Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
"IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial."
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia

You can read the whole article or download it as a pdf.

.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30
polititians goals=green tax
media = ratings (fear gets ratings)
public = green projects = money
but the major sinner of them all is the Enviro Scientist
that started the man made global warming idea..

Enviro Scientist = Job Security, tenure, and fat government check for saying its caused by man.

remember Greenland was once green, England once made better wine then France.

What is amazining is the switch with in the past year.
From it being man made to how its a money scam.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I could not agree more .... until recently I was a climate agnostic .... didn't know, didn't care. But I was recently accosted at Heathrow airport by the so called "Climate Camp" so I started looking into it. What I have found is that the science is just debateable - for every model that suggest CO2 could be to blame there is irrefuteable logic and other data to suggest it can't be.

Far more interesting though is the human behaviour which has recently become prevalent. The global warming "believers" are showing increased signs of fanaticism. If you question the mantra, you are labelled irresponsible, if you say you don't believe it you are called stupid, if you own an SUV you are heted, if you make a DVD questioning Al Gores film you are labelled a heretic and serious folks will try and have your film banned (recent Channel 4 experience in the UK). And the more voices which question the mantra, the more fanatical the rhetoric gets.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and say "what is going on here ?" We should all remember that its better to read books than to burn them. And before we all start panicking about polar bears, it wouldn't hurt to rememember that Greenland was indeed once green.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: ImranCan
I could not agree more ....

Far more interesting though is the human behaviour which has recently become prevalent. The global warming "believers" are showing increased signs of fanaticism..............>

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and say "what is going on here ?" We should all remember that its better to read books than to burn them. And before we all start panicking about polar bears, it wouldn't hurt to rememember that Greenland was indeed once green.


Yes of course Greenland was once green.
In the Pliocene era, Greenland was further south than now.
Much earlier it had previously been a land bridge for the movement of Dinosaurs between N America and Spain, before the Atlantic grew too wide. The type of Fauna, ferns and other tropical plants unearthed around the coast of south Greenland prove that.
The continent of Antartica was also a tropical paradise at that time, and contains substantial coal reserves to prove it.

If you think Greenland was ice free, say 2000 years ago.
Just tell me why the oceans were not 20 feet higher then, in the past than now?
All the coastal flooded towns found under the sea today, prove that the oceans were many feet lower 5000 years ago than today.
The oceans have been rising recently....I wonder why?

Dont pretend to be an Ostrich, and bury your head in the sand.

Pollution, dust, dirty rain and snow is falling everywhere.
But nowhere does it cause more damage than where it falls upon snow and ice causing surface melting, and the undermining of glaciers, snowfields, and ocean ice. Russian Siberia is fast turning into a bog and qagmire.
Norway's oil rig production from within the Artic Barents sea, is alive and well. Something impossible to contemplate 20 years ago, since the sea was frozen all year round.
Manmade city heat, plus cooling water from power stations, are all contributing to man-made warming.
Why has the sale of air-conditioners risen world wide?

And if you tell me warming is due to an increase in the heat output of our Sun, or our 26,000 year precession around our ecliptic plane, you are closing your eyes to reality.



.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Originally Posted By: ImranCan
Far more interesting though is the human behaviour which has recently become prevalent. The global warming "believers" are showing increased signs of fanaticism. If you question the mantra, you are labelled irresponsible, if you say you don't believe it you are called stupid, if you own an SUV you are heted, if you make a DVD questioning Al Gores film you are labelled a heretic and serious folks will try and have your film banned (recent Channel 4 experience in the UK). And the more voices which question the mantra, the more fanatical the rhetoric gets.


I couldn't agree more. Do you mind if I borrow that statement?
Thanks

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
Wow Mike.

Here are the sea levels:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_LG8nuR7-BEc/RlWz...l_Sea_Level.png



This doesn't show that "the oceans were many feet lower 5000 years ago than today."

Of course, it is not logical to suggest that Greenland has been called that in any language since the Pliocene era. It was likely called that based on a viking name when it was farmed 800 years ago or so.

Why was Greenland arable 800 years ago but the sea was not 20 feet higher? Perhaps that is because the guess derived from the computer models that suggests a 20 foot rise if Greenland glaciers melt is wrong.

You did get one thing almost right though. "Pollution, dust, dirty rain and snow is falling everywhere." We should fight pollution. The West has been, but now China's pollution has been detected here in Canada. This is a problem, but as the linked pdf says in the top post, "[h]uman activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way." Did you even bother to read the pdf?

