as ranges because of measurement uncertainties in each. Current climate models predict that the layer of the atmosphere called the "lower troposphere" -- which extends from the surface to an altitude of about 5 miles -- would be warming at a slightly faster rate than the surface.

But satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere over the last 21 years don't agree with that prediction. Collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's TIROS-N series of weather satellites, the data show only a slight net warming of 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.

[image] Above: Monthly temperature deviations from a seasonally adjusted average for the lower troposphere, which is Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up. The temperature in this region is strongly influenced by oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena. A stronger-than-usual warming trend in 1998-99 was associated with a strong El Niño event, while the slight cooling in 1999-2000 coincides with the ongoing La Niña phase. The overall trend in the lower tropospheric data is approximately steady: the temperature increases by approximately +0.047oC per decade. [more information]

What could possibly be causing these unexpected trends? Right now, there are only theories.

"Stratospheric ozone depletion, unknown effects related to the major volcanic eruptions and the infrared effect of aerosols have all been bounced around as ideas, but none has had serious work done on them," Spencer said.

Some scientists suspect that the record of surface temperature warming has been exaggerated by the so-called "asphalt effect," creating unrealistically high expectations for the warming of the troposphere.

Thermometers used to calculate the average surface temperature are usually located in areas easily accessible by people. In industrial countries, the thermometers are most often found at airports. It is not clear what fraction of the observed warming of the Earth's surface is due to the influence of "urban heat islands" on the measurements.

"I believe there are still urban warming biases in the global thermometer record that are exaggerating the global warming signal," Spencer said. "I don't think it will be possible to remove these biases since virtually all thermometer sites have experienced changes in their microclimate due to (humanity's) activities."

[image] Asphalt is replacing trees in many urban areas, causing local temperatures to rise. Some scientists wonder if the Urban Heat Island effect might lead to over-estimates of global surface temperatures.

The satellites, on the other hand, sweep over almost the entire globe as they take their measurements, covering about 95 percent of the Earth's surface. Oceans and continents, forests and factories are all incorporated into the satellite figures.

Most of the current work at GHCC focuses on improving and expanding the body of data to provide a clearer, more detailed picture of the long-term temperature patterns of the atmosphere.

For example, Christy is trying to expand the atmospheric temperature record to before 1979 -- which is when the first of the TIROS-N satellites was put in orbit -- by using data from radiosonde balloons. Potentially, the balloon data could extend the record back to the late 1950s.

Also, a new version of the temperature sensors used by the satellites will improve the detail of the measurements taken. The new Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) sensors can detect temperatures in the upper stratosphere, which is the atmospheric layer above the highest layer that the older sensors could measure. The new sensors can also distinguish between more sub-layers of the troposphere -- the layer where most weather occurs.

The first AMSU sensor was launched into space in May of 1998 aboard the NOAA-15 satellite, and data from that sensor are already being incorporated into the daily temperature updates produced by Spencer. Another AMSU sensor is scheduled to launch in late August aboard the NOAA-16 satellite, and the Aqua satellite and the European Space Agency's MetOp series of polar-orbiting satellites will also bear the sensors.

"(AMSU sensors are) what's going to be providing our temperature information from satellites for the foreseeable future," Spencer said.

[image] Above: This global surface temperature map is a sample of AMSU-A remote sensing data available online in near real time. For more information, visit the AMSU-A web site at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center. (Note: The black vertical regions are areas not yet covered by the satellite in this realtime snapshot.)

The improved temperature record will guide efforts to refine computer models of the world's climate so that the behavior of the models more closely resembles the observed behavior of the atmosphere.

Current models suffer from several shortcomings.

For example, clouds are not well represented by the models. The resolution of current models is too coarse for features as small as clouds, Spencer said. Yet clouds clearly play a crucial role in climate due to their influence on humidity, precipitation and albedo (the percentage of solar energy reflected back into space as light).

"The role of clouds is still regarded as one of the biggest uncertainties in global warming predictions," Spencer said.

The ability of plants to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the role of soils have only recently been added to the models, and scientists aren't confident yet of how the models portray these factors, Spencer said.

"While we know that vegetation takes up some of the carbon dioxide we generate from burning of fossil fuels, how that sink of carbon will change in the future is still pretty uncertain," Spencer said.

Climate models are also limited by the computing power available.

"The global models would be much better if computers were much faster," Spencer said. "Instead, a lot of approximations are made to make the models simple enough to do climate simulations over the whole globe.

"Unfortunately," Spencer continued, "we know that many of the processes that are crudely represented are quite non-linear, and so have the potential to respond in unexpected ways."

The Global Hydrology and Climate Center is a joint venture between government and academia to study the global water cycle and its effect on Earth's climate. Jointly funded by NASA and its academic partners, and jointly operated by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the Center conducts research in a number of critical areas.

___
THE QUESTION: Reaching back to Ancient Egypt, there's been a single cabal of powerful individuals directing the course of human history. But the common man prefers to believe they don't exist, which aids their success.

SUPERGIRL: Global warming? Military upheavals in the third world? Actors elected to public office?

GREEN ARROW: The spread of coffee bars? Germs outpacing antibiotics? And boy bands? Come on! Who would gain from all this?!?

THE QUESTION: Who indeed...?


~Dialogue from "Justice League" TV cartoon series c.2001
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Damian Flynn



Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 219
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure if anyone has brought up the following website which I recently found, but I'll post a link to it anyway. The site has some excellent presentations and videos on global warming. They show not only that the man made CO2 version of global warming is garbage, but the fact that the main proponents of the idea know that it's a scam and deliberately work to decieve the public. Many people at BFN are already aware that the IPCC is heavily influenced by intelligence agencies of the G8 nations such as the CIA.

http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/index_files/Page496.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Damian Flynn



Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 219
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This video on youtube is more comprehensive than The Great Global Warming Swindle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NWO_Opposer



Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This U.S. Senate website is interesting.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

Quote:
Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics


Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )



and this is followed by a list of prominent scientists with their stories

There is also an article about Al Gore refusing to take an ethics Pledge...

Quote:
Day 58 OF FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT AL GORE'S REFUSAL TO TAKE THE "PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE"

During the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on March 21, 2007, “Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming,” former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” to consume no more energy than the average American household

The pledge was presented to Gore by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the hearing, Senator Inhofe showed Gore a frame from Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” where Gore asks viewers:


“Are you ready to change the way you live?”


Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.



Senator Inhofe told Gore at the hearing. “There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”

It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.


Senator Inhofe asked Gore, “Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?”

Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge":


As a believer:

-that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

-that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

-that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

-that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.


Gore refused to take the pledge.

See Senator Inhofe’s Opening Statement from the hearing

[/center]
_________________
There is (New World) Order in Kaos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark1360



Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes well...employed politions don't believe in it...unemployed ones...even making a movie promoting this rubish can believe in it less...
_________________
hgfdhgs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 16 of 24

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.