Higher Temperatures Cited for Increase in Western Wildfires
mand...@verizon.net
*****************
HIGHER TEMPERATURES CITED FOR INCREASE IN WILDFIRES
By Gautam Naik
New reserarch suggests that higher regional temperatures have
contributed to an increase in large and costly wildfires that that have
hit the Western US in recent years.
The study, published yesterday in the online version of the journal
Science, argues that unusually high temperatures in the Western US have
led to earlier and longer dry seasons, making it easier for large fires
to erupt.
"Summer arrives earlier and last longer, so the vegetation dries out
more," and becomes more flammable, siad Anthony Westerling, who
conducted the research with two of his colleagues from the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego,
and a fourth scientist from the University of Arizona.
The study is likely to heighten a debate among scientists as to whether
climate or the history of how land is used---whether it is logged or
not, for example---is the better explanation for the increase in big
wildfires. The climate-based explanation is a more recent and less
studied idea.
....
According to the study, large wildfire activity increased "suddenly and
dramatically in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency,
longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons." At the same
time, average spring and summer temperatures for 1987-2003 were about
1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than similar measurements in 1970-1986.
The authors concluded that climate played the principal role in
exacerbating wildfire frequency and ferocity: "The greatest increases
occurred in midelevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use
histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly
associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier
spring snowmelt."
The Western forests are crucial to the continent's environment as they
act as a sponge and absorb 20% to 40% of all carbon dioxide absorbed
across the US. If more large fires continue to erupt, the forests may
instead become a major emitter of carbon dioxide. The notion that
climate change may play a big role in wildfire activity suggests that
new approaches are needed to reduce the risk.
"The idea that we'll spend a little more money on fire suppression and
that this could somehow counteract the trend ... doesn't seem credible
to me," said Dr. Westerling. "You have to reduce future increases in
temperature have having policies that reduce global emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases."
soelectron
>Someone alert Scott Weiser, please. From today's Wall Street Journal:
>
>*****************
>
>HIGHER TEMPERATURES CITED FOR INCREASE IN WILDFIRES
Gee..what makes the temperature go up anyway?
maybe:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.
Mark Schaffer
The easy refutation for this is tidbit is to note that if solar
radiation were increasing the temperature from the top to groundlevel
would increase. Since this is not the case and the Stratosphere temps
are decreasing while the lower atmosphere temps are increasing the
hypothesis is disproved. The only explanation that fits is an increase
in greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Also, the
interested reader will note that the NASA link is out of date (2003).
I wonder why a skeptic would link to old data??? QED.
2540 Dead
We happen to be heading into a period of exceptionally heavy sunspot
activity, peaking in 2012.
I also note that not "many decades" have passed since the late 1970s.
soelectron
wrote:
>
>soelectron wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2006 09:32:31 -0700, mand...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> >Someone alert Scott Weiser, please. From today's Wall Street Journal:
>> >
>> >*****************
>> >
>> >HIGHER TEMPERATURES CITED FOR INCREASE IN WILDFIRES
>>
>> Gee..what makes the temperature go up anyway?
>>
>> maybe:
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
>> March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
>>
>>
>> NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
>>
>> Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
>> during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
>> percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
>>
>> "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
>> could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
>> researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
>> and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
>> author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
>> Letters.
>
>The easy refutation for this is tidbit is to note that if solar
>radiation were increasing the temperature from the top to groundlevel
>would increase.
Ah no...there is such a thing as the LAPSE rate, you fucking
DUMBASSHOLE!
>Since this is not the case and the Stratosphere temps
>are decreasing while the lower atmosphere temps are increasing the
>hypothesis is disproved.
Nice bullshit effort, but nothing more.
>The only explanation that fits is an increase
>in greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Oh my, that's the ONLY one is it?
> Also, the
>interested reader will note that the NASA link is out of date (2003).
How so?
Do you think these things need to be revised every quarter?
>I wonder why a skeptic would link to old data??? QED.
I wonder what in the data is not provable?
"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study."
< this radiation is real easy to measure too>
"Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late
1978. The first record came from NASA's Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget
(ERB) experiment (1978 - 1993). Other records came from NASA's Active
Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum
Mission (1980 - 1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research
Satellite (1991 - 2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to
present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget
Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. The
European Space Agency's (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an
independent data set (1996 to 1998)."
"Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the
Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI
interaction with the Earth's atmosphere,oceans and landmasses is the
biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective,
decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of
large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are
relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy,
yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year.
According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this
study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate
effects."
<starting to get the picture now dummy?>
soelectron
"Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the
Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI
interaction with the Earth's atmosphere,oceans and landmasses is the
biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective,
decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of
large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are
relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy,
yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year.
According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this
study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate
effects."
< deal with it fool>
Daniel Packman
soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
.....
total solar irradiance...
>>> "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
>>> could cause significant climate change," .....
This shows a summary of data from several sources:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
The increase is not that obvious.
.....
>>The easy refutation for this is tidbit is to note that if solar
>>radiation were increasing the temperature from the top to groundlevel
>>would increase.
There is no "easy" refutation without a careful model that takes
into account feedback mechanisms. In a crude way, solar energy is
absorbed directly into the upper atmoshere in the UV and absorbed
into the ground providing the atmosphere with two heat sources.
One certainly expects the upper atmospheric temperature to rise
if the only variable is the irradiance.
>Ah no...there is such a thing as the LAPSE rate......
Perhaps you could flesh out your differences in this.
>>Since this is not the case and the Stratosphere temps
>>are decreasing while the lower atmosphere temps are increasing the
>>hypothesis is disproved.
Not proved, but this certainly suggests that the main effect
is not irradiance but greenhouse gasess.
>Nice bullshit effort, but nothing more.
Much better than that, but quality of this sort is hard
to quantify. :-)
>>The only explanation that fits is an increase
>>in greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
>
>Oh my, that's the ONLY one is it?
Do you have a detailed model that shows something else?
soelectron
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <72mta2hej3c21o0ll...@4ax.com>,
>soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>
>.....
>total solar irradiance...
>>>> "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
>>>> could cause significant climate change," .....
>
>This shows a summary of data from several sources:
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
>http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
>
>The increase is not that obvious.
The incremental impact however may well be.
>.....
>>>The easy refutation for this is tidbit is to note that if solar
>>>radiation were increasing the temperature from the top to groundlevel
>>>would increase.
>
>There is no "easy" refutation without a careful model that takes
>into account feedback mechanisms. In a crude way, solar energy is
>absorbed directly into the upper atmoshere in the UV and absorbed
>into the ground providing the atmosphere with two heat sources.
>One certainly expects the upper atmospheric temperature to rise
>if the only variable is the irradiance.
Having both UVAs and UVBs would indicate a certain terrestrial gain
however.
>>Ah no...there is such a thing as the LAPSE rate......
>
>Perhaps you could flesh out your differences in this.
Simple, the temperature diminishes with increasing elevation.
>>>Since this is not the case and the Stratosphere temps
>>>are decreasing while the lower atmosphere temps are increasing the
>>>hypothesis is disproved.
>
>Not proved, but this certainly suggests that the main effect
>is not irradiance but greenhouse gasess.
Greenhouse gasses which are also liberated by a noted INCREASE in
volcanism...
Sea temperature warming that also may be impacted by sea floor
volcanism...
>>Nice bullshit effort, but nothing more.
>
>Much better than that, but quality of this sort is hard
>to quantify. :-)
The aroma however is redolent with inaccuracy.
>>>The only explanation that fits is an increase
>>>in greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
>>
>>Oh my, that's the ONLY one is it?
>
>Do you have a detailed model that shows something else?
About how much heating due to retention of extant solar input would
occur due to a change in say....albedo?
More pavement = more dark land mass.
And that equates to greater terrestrial warmth, no?
So if we decrease glacial cover, by whatever means, reduce grass and
farmland, and continue to pave and build we end up with...urban heat
islands?
Daniel Packman
soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:19:02 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>>In article <72mta2hej3c21o0ll...@4ax.com>,
>>soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>>
>>.....
>>total solar irradiance...
>>>>> "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
>>>>> could cause significant climate change," .....
>>
>>This shows a summary of data from several sources:
>>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
>>http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
>>
>>The increase is not that obvious.
>
>The incremental impact however may well be.
Right. *May* is the operative word. It is much harder to put together a long
time series of carefully calibrated solar irradiance than it is to put
together a record of CO2 or global temperature.
>>.....
>>>>The easy refutation for this is tidbit is to note that if solar
>>>>radiation were increasing the temperature from the top to groundlevel
>>>>would increase.