Why has the sale of air-conditioners risen world wide? Because the price has come down.


Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Hi John Reynolds,
No as it happened I did not read the pdf, but I will early tomorrow ....when I have more time.

Mike Kremer

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
Mike - you could not have made the point more beautifully if you had tried. I made some basic observations - both about the science and about behaviours ..... And what happens ? - I get called an 'ostrich'.

Some of your own scientific observations might be right .... I don't dispute that on balance, evidence shows the would has warmed since the 1970's. And, on balance, the CO2 rise is probably due to humans. But these two things are not necessarily linked. Its just a question, just an curious observation from a curious mind and it is amazing that it can inspire such antagonism.

I also agree with you on the pollution in general. We all need to create and use energy more efficiently and search for alternatives. But please .... stop linking my SUV to polar bear problems.

And, in line with John, Greenland was named as such by the Vikings who farmed it. Not that long ago (1200 years) and I can assure you, as a geologist, Greenland has not moved that much since then.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
http://www.greenland-guide.gl/leif2000/history.htm

I'm not sure how accurate this history is but it looks about right ... anyway - just some info about the Norse settlements of Greenland. It was named "Greenland" by Erik the Red (how ironic) about 1000 years ago ... but it probably wasn't that 'Green'. However I think its safe to say that during the warm period at the time it was hospitable enought to settle - probably a bit warmer than the present.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Quote:
Why has the sale of air-conditioners risen world wide? Because the price has come down.


But mostly due to CFC laws and energy laws. It keeps the industry alive when they pass laws that outdate refrigerants and equipment.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
Originally Posted By: ImranCan
I could not agree more ....

Far more interesting though is the human behaviour which has recently become prevalent. The global warming "believers" are showing increased signs of fanaticism..............>

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and say "what is going on here ?" We should all remember that its better to read books than to burn them. And before we all start panicking about polar bears, it wouldn't hurt to rememember that Greenland was indeed once green.

[quote=Mike Kremer}
Yes of course Greenland was once green.
In the Pliocene era, Greenland was further south than now.
The type of Fauna, ferns and other tropical plants unearthed around the coast of south Greenland prove that.
The continent of Antartica was also a tropical paradise at that time, and contains substantial coal reserves to prove it.

If you think Greenland was ice free, say 2000 years ago.
Just tell me why the oceans were not 20 feet higher then, in the past than now?
All the coastal flooded towns found under the sea today, prove that the oceans were many feet lower 5000 years ago than today.
The oceans have been rising recently....I wonder why?

Dont pretend to be an Ostrich, and bury your head in the sand.

Pollution, dust, dirty rain and snow is falling everywhere.
But nowhere does it cause more damage than where it falls upon snow and ice causing surface melting, and the undermining of glaciers, snowfields, and ocean ice. Russian Siberia is fast turning into a bog and qagmire.
Norway's oil rig production from within the Artic Barents sea, is alive and well. Something impossible to contemplate 20 years ago, since the sea was frozen all year round.
Manmade city heat, plus cooling water from power stations, are all contributing to man-made warming.
Why has the sale of air-conditioners risen world wide?

And if you tell me warming is due to an increase in the heat output of our Sun, or our 26,000 year precession around our ecliptic plane, you are closing your eyes to reality.



......>..Continuation by Mike Kremer

I'm afraid I must direct a couple of paragraphs to John Reynolds.
Who is misguidedly assuming that Vineland or Greenland was so warm that it was eagerly populated by the Vikings, who discovered it.
In fact hey had a hard time ecking out an existence from this new land.
But they did paint a rosy picture of this new country, back to their homeland in their endeavour to get more settlers especially women, to come out Vineland, and join them.
Vinelands history was cold, difficult and hard, a land the settlers eventually abandoned.

Just because Greenlands archeology found that vineland once supported lush tropical forest, please do not assume that this was the case 1000 years ago, when the Vikings arrived
It was probably almost as cold as the Vikings homelands of Norway and Sweden.
Thousands of Vikings came, conquered, and settled in England, and the western coast of Scotland, a much warmer place for them. Relatively few settled, to stay in Vineland (Greenland).

John, people buy Air-conditioners to keep themselves, their offices and living areas, cool.....not because they are getting cheaper. People generally buy what they have a need for, irrespective of price, dont you think?

