Global Cooling?

IisJustMe said:

More evidence the warming hysteria is more hype and politics than actual science ...

Southern hemisphere sea ice reaches 'unprecedented' levels

Click to expand...

That could just as easily be a result of the drop in surface salinity of the ocean in the area due to the breakup of portions of the Antarctic ice sheet. A similar event in sensitive areas could lead to a mini-ice age due to global warming... another scenario which is not good.

Considering that humans have not been around in a time of such high CO2 levels, it certainly is an alarming concern.

I don't see how responsible people can simply ignore the problem.

IisJustMe said:

More evidence the warming hysteria is more hype and politics than actual science ...

Southern hemisphere sea ice reaches 'unprecedented' levels

Click to expand...

and maybe the fact that increased temperature increases humidity and therefore increases snowfalls in the polar regions.... if the average temperature goes up by a few degrees but still remains below freezing point, you will get greater snow falls.

you seem to have missed the story where the extent of last summer's arctic ice was the lowest on record...

fated said:

I don't see how responsible people can simply ignore the problem.

Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm just saying there is nothing people are doing to bring about the problem, and there is really nothing we can do about it. First off, "greenhouse gases is a catch-phrase invented by the hysterics If not for the capture of long-wave radiant heat by H2O, CO2 and other minor gases, we couldn't live on the planet. Secondly, human-kind's contribution to "greenhouse gases" is minuscule in comparison to that which occurs naturally. Of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, we contribute about 3.6%. Also, ancient ice pack evidence and geological formation evidence indicates the CO2 levels have been much higher in the last 3,000 to 10,000 years, with no negative effect.

Indications are the warming trend has at least plateaued if not reversed anyway, so I find no need to get as excited as the rest of the world, including many who previously were skeptics. There is a political agenda afoot, not a scientific one, and that's what really scares me.

You really need to stop repeating these false claims again and again. Firstly humans are responsible for way more than 3.6% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. On a per year basis the human contribution is small (about 7.9 billion tonnes per year) compared to the atmospheric levels of about 750 billion tonnes or about 1% per year. But add that up the human contribution over the past century and we have contributed almost 200 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere, or about 30% of the current CO2. The rate is also increasing. In the next 20 years we will have contributed half off all the CO2 in the atmosphere. source and source

Your statement about CO2 over the past 3000 to 10000 years is absolutely flat out wrong. Current CO2 levels are higher than they have been in the past 650,000 years by a huge margin (about 30% or over 100ppm!):

1. (blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
2. (green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. DOI:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
3. (red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
4. (cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. Lötscher, H. Oeschger, U. Siegenthaler, and B. Stauffer (1994) "Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
5. (black) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

(Notice this plot comes from half a dozen different data sets and that they all agree).

You keep presenting an opinion that is completely at odds with the worlds most respected scientific organizations (the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society etc.) and try and back it up with claims that are outright untrue and not substantiated by any data. Why should anyone believe you?

IisJustMe said:

I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm just saying there is nothing people are doing to bring about the problem, and there is really nothing we can do about it. First off, "greenhouse gases is a catch-phrase invented by the hysterics If not for the capture of long-wave radiant heat by H2O, CO2 and other minor gases, we couldn't live on the planet. Secondly, human-kind's contribution to "greenhouse gases" is minuscule in comparison to that which occurs naturally. Of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, we contribute about 3.6%. Also, ancient ice pack evidence and geological formation evidence indicates the CO2 levels have been much higher in the last 3,000 to 10,000 years, with no negative effect.

Indications are the warming trend has at least plateaued if not reversed anyway, so I find no need to get as excited as the rest of the world, including many who previously were skeptics. There is a political agenda afoot, not a scientific one, and that's what really scares me.

Click to expand...

This is a scientific reality, in the 90% certainty range. Your argument was attacked and eventually fell as a bad hypothesis... just last year...

Take a gander at this graph. 4 studies all saying CO2 was much higher in the past then now.

Yup, if you go back 50,000,000 (50 million!) years ago CO@ was higher than it was now. The temperature was also a lot higher than it is now and there were palm trees in Antarctica. What is your point? Iisjustme is still flat out wrong about CO2 being higher in the past 3-10000 years.

Greatcloud said:

Take a gander at this graph. 4 studies all saying CO2 was much higher in the past then now.

November 6, 2006​

Click to expand...

Perhaps CO2 is just recovering from a Mesozoic high.

Or more likely it is the 7 billion tonnes of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere every year!

Greatcloud said:

Perhaps CO2 is just recovering from a Mesozoic high.

Click to expand...

CO2 is a natural gas and good for growing things.

CO2=Good

We are not dumping bad gas with putting CO2 in the air.


CO2

You have got to be kidding.

Sure, food is good too, but more food doesn't always mean better. In fact, most Americans are fat.

We can double our levels of CO2 and still be safe.

The hysteria is all propaganda. Sure we want to clean up but not with Nazi tactics, because we don't need them to do it.

Greatcloud said:

We can double our levels of CO2 and still be safe.

The hysteria is all propaganda. Sure we want to clean up but not with Nazi tactics, because we don't need them to do it.

Click to expand...