>>
>>There is no "easy" refutation without a careful model that takes
>>into account feedback mechanisms. In a crude way, solar energy is
>>absorbed directly into the upper atmoshere in the UV and absorbed
>>into the ground providing the atmosphere with two heat sources.
>>One certainly expects the upper atmospheric temperature to rise
>>if the only variable is the irradiance.
>
>Having both UVAs and UVBs would indicate a certain terrestrial gain
>however.
>
>>>Ah no...there is such a thing as the LAPSE rate......
>>
>>Perhaps you could flesh out your differences in this.
>
>Simple, the temperature diminishes with increasing elevation.
The earth's temperature tends to decrease as you depart from a heat source
(the ground). This trend continues until you get close to another heat source
which is the high altitude thermosphere which is directly absorbing high
energy solar radiation. How does this general information support the
importance of solar radiation over greenhouse gasses?
>>>>Since this is not the case and the Stratosphere temps
>>>>are decreasing while the lower atmosphere temps are increasing the
>>>>hypothesis is disproved.
>>
>>Not proved, but this certainly suggests that the main effect
>>is not irradiance but greenhouse gasess.
>
>Greenhouse gasses which are also liberated by a noted INCREASE in
>volcanism...
Are you asserting that vulcanism is the dominate factor in
increasing greenhouse gasses today? Do you have a reference?
>Sea temperature warming that also may be impacted by sea floor
>volcanism...
And it also might be an insignificant factor. Do you have a reference?
....
>>>>The only explanation that fits is an increase
>>>>in greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
>>>
>>>Oh my, that's the ONLY one is it?
>>Do you have a detailed model that shows something else?
>
>About how much heating due to retention of extant solar input would
>occur due to a change in say....albedo?
Yes, this is an important factor but not easily quantified in
a sound bite.
>More pavement = more dark land mass.
>And that equates to greater terrestrial warmth, no?
Yes, except it means more local heating which might mean more
circulation of wet air and more clouds. There are complex feedback
mechanisms that make any simple non-quantified assertion meaningless.
>So if we decrease glacial cover, by whatever means, reduce grass and
>farmland, and continue to pave and build we end up with...urban heat
>islands?
That is common expectation, but how does this affect the basic
issue of global warming? Earth's total temperature is not measured
by looking only at urban heat islands.
2540 Dead
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:19:02 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>>In article <72mta2hej3c21o0ll...@4ax.com>,
>>soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>>
>>.....
>>total solar irradiance...
>>>>> "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
>>>>> could cause significant climate change," .....
>>
>>This shows a summary of data from several sources:
>>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
>>http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
>>
>>The increase is not that obvious.
>
>The incremental impact however may well be.
Or would, had it continued.
>
>>.....
>>>>The easy refutation for this is tidbit is to note that if solar
>>>>radiation were increasing the temperature from the top to groundlevel
>>>>would increase.
>>
>>There is no "easy" refutation without a careful model that takes
>>into account feedback mechanisms. In a crude way, solar energy is
>>absorbed directly into the upper atmoshere in the UV and absorbed
>>into the ground providing the atmosphere with two heat sources.
>>One certainly expects the upper atmospheric temperature to rise
>>if the only variable is the irradiance.
>
>Having both UVAs and UVBs would indicate a certain terrestrial gain
>however.
Yes, the sun emits UVAs and UVBs. Both strike the earth. And..?
--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
soelectron
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:01:47 -0600, soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:19:02 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <72mta2hej3c21o0ll...@4ax.com>,
>>>soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>>>
>>>.....
>>>total solar irradiance...
>>>>>> "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
>>>>>> could cause significant climate change," .....
>>>
>>>This shows a summary of data from several sources:
>>>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
>>>http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
>>>
>>>The increase is not that obvious.
>>
>>The incremental impact however may well be.
>
>Or would, had it continued.
It has.
soelectron
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <mgpta2pdmu8mtpl8g...@4ax.com>,
>soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>>On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 22:19:02 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <72mta2hej3c21o0ll...@4ax.com>,
>>>soelectron <s...@electron.cz> wrote:
>>>
>>>.....
>>>total solar irradiance...
>>>>>> "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
>>>>>> could cause significant climate change," .....
>>>
>>>This shows a summary of data from several sources:
>>>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
>>>http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
>>>
>>>The increase is not that obvious.
>>
>>The incremental impact however may well be.
