1. 0.01% rise mostly caused by solor flares and sun spots
2. Dr Kai-Uwe Hinrichs and WHOI
3. What was released was 90 million tons (est), not by temp but by possible undersea landslide, dosen't matter how it was released, the effect is still the same, higher global temps
4. You are correct about it being my opinion, as best you can tell and I'm not a climate scientist, as far as you know
I don't doubt that GHG's are being released from melting permafrost. That is of course how interglacial cycles last so long. They are historically kicked off by short term warming events (like Milankovich cycles) then spread out over thousands of years by released GHG's.
What you are presumably trying to claim, is that the flux of solar radiation has increased to such a magnitude as to kick off an anomalous interglacial cycle. Well, your work is cut out for you then. You need to;
1. Quantify the increased solar forcing in W/m^2
2. Show that man-released GHG's have a much smaller radiative forcing than is currently calculated (good luck).
3. Match the increased magnitude of solar forcing with the observed warming.
Location: Dead Sea, some times called Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,600
Rep Power: 7
Quote:
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!
OH come on Cam, do you really think the sun has something to do with global warming? The next thing your going to tell me is theres money in global warming.
__________________
Dennis
O'Day 302
Be careful or i will do what the voices tell me to do
To get the most from Sailnet, follow the link in Hartley18.'s signature.
Hey stuffit "Get a life"
What you are presumably trying to claim, is that the flux of solar radiation has increased to such a magnitude as to kick off an anomalous interglacial cycle. Well, your work is cut out for you then. You need to;
1. Quantify the increased solar forcing in W/m^2
2. Show that man-released GHG's have a much smaller radiative forcing than is currently calculated (good luck).
3. Match the increased magnitude of solar forcing with the observed warming.
1. Wouldn't it be tough to get an actual solar forcing increase when climate equilibrium isn't a fixed sum ??
I don't know how to answer this,except to say that estimates of a 1-2% increase over the last 1000 yrs is ( to quote a IPCC terminology ) likely and add to that the increase of CH4 and increased water vapor and you have a natural climate change with a solar influence
2. Yeah no kidding good luck, even the IPCC is guessing on their current calulations
3. Can I just go outside and look
4. But, that isn't really what I was saying, what I said was, approx. 90 million tons of CH4 was released,( possibly by under sea landslide not a flux in solar radiation ) some 44,000 yrs ago and it just so happened to coincide with a still unexplained rise in earths temps.
5. I also said the CH4 is 21 times more efficient at trapping solar heat than carbon dioxide and water vapor is greater still
Damn, it's late and I'm freezing my ass off
__________________ 1978 Tayana 37
Freedom comes when you’re ready to sail away. True freedom comes when you don’t have to return
Last edited by poopdeckpappy : 11-28-2007 at 03:30 AM.
If there were no man-made contributions to climate change, would the earth still be warming? If so, what would be the difference between with man-made contributions and without?
Is global warming harmful to the planet? Or is merely harmful to mankind's current state of existence on the planet?
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
how many on this forum who consider themselves politically conservative would agree with the following:
Global warming is real, AND it is caused primarily by man, AND we should do something about it.
I just think the pre-existing biases are so strong that any debate is fruitless. At least some seem to agree that no matter what your opinion on the topic, that our energy policy needs to change to decrease our dependence on foriegn oil.
A few things here:
You've assumed your conclusion -- GW -- as fact, then refer to this improper switch to support your assertion that people see this issue purely on political grounds.
Surely you were rushing when you typed this post.
+++
Irrespective of actually or conveniently perceived political inclinations, one's positions are either validated in reality they aren't.
As currently offered, good 10th Graders can take apart the best GW arguments. (Anyone who fell for An Inconvenient Truth needs to hit the Logic books.)
I frequently have convesations with people under the age of 55 or so and, sooner or later, I hear the same thing: "How do we know?"
The answer is the same way the Greeks discovered so much and launched the West, namely, Reason. Problem is Reason hasn't been popular in the higher spheres of Academia for the better part of a century. Hence the collapse to resolving issues like GW by vote, not by fact -- even amongst "scientists."
+++
How one wants to organize society, Politics, is derived from how one thinks Man should live -- Ethics. Ethics, are derived from one's view of Reality, Man, and Man's relationship with that reality, Metaphysics, AND one's theory of knowldege -- Epistemology.
This is either expicit or implicit in every one of us -- it's built into the nature of man's consciousness/mind.
So any correlations you see between people of a particular political inclination and their position on a popular issue isn't a matter of blind loyalty to their political affiliations. Both the political viewpoints and the position on that given issue are the consequence of their metaphysics AND epistemology.
Fact is that both parties xxx on the explicit and implicit ideas in the Founding Documents.
Last edited by camaraderie : 11-28-2007 at 10:12 AM.
Reason: languae
The meta-studies on radiative forcing conclusively point to man-made sources being the overwhelming source. I've linked to one such meta-study.
The ONLY way you can disprove it is to;
1. Conclusively show that CO2 (and methane, etc) is NOT a greenhouse gas (in addition to 3. below).
2. Conclusively show that the additional concentrations of GHG's have a source OTHER than the KNOWN properties of power plants (good luck).
3. (In addition to 1.) Find a DIFFERENT source of radiative forcing of sufficient magnitude to account for the warming trend.
And then get your results reviewed and published in a recognized climate science journal. If you can do that, or find someone who has, I'd be really interested to see.
Temps and variation in temps are within historic norms. That should kill this secularized version of Original Sin in any honest mind.
Further:
The impact of so-called GHGs has never been proven; not in models that account the entire geological history of the planet as we know it, not in small-scale experiments.
Current GHG concentrations aren't just within norms, but they're low historically.
The obvious fact is finally being acknowledged in academic journals: FIRST temperatures rise, then CO2 levels rise.
The next thing your going to tell me is theres money in global warming.