Also note that the price of cars have also fallen, as has the cost of refrigerators, and flying.
How about the price of the billions of light bulbs?. Light bulbs in particular store billions of heat watts within buildings, world wide.
Non of the above were around 150 years ago. Cities are larger now, and produce a lot of heat.
Yes, John you should consider all the machinery that goes to make up the running of a modern city. Machinery that produces the well known 'hotspots' that hover above our citys.

In addition every particle of dust produced by automobile and aircraft engines, that absorbs heat, cannot be reflected back into space. Another example of manmade warming.

Further-more it is my projected idea that the billions of window glass panes in the world, are another cause of Man made warming. Since they allow the suns heat into offices and rooms, but glass dos'nt let the longer heat rays out.
Sunlight which under normal circumstances, would have been largely reflected back out into space. Yet another producer of 'hotspots' over the worlds cities, and a further example of Manmade warming.

I have just thought up another, not implausible idea, that soap might be responsible for a subtle change in climate?

Prehaps soap in our oceans lessens the surface tension of the seawater, which inturn allows the wind and waves to increase the evaporation rate, above what it might have been normally?
More water vapour than normal, constantly up in the atmosphere would have some effect. Possibley a latent heat effect. Or the conversion to longer heat waves, similar to window glass?.

A couple of comments upon S.Fred Singer's pdf

**Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way.**

Well human activities are definately influencing local climate.
How about the air pollution in China and India? China releases over 6 Billion tons of CO2 every year.
Dam building, irrigation, and the diversion of waters, eg The virtual disappearance of the Aral sea. Dryness of grasses and forest fires that occur in Asia and Europe, (some are deliberate)
All these small imperceptabilities have added up to a noticable climate change in many parts of the world, over the last 150 years. In particular, the small rise in temperature of approx 0.6 degree and rising.

Or lets put it another way....Without any Human influence or activity, any natural Global Climate change would be imperceptable over the 1 million year time scale, that Fred Singer talked about.
Although I'm not quite sure what these natural phenomena are? Volcanoes? Even the biggest explosion in modern times, The Santorini volcanoe in the Mediteranean barely caused more than a few weeks of dust which soon settled. What natural phenomenon could possible cause the Global change we have been experiencing over the last 150 years? Try to answer that if you can.

**During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.**

Is Fred Singer kidding? Prehaps he should have checked the summer temperatures in Europe over the last 10 years. Europes climate is greatly influenced by the Gulf Stream and Atlantic trade winds. Thousands of people died from the summer heat in
France 3 years ago. While more thousands suffered from the heat in Greece this summer, with hundreds dying.
But don't pooh pooh the changes just because they were only over ten years. This heat was ground breaking,and had never ever had been experienced before. As were the floods in central Europe 5 years ago, that subjected the medieval city of Budapest to such severe flooding. Again not ever experienced before. Even America has been experiencing high heat, as well as low rainfall. As has Australia.

Fred S. Singer states-
**'Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:'**

Ha Ha! Now we come to the real reason why there are those that dont believe Man is responsible for Climate Warming.
These unbelievers are working hand in hand for their Goverments.
Goverments realise some years ago, that Global warming cannot be stopped.
They realise, that if they were to really try to implement KYOTO, it would bankrupt them.
It would certainly retard the development of that country, allowing others who did not subscribe to KYOTO to catch up and overtake them. Theres the reason.

The buying and selling of excess CO2 production, by Goverment, could only be realisable as a monetary burden, or tax, upon their population. I cant see any Goverment keeping in power, trying to solve an impossible solution by imposing extra taxes upon the public.

If China, India, and the oil derrick gas flare burners refuse to agree to cut their CO2 production, or implement KYOTO, then everyone else will say, 'Whats the use?'

For instance, here in the UK we produce a modest 2% of the Worlds CO2 output What is 2% against the Worlds 98% CO2 production.? Even if we were able to cut out our miserly 2% of CO2 production. We would end up as a 5th rate nation.
Correction, in fact I doubt if we would even exist as a country within a couple of years.
No, I just cannot see KYOTO being accepted.

I predict that Goverments, together with the collusion of their Scientists will be more than happy to blame Global Warming as a product of natural causes, however difficult that might be.
Just as long as they have the ear of the public and confidence of friendly countries
No doubt citing all sorts of scientific blather to account for this 'Natural' warming.
Those Scientists who blame the Suns heat fluctuations, Cosmic Rays, Meteorite dust, Magnetic or Gravity ideas will continue to be feted and employed by their Goverments, drawing fat pay checks. Just as long as they issue figures to support the 'Natural Global Warming' theory.