>
>Right. *May* is the operative word. It is much harder to put together a long
>time series of carefully calibrated solar irradiance than it is to put
>together a record of CO2 or global temperature.
Only because the instrumentation to measure such is more recently
available, the thesis however is apt.
Frog in water.
>
>>>.....
>>>>>The easy refutation for this is tidbit is to note that if solar
>>>>>radiation were increasing the temperature from the top to groundlevel
>>>>>would increase.
>>>
>>>There is no "easy" refutation without a careful model that takes
>>>into account feedback mechanisms. In a crude way, solar energy is
>>>absorbed directly into the upper atmoshere in the UV and absorbed
>>>into the ground providing the atmosphere with two heat sources.
>>>One certainly expects the upper atmospheric temperature to rise
>>>if the only variable is the irradiance.
>>
>>Having both UVAs and UVBs would indicate a certain terrestrial gain
>>however.
>>
>>>>Ah no...there is such a thing as the LAPSE rate......
>>>
>>>Perhaps you could flesh out your differences in this.
>>
>>Simple, the temperature diminishes with increasing elevation.
>
>The earth's temperature tends to decrease as you depart from a heat source
>(the ground). This trend continues until you get close to another heat source
>which is the high altitude thermosphere which is directly absorbing high
>energy solar radiation. How does this general information support the
>importance of solar radiation over greenhouse gasses?
I do not recall saying "over".
I say that it likely IS a factor, to what comparative level is the
rub, or not.
>>>>>Since this is not the case and the Stratosphere temps
>>>>>are decreasing while the lower atmosphere temps are increasing the
>>>>>hypothesis is disproved.
>>>
>>>Not proved, but this certainly suggests that the main effect
>>>is not irradiance but greenhouse gasess.
>>
>>Greenhouse gasses which are also liberated by a noted INCREASE in
>>volcanism...
>
>Are you asserting that vulcanism is the dominate factor in
>increasing greenhouse gasses today?
I say is has historically BEEN a dominant factor and may well become
so again.
>Do you have a reference?
A few:
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/dmclean/fileboxmigration/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html
By 1977, I had come to suspect that 65 million years ago, at K-T
boundary time, earth experienced a major perturbation of the carbon
cycle that unified the K-T geobiological record, including the mass
extinctions. I published my findings in a paper titled "A terminal
Mesozoic greenhouse: lessons from the past" (Science, 1978). For the
K-T terrestrial extinctions (including the dinosaurs), I proposed
climatic heat-induced reproductive failure (discussed later in this
website), and for the marine extinctions a combination of pH change
and warming. To read this paper please click on McLean, 1978.
In 1979, I began coupling the K-T carbon cycle perturbation to the
Deccan Traps mantle plume volcanism in India, one of the greatest
episodes of volcanism in earth history. In January 1981, at the AAAS
National Meeting, Toronto, Canada, I proposed that the Deccan Traps
volcanism triggered a major K-T carbon cycle perturbation, released
the K-T boundary iridium onto Earth's surface, and caused the K-T mass
extinctions. My abstract which was titled "Terminal Cretaceous
Extinctions and Volcanism: a Link" can be read at: McLean (1981).
The Deccan Traps volcanism was one of the greatest episodes of mantle
plume volcanism in Earth history, and the vast bulk of its lavas
erupted right at K-T boundary time. The duration of its eruptions was
coeval with major shifts in the carbon and oxygen stable isotope
records, "Strangelove conditions" in the oceans, and the K-T
bioevolutionary turnover. In addition, it occurred simultaneously with
other phenomena such as marine transgression, reduced photosynthesis
of terrestrial and marine floras, and reduced weathering rates that
would all have contributed to producing a major trans-K-T perturbation
of the carbon cycle (McLean, 1995).
In the broadest sense, the state of the biosphere at any time is a
function of the rate of flow of energy from the sun to earth, and on
to outer space. Variations in the carbon cycle influence the
solar-earth-space (S-E-S) flow rates. Great volcanic events release
greenhouse gases (water vapor and carbon dioxide) onto earth's
surface, thus influencing the carbon cycle, and the S-E-S flow system.
Thus, volcanism exerts control upon the state of earth's biosphere in
ways to influence bioevolution and extinction. So vast was the Deccan
Traps volcanism that it would have flooded earth's surficial systems
with carbon dioxide faster than they could have absorbed it, creating
fluctuations that would have grown into structure-breaking waves that
would have invaded and destabilized them, forcing life to change, or
become extinct...