CO2 emissions are accelerating, so, its beside the point whether we can double it or not, we need to arrest the emissions and roll them back.

Its up to mother nature to roll CO2 levels back not us, that is impossible. Nature builds up far far more CO2 then man. A natural cycle exists.

Well its June on the Oregon coast and it looks like November. NASA predictions that a Dalton like minimum are coming support this cold climate we have. Until the cycles change on the surface of the sun. The sun will be seen to be the primary driver of climate.

CO2

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5ZTKKKSE_index_0.html


Cluster and Double Star orbits on 8 May 2004
Details of solar particles penetrating the Earth’s environment revealed


3 October 2006
Co-ordinated efforts by China/ESA’s Double Star and ESA’s Cluster spacecraft have allowed scientists to zero in on an area where energetic particles from the Sun are blasting their way through the Earth’s magnetic shield. Solar material penetrating the Earth's magnetic shield can represent a hazard to both astronauts and satellites.

On 8 May 2004, one of the two Double Star satellites (TC-1) and all four Cluster spacecraft found themselves in the firing line. For about 6 hours, the Cluster spacecraft were buffeted every 8 minutes by intense flows of electrically charged particles released by the Sun. The Double Star TC-1 spacecraft had it even rougher, being blasted every four minutes for eight hours.

During such events, magnetic channels created by the merging of the Sun and the Earth’s magnetic fields allow solar particles to break through the Earth’s magnetic shield and penetrate the Earth’s environment. Physicists call the occurrence of these magnetic channels Flux Transfer Events. Each magnetic channel appears like a curve shaped tube that can be anything from 5000 to 25000 kilometers in diameter. One end of the magnetic flux tube is connected to Earth while the other end is connected to the solar wind.
The basic physical mechanism responsible for the occurrence of flux transfer events is called magnetic reconnection. In the 1950s, space physicists believed that magnetic reconnection let solar particles break through at a steady rate. That view changed in the late 1970s, when several studies showed that the magnetic reconnection could also be intermittent and take place in pulses, lasting a few minutes. Each pulse produces a magnetic flux tube (a Flux Transfer Event).


Simulation of a portion of Earth’s magnetic field on 8 May 2004
On 8 May 2004, these magnetic flux tubes swept over Cluster and Double Star again and again. As the Cluster and Double Star data clearly showed, the same location underwent magnetic reconnection several times, creating new successive magnetic flux tubes to channel more charged particles towards the Earth. The observations stopped probably because the spacecraft moved out of range and not because the reconnection region weakened in any way.
The data from the five spacecraft allowed scientists led by Aurélie Marchaudon of the Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environment, Centre National de la Recherche Scientific (CNRS) and University d’Orléans, Orléans, France to triangulate the location of the magnetic reconnection region, and to deduce its size. They found that the reconnection site was located on the daylight west side of the Earth’s magnetic shield and was around 25000 kilometers across. A computer simulation of the event, conducted by Jean Berchem of the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and his team, confirmed the possibility of magnetic reconnection occurring at that location.
Although intermittent reconnection has been observed in the past, this was one of the longest series of continuous observations ever taken of a magnetic reconnection region in the Earth’s magnetosphere. Perhaps most surprising is that 8 May 2004 was just relatively a normal day for the Earth’s magnetic field. There were no large magnetic storms on Earth, or spectacular aurorae to fill the night sky. However, Cluster and Double Star revealed that energetic particles from the Sun were blasting their way through the Earth’s magnetic shield and penetrating the Earth’s environment. Each day, Cluster and Double Star return more observations that allow scientist to understand the invisible magnetic turbulence high above our heads.


Yes the sun is our primary forcer of climate as this article clearly shows.

Greatcloud said:

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5ZTKKKSE_index_0.html


Cluster and Double Star orbits on 8 May 2004
Details of solar particles penetrating the Earth’s environment revealed

Yes the sun is our primary forcer of climate as this article clearly shows.

Click to expand...

No. You need to learn how to data is compared. You see...unless there is an explicit comparison with known forms of global warming you can't say the above is the primary cause. The article only describes HOW charged particles entered through the magnetic field surrounding Earth...not the effect on global climate.

In fact, here's a wiki summary of the scientific consensus (i.e., climate experts sitting down and debating their rationales and empirical data and conclusions): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The AGW community is of the opinion that the sun is weak as a climate forcer. The magnetic field slows down the TSI and makes it appear weak. How can TSI be called weak when it has to fight through the magnetic field to even reach earth. Then what you have left when TSI reaches the earth is everything just not the velocity,the volume is still there.



http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

CO2 MAN

SUN GOD

We worship God through nature that he made not chemicals we made. Even most of these chemicals are made by God. Look here at the beauty God made.









IT IS THE SUN THAT IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET AND THAT INCLUDES CLIMATE CHANGE.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080627163041.htm

Ancient Oak Trees Help Reduce Global Warming



I had wondered if there was a way that you could actively take carbon out of the environment, in an organic form, and store it for a long period of time. High density bundled scrub might be a better solution. The problem with tiny organism is that they are to easy to decay and would require too much containment. The cost feasibility would be really bad though, compared to simply cutting our emissions, at least for now.