Its a pity the world will suffer in the end. KYOTO will die, the public will turn a blind eye,try to carry on as usual, batten down their hatches, and move to higher ground, and turn up their air conditioners.
Yes, its a tough one, those people that deny 'Man made global Warming', are just as bad, as future Goverments.
These people will be on the increase, and how will they be able to live with them selves? (Thats you and I)
I guess we will continue to exchange our light bulbs for the low energy type, and talk with smug satisfaction of how we are cutting down on the use of our car.

Then having done our bit to save the world, we will leave it at that.
And so no one, or no country will really do anything.
Everyone will leave the problem for the next generation to solve. Amen.






.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Here in Australia we have 'aspirational' goals!! Nothing so crude as real targets.

What upsets me is that none of us reading this topic will be alive to see if cutting down consumption a bit and, for example, attempting to generate electricity with something other than the cheap, abundant and filthy coal we are using now may have helped. It will be our children's children who will know what we should have done when we had the chance.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
Mike - a few points ...
1) No one was making any statements that Greenland was recently lush and warm. All that is being stated is that, 1000 yrs ago when the Norse settled, it was warmer than today. Stop confusing geological time with human time.

2) Some of your arguments with Fred Singer have merit, but you are wrong about the temperature not being stable the last 10 years. I think it is very well established that the (post 1970) peak warm year was 1998 and the global AVERAGE temperature has not gone up since then. Singular point measurements like Europe summer 2003 serve no purpose other than as propaganda. Incidentally the warmest year last century was 1934, with 1998 coming second.

3) I find your quote interesting :

...."and if you tell me warming is due to an increase in the heat output of our Sun, or our 26,000 year precession around our ecliptic plane, you are closing your eyes to reality."

You are quite happy to believe that a gas which occurs in such minor concentations that it has to be measured in ppm's (parts per million) is the culprit of global warming but you ridicule the idea that the sun (which converts mass to energy at a rate of half a million kg per second, and will BURN you if you expose yourslef to it for longer than 10 minutes even though it is 150 million km away) can't possibly have anything to do with it.
How can even small variations in its output not have an impact ?

And if we are into quotes, one of my favourites is : "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time."

Regards
Imran






Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 94
Apologies all - On my point (2) above - the ranking of hottest years I am referring to is for the US only - not Global.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001


Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: ImranCan said

Mike - a few points ...
1) ............ Stop confusing geological time with human time.


I certainly wasnt confusing Geological time with human time.
I was replying to John Warren, when he stated

Originally Posted By: John Warren

"remember Greenland was once green, England once made better wine then France."


That he wrote all All in the same line! Which to me seemed that he thought Greenland was green and free of ice at the time the Romans grew grapes here in the UK.
Which is why I went into a dialogue of the time Dinosaurs roamed Greenland, back in the Pleiocene era.
And again surprisingly, you also equated Polar Bears when Greenland was green.

Originally Posted By: ImranCan

And before we all start panicking about polar bears, it wouldn't hurt to rememember that Greenland was indeed once green.

Unfortunately I am not a Geologist as you say you are yourself.
My only qualifications are in glass formulae and Glass Fibre Manufacture, hardly a science for this Forum, so I rely upon people like yourself for my Geological info.
However I am well aware that non provable statements can be construed as 'bad science', which I try to avoid.
So, I ought to point out that its far more likely that Polar Bears lived in Kamchatka or the Aleutians around East Russia, where it was much colder,a few million years ago. Not in Greenland,when it was green, as you say. Of course thats assuming that Polar Bears existed then, in the same form as today?
Having put a few million years of evolution behind them, they may have been somewhat different in the past.
Again you state-

Originally Posted By: ImranCan

You are quite happy to believe that a gas which occurs in such minor concentations that it has to be measured in ppm's (parts per million) is the culprit of global warming but you ridicule the idea that the sun (which converts mass to energy at a rate of half a million kg per second, and will BURN you if you expose yourslef to it for longer than 10 minutes even though it is 150 million km away) can't possibly have anything to do with it.
How can even small variations in its output not have an impact ?

Do you believe the Sun has been getting hotter? If it was Greenland might still be totally green?
I prefer to believe Global Warming is a combination of many factors. A few I put down previously, and here.

Are there any measurements of our Suns heat output year in and year out? If there are any at all, how long do they go back?
The only change in the Suns heat out-put as far as I know are during its 11 year sunspot cycle, when its heat output actually decreases minutely.