Rapid eruption of the vast Deccan Traps lava fields would have flooded
earth's surface with CO2, overwhelming surficial systems and sinks,
triggering rapid K-T transition greenhouse warming, chemical changes
in the oceans (McLean, 1985a, b, c; 1988, 1995), and the K-T mass
extinctions.
To read my paper "Deccan Traps mantle degassing in the terminal
Cretaceous marine extinctions" (Cretaceous Research, 1985), please
click on McLean (1985).
For evidence that a carbon cycle perturbation and greenhouse warming
began at the same time as the Deccan Traps volcanism and persisted for
the duration of the Deccan Traps volcanism, see Brazos River, Texas,
Isotope Record). Other localities showing evidences of K-T transition
warming are: Atlantic Ocean DSDP sites 384, 86, 95, 152, 144, 20C, 21,
356, 357, and 329; Indian Ocean DSDP sites 212, 217, 220, 237, and
253; South Atlantic DSDP site 524; Denmark; Biarritz, France;
Lattengebirge, Germany; Zumaya, Spain; Caravaca, Spain; and Pacific
and Atlantic Ocean DSDP sites.
http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/change/change.html
Volcanism in the middle Cretaceous produced large quantities of basalt
on the seafloor and released large amounts of CO2. The middle
Cretaceous was much warmer than present, resulting in much higher sea
level.
Mid-Cretaceous
During this period we note the following observations:
The rate of production of new oceanic crust between 120 and 90 million
years ago (mid Cretaceous) were nearly twice the rate prior to and
after that time.
gobalt.gif
* Large volcanic plateaus were emplaced in the ocean basins. The
total volume of these eruptions of basalt are unknown, as some may
have been subducted, but many are greater than 10 million km3. (The
Ontong Java plateau of the southwestern Pacific alone has a volume of
~ 55 million km3.
* The time interval during which these volcanic plateaus were
emplaced correlate with:
o A long interval of normal magnetic polarity.
o A peak in oceanic paleotemperatures.
o A peak in world-wide formation of petroleum.
o Deposition of oxygen depleted sediments like black shales.
o A peak in sea level stands, which became 100 to 200 m
higher than present.
This information can be interpreted in the following manner:
Magnetic polarity remained constant because a superplume originated at
outer core/mantle boundary taking with it a large amount of heat. This
resulted in increasing the Temperature gradient in the core and thus
resulted in vigorous convection in the core, which then became
resistant to magnetic polarity changes. (Convection currents in the
core are what are thought to cause the Earth's magnetic field. If the
rate of convection is high, then it is more difficult to change the
polarity of the magnetic field)
* CO2 released from the magmas erupted on the ocean floor by these
plumes resulted in a super green house effect, causing mid Cretaceous
climates to increase to 10 to 12o C above current average global
temperatures.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/17/6341
Although the Earth maintains a remarkably constant temperature,
climate fluctuations have been identified on many timescales. On the
103-year scale, poorly understood Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) events (1,
2), extremely rapid coolings/warmings and subsequent cold/warm
periods, are best exhibited during the last glacial period
[20,000–110,000 years before the present or 20–110 thousand years ago
(ka)] but may extend with reduced amplitude into the Holocene (3) (the
comparatively stable, warm, last {approx}11 ka). Proposed causal
mechanisms involve harmonics of Milankovitch (orbital) forcing,
thermohaline circulation, internal ocean–atmosphere oscillations,
solar forcing, and even long-period tidal resonances in the motions of
the Earth and Moon. Recent work suggests that the fluctuations
resemble those of a system possessing threshold instability. Rapid
transitions between states are exhibited in many climate models,
including those of oceanic circulation, atmospheric energy balance,
and atmospheric regime change. It is becoming increasingly apparent
that global climate models currently either omit some natural forcings
from the simulations or underestimate the size and extent of climate
response to threshold crossings, e.g., by considering the North
Atlantic as the amplifier for DO oscillations and only including North
Atlantic triggers in the model (4). The possibilities that rapid
climate change can induce volcanic activity and, conversely, that
volcanic eruptions can force millennial climate have both been
suggested in the past (5). Based on evidence we have found using our
optical profiles of deep boreholes in the polar ice caps, we conclude
that volcanism may supply a vital missing link in millennial climate
change.
