Global Warming Debate

[StuMyers]

And oh yes, the sun. It's output is not constant. It goes through 11 year cycles, and on top of that, has slightly increased in brightness over the past few decades. The magnitude of this long term flux increase is quantified, and included in the IPCC report. I linked to it earler.

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

NASA says the temp there is rising with ours.

Actually the temps on Mars, Pluto, Triton, and Jupiter have all been found to be rising at the same time. Of course the ManGW advocates have explanations for each of these temp rises just happening to be coincident with ours. How convenient....BUT...

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.
“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

Guess he is one of the insane ones...oh wait, he is not a climatologist, just the head of space research that measures the suns' output!

Not new.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/

[majorm]

I hate to say it Stu, but this is a waste of time. Sailaway is right, it is all political. No amount of science will change a person's underlying bias, and I guess the same could be said of me. I am surprised that some prominent conservative politicians do believe in global warming.

[camaraderie]

STU...Wasn't claiming it was new. Just interesting that 5 different celestial bodies are warming and there is an explanation for FOUR of them that does not rely on man made causes. Might there be an explanation that is similar for the 5th?
(g)
Not feeling very data oriented today...must be the right side of my brain screaming to be heard again! (g)


Norm...right. Keep saying the science is settled. If you wish hard enough it may become true. (g)

ALL- I had a strange thought earlier today. Since CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from about 280 to 380 parts per million in the atmosphere (and methane PPM has risen too) what did they knock out the atmosphere? If CO2 is a bigger part of the atmosphere...something else must be a smaller part. Right? But why do we never hear of this? What is it that has gone missing. Is it a conspiracy to keep us in the dark? Could this missing substance CURE global warming?? I demand an investigation!! (g)

OK...right brain happy. Back to left brain....

[PBzeer]

Since Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, thanks to which, millions died needless in Africa, when have we NOT had some kind of enviormental "crisis"? Political? Darn tooting it's political. How else do you explain the exceptions, such as China, from the earth-saving Kyoto Protocols? How else do you explain a Nobel Peace Prize, instead of one for science? How else do you explain it wasn't the scientists who did the research who wrote the IPCC report, but a bunch of UN bureaucrats? Being an enviormentalist, or anything else, does not automatically make one pure and pristine of motivation.

We know mankind has an impact on the enviorment, the question is, to what degree is it harmful?

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by StuMyers

2. Conclusively show that the additional concentrations of GHG's have a source OTHER than the KNOWN properties of power plants (good luck).

It's my understanding that CH4 is second only to C02 as a GHG, but CH4 is 21times more effective at trapping solar heat than carbon dioxide.

There are vast stockpiles of frozen methane on seafloors and there are vast areas of permafrost being exposed every day and all releasing CH4

They found evidence that methane trapped in ice crystals was released into the water 44,000 years ago at the same time there was a rapid, but as yet unexplained, rise in global temperatures.

This rise in temp has been fluctuating over the last few thousand years, but also has been on the rise; So as the temps rise, the land and seas warm, which releases even more CH4 from the frozen ice crystals in the oceans and also from the permafrost, which again leads to more CH4 being released.

To me, this is far more likely the source and cause of your/our problem and NOT CO2, but then, it's easier to politisize and hype the carbon dioxide increases for the global warming alarmist than it is to politisize and hype a gas that is being released naturally and again it's a gas that is 21 times more effective at trapping solar heat.

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

STU...Wasn't claiming it was new. Just interesting that 5 different celestial bodies are warming and there is an explanation for FOUR of them that does not rely on man made causes. Might there be an explanation that is similar for the 5th?
(g)
Not feeling very data oriented today...must be the right side of my brain screaming to be heard again! (g)


Norm...right. Keep saying the science is settled. If you wish hard enough it may become true. (g)

ALL- I had a strange thought earlier today. Since CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from about 280 to 380 parts per million in the atmosphere (and methane PPM has risen too) what did they knock out the atmosphere? If CO2 is a bigger part of the atmosphere...something else must be a smaller part. Right? But why do we never hear of this? What is it that has gone missing. Is it a conspiracy to keep us in the dark? Could this missing substance CURE global warming?? I demand an investigation!! (g)

OK...right brain happy. Back to left brain....

Sure it might. It's been measured however, and it's not.

1. The magnitude of warming due to a known increased GHG concentration is known (within error).

2. It is also well known HOW MUCH GHG is being added by power plants and the like.

3. The amount of GHG concentration increase in the atmosphere has also been measured.

Honestly, what's the problem?

And if you think the scientific aspect is somehow unsettled, please find me a published meta study in a recognized journal concluding that either CO2 and whatnot are not GHG's or the known magnitude of warming from GHG's is incorrect, AND something else has the appropriate radiative forcing magnitude to account for the measured warming.

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

How else do you explain a Nobel Peace Prize, instead of one for science?

You do know that there are a few Nobel Prizes for science, right?

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

It's my understanding that CH4 is second only to C02 as a GHG, but CH4 is 21times more effective at trapping solar heat than carbon dioxide.

There are vast stockpiles of frozen methane on seafloors and there are vast areas of permafrost being exposed every day and all releasing CH4

They found evidence that methane trapped in ice crystals was released into the water 44,000 years ago at the same time there was a rapid, but as yet unexplained, rise in global temperatures.

This rise in temp has been fluctuating over the last few thousand years, but also has been on the rise; So as the temps rise, the land and seas warm, which releases even more CH4 from the frozen ice crystals in the oceans and also from the permafrost, which again leads to more CH4 being released.

To me, this is far more likely the source and cause of your/our problem and NOT CO2, but then, it's easier to politisize and hype the carbon dioxide increases for the global warming alarmist than it is to politisize and hype a gas that is being released naturally and again it's a gas that is 21 times more effective at trapping solar heat.

Go do a meta study, and have it stand up to scientific scrutiny. I need more quantified details than you give.

1. HOW MUCH has the temperature been rising over the "last few thousand years"? WHY?

2. Who is "they", and reference "their" published results.

3. HOW MUCH CH4 is released by WHAT TEMPERATURE rise? Reference the published study.

4. Your conclusion is you own opinion, as best I can tell. You're not a climate scientist, as far as I know.

[sailhog]

Stu and everyone else:
I happen to be a scientist with a couple of awards to his name. Ever heard of the Nobel? Yeah, well I've won a couple of them -- the first one when they were held in Peoria in 1983 for the pole vault, and then again in flash dancing during the Milwaukee Pulitzers which were held in Milwaukee in 1995. Here's some facts for you guys to chew on:
Temps in HHI:
Sunday: 67 degrees F
Monday: 68 degrees F
Tuesday: 69 degrees F
Tomorrow: 70 degrees F
By my calculations it's going to be 212 degrees F sometime in March. The oceans are going to boil, and you're all going to forget you'd been warned.