Originally Posted By: ImranCam said

You are quite happy to believe that a gas which occurs in such minor concentations that it has to be measured in ppm's (parts per million) is the culprit of global warming but you ridicule the idea that the sun (which converts mass to energy at a rate of half a million kg per second, and will BURN you if you expose yourslef to it for longer than 10 minutes even though it is 150 million km away) can't possibly have anything to do with it.
How can even small variations in its output not have an impact ?


Again my reply is that the only small variation in the suns output that I am aware of is during its sunspot cycle.

I think you will find that I mentioned a number of possible resons for Manmade Global warming. One of them was CO2 gas-
Which as you say, does not seem a lot when compared with the total gases in our atmosphere. I also mentioned Water vapour, which holds a lot more latent heat than CO2. More below but first.
I mentioned the conversion of light into longer heat waves.
Mentioning the billions of light bulbs. Light bulbs that in particular store billions of heat watts within buildings, world wide.
Non of the above were around 150 years ago. Cities are larger now, and produce a lot of heat.
I considered some of the machinery that goes into the make up of running a modern city. Machinery that produces the well known 'hotspots' that hover above our citys.

In addition every particle of dust produced by automobile and aircraft engines, that absorbs heat, cannot be reflected back into space. Another example of Manmade warming.

Further-more it is my projected idea that the billions of window glass panes in the world, are another cause of Man made warming. Since they allow the suns heat into offices and rooms, but glass dos'nt let the longer heat rays out.
Sunlight which under normal circumstances, would have been largely reflected back out into space. Yet another producer of 'hotspots' over the worlds cities, and a further example of Manmade warming.
....>How about the air pollution in China and India?
China releases over 6 Billion tons of CO2 every year.
......>For instance, here in the UK we produce a modest 2% of the Worlds CO2 output What is 2% against the Worlds 98% CO2 production.?
So now back to water vapour.
I said-"Prehaps soap in our oceans lessens the surface tension of the seawater, which inturn allows the wind and waves to increase the evaporation rate, above what it might have been normally?"
A small amount of soap lessens surface tension. Is that such an impossible idea?
More water vapour than normal, constantly up in the atmosphere would have a larger effect than CO2. Possibley a latent heat effect. Or the conversion to longer heat waves, similar to window glass?."

Water vapour hold about 5X the amount of heat than CO2 (I think)
So together with the the idea that the conversion and trapping of heat to longer wavelengths...a lot of Suns output is unable to reflect back out into space, as it did before Man came upon the scene.
I also mentioned the 'dirty snow' in the Polar regions. Caused by pollution, that would absorb a finite amount of the Suns heat.

One final point, you said-
Originally Posted By: ImranCan

2) Some of your arguments with Fred Singer have merit, but you are wrong about the temperature not being stable the last 10 years. I think it is very well established that the (post 1970) peak warm year was 1998 and the global AVERAGE temperature has not gone up since then. Singular point measurements like Europe summer 2003 serve no purpose other than as propaganda. Incidentally the warmest year last century was 1934, with 1998 coming second.

OK, have it your way. There will always be a random high, or a random low reading, to be found over the years.
Granted it is DIFFICULT to prove that Global Air Temperatures have increased slightly over the last 150 years, since its very difficult to pin down and record variable moving air temperatures. Different wind speeds makes this very difficult to record temp data, from the relatively few recorders around the world. Some of them are getting too near the citys and towns that are expanding, and could effect readings when the wind blows from a building

But there is another way...To my mind the only way, and the best way to prove that Global Warming is Manmade.

Ocean temperatues probably lags behind by about 50 years, the average Global Warming air temperature figures.
But the oceans ARE warming, slowly and steadily. This data is showing a truthful, repeatable upward trend.
We have excellent figures showing this increase in Sea temperature.
Readings from the dozens of buoys placed in the oceans confirm this.
==Thats proof the world is getting warmer, and its all due to Man==

Keep on buying your air conditioners, they need them in India right now.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Quote:
Are there any measurements of our Suns heat output year in and year out? If there are any at all, how long do they go back?"

Yes, but I'm not sure of the history. Output is only one factor. Sunlight "hours" is very important. Yes, there is a study on sunlight hours that started in 2002. So far, the amount of sunlight hours is a perfect match for the temperatures. I have the graph, I'll try to find it when I have time. The more sunlight hours...The hotter the year.

Quote:
However I am well aware that non provable statements can be construed as 'bad science'...So, I ought to point out that its far more likely...Of course that assuming that"

Really funny.:-)

Quote:
Having put a few million years of evolution behind them, they may have been somewhat different in the past.

No, Polar bears aren't that old. 250,000 years at best. They are nothing more than a Grisly with white fur.

Global Warming is not a collection of heat records, and heat sources. It is a flawed, dishonest claim that CO2 "traps" heat and prevents it from escaping our atmosphere. Heat loads are meaningless to the alarmists.

Quote:
I think you will find that I mentioned a number of possible reasons for Manmade Global warming.

Again, the study is on heat trapping gases. Heat loads are meaningless. Asphalt retains a lot of heat...But the alarmists insist that asphalt doesn't matter..Only CO2.

A/C sales are on the rise because it is cheaper to replace than repair...IF something is wrong with the coils or compressor. In the USA, you can't buy anything under 14 seer these days, so if your old seer 10 breaks...you have to replace. There is also a growing population. 0.6 C over 150 years isn't going to cause much of an increase in A/C sales...if any.

"Mean temperatures" are meaningless. Here, take a look at Texas, for just one example...
1980 was our hottest year, but it doesn't rank very high due to a cold winter. The heat wave of 1980 was the 7th deadliest natural disaster in American history.
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p112/maxter-1/newtexas.gif
Link to verify the data...Click on Statewide, then Texas, then select "annual" under "period". I also changed the base period dates to 1895 and 2007 to include all of the available data.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
And, a link to the USA Heat Wave of 1980.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_heat_wave

Quote:
But the oceans ARE warming, slowly and steadily. This data is showing a truthful, repeatable upward trend.
We have excellent figures showing this increase in Sea temperature.
Readings from the dozens of buoys placed in the oceans confirm this.

==Thats proof the world is getting warmer, and its all due to Man==

Wrong. The "oceans" are cooling. In fact, in just 3 years, they have lost 1/5 of the heat accumulated over the last 50+ years. "Proof" is usually followed by verifiable evidence...Like this.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

Last edited by Max; 09/10/07 05:42 PM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Just a quick aside:

A member of the Thai government recently stated that Thailand had nothing to fear from rising sea levels because the country was so far from the melting glaciers.

OK back to you. smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Just a quick aside:

A member of the Thai government recently stated that Thailand had nothing to fear from rising sea levels because the country was so far from the melting glaciers.

OK back to you. smile


So politican's are idiots - how's this news? Al "I am not going to spend much time on the science of it" Gore proves this every time he opens his mouth.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203

a couple of points Mike

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

I also mentioned Water vapour, which holds a lot more latent heat than CO2.


I don't want to be pedantic, but people will take you more seriously if you use terminology correctly. Latent heat is the amount of heat required to shift a substaince from one phase to another (liquid water to water vapour).

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
Further-more it is my projected idea that the billions of window glass panes in the world, are another cause of Man made warming. Since they allow the suns heat into offices and rooms, but glass dos'nt let the longer heat rays out.


Glass does nothing to absorb IR radiation(I assume that's what you mean by longer heat rays). Glass does stop convection however, but who needs to worry about convection - certainly not climate modellers. wink

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Prehaps soap in our oceans lessens the surface tension of the seawater, which inturn allows the wind and waves to increase the evaporation rate, above what it might have been normally?

I don't think you understand the scale of the oceans. Let me assure you, soap concentrations in the oceans are not at a level where they are affecting the surface tension. The volume of the oceans is 1.37 billon cubic kilometers.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Ocean temperatues probably lags behind by about 50 years, the average Global Warming air temperature figures.

Please provide a reference to the 50 year lag. Based on the volume of the oceans, I'll eat my hat if the ocean's response to a shift in atmospheric temperature only lags by 50 years. The numbers I have read suggest the lag is on the order of thousands of years http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/302C/role_of_oceans.htm

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Canuck
I'll eat my hat if the ocean's response to a shift in atmospheric temperature only lags by 50 years. The numbers I have read suggest the lag is on the order of thousands of years http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/302C/role_of_oceans.htm

Are we talking about the temperature above the thermocline or below it?

From your linked site I notice:

"The thermal properties of the deep ocean constitute a time lag in the climate system on the scale of 1000 years."

But:

"The thermal capacity of the mixed layer [top 70-100 metres] implies response times to surface changes on the order of years."

How would you like your hat? Medium, rare, or well done? laugh


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5