>>Sea temperature warming that also may be impacted by sea floor
>>volcanism...
>
>And it also might be an insignificant factor. Do you have a reference?
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html
The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep
Results from a German-American Arctic expedition to the Gakkel Ridge
have implications for the understanding of the generation of new
seafloor
The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching
beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath
the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far
mightier than the Alps. This is the site of seafloor spreading that is
actively separating Europe from North America, and was the goal of the
international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition)
with two research icebreakers, the "USCGC Healy" from USA and the
German "PFS Polarstern". Aboard were scientists from the Max Planck
Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions. The
scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit "anemic"
magmatism. Instead, surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West
and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal
activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found. These results
require a fundamental rethinking of the mechanisms of seafloor
generation at midocean ridges (Nature, January 16 and June 26).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191478,00.html
An undersea volcano in the Pacific is growing from its summit and
could breach the ocean surface within a few decades, a new study
reveals.
In the meantime, it is creating a thriving environment for some sea
creatures, but a death trap for others.
Researchers used submersible vehicles and other technology to explore
the Vailulu'u Seamount, an active volcano lying off the coast of the
Samoan archipelago. They found that the volcano had sprouted a new
1,000-foot cone at its summit since it was last explored 5 years ago.
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1904.asp
When in America Mount St. Helen recently erupted, many thought it was
just an isolated normal case of volcanic eruption. But now it is
becoming clear that hundreds of underwater volcanoes are erupting all
around the world especially around the Pacific Ring of Fire.
The tectonic plate movements especially under the oceans have gone up
by many times. Andaman Nicobar Island now is experiencing under water
volcanoes in Indian ocean and Bay of Bengal. In America North West is
experiencing unprecedented level of small earthquakes and under water
volcanoes. Seattle and Oregon are experiencing heavy levels of
tectonic disturbance.
Underwater volcanoes are being reported in Australia, Greece, New
Zealand and many other countries. Russia’s Kumpchetka peninsula is
experiencing double volcanoes of large sizes.
According some geologists, there are not enough monitoring mechanisms
for knowing the number of under water volcanoes.
Most Navies are experiencing changing under water topologies all over
the world. The recent American submarine accident caused by under
water ridges never mapped before and many other reports from other
navies just confirm the fact that there are massive tectonic movements
under the oceans that we are not observing.
Magma movements under the ocean has increased many folds – says
Geologists. These developments show the projected under water
volcanoes and magma movements have steadily increased in the last five
years and now it is just going through the roof.
>....
>>>>>The only explanation that fits is an increase
>>>>>in greenhouse gasses trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>>Oh my, that's the ONLY one is it?
>
>>>Do you have a detailed model that shows something else?
>>
>>About how much heating due to retention of extant solar input would
>>occur due to a change in say....albedo?
>
>Yes, this is an important factor but not easily quantified in
>a sound bite.
>
>>More pavement = more dark land mass.
>
>>And that equates to greater terrestrial warmth, no?
>
>Yes, except it means more local heating which might mean more
>circulation of wet air and more clouds. There are complex feedback
>mechanisms that make any simple non-quantified assertion meaningless.
The fact remains, urban heat islands are a quantifiable late 20th
century phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is
significantly warmer than its surroundings. As population centers grow
in size from village to town to city, they tend to have a
corresponding increase in average temperature, which is more often
welcome in winter months than in summertime. The EPA says: "On hot
summer days, urban air can be 2-10°F [2-6°C] hotter than the
surrounding countryside." Not to be confused with global warming,
scientists call this phenomenon the "urban heat island effect." [1]
There is no controversy about cities generally tending to be warmer
than their surroundings.
>>So if we decrease glacial cover, by whatever means, reduce grass and
>>farmland, and continue to pave and build we end up with...urban heat
>>islands?
>
>That is common expectation, but how does this affect the basic
>issue of global warming? Earth's total temperature is not measured
>by looking only at urban heat islands.
Earth's total temperature is obviously comprised of ALL micro and
mesoscale inputs.
Don't play coy.
Mark Schaffer
Without resorting to ad hominen argument as you just did, l can easily
show why the lapse rate is a non-sequitor. One, all parties, including
Christy, now acknowledge a warming of the lower atmosphere while there
has been, minus the known effect of CFC ozone depletion, a cooling of
the stratosphere. Two, the lapse rate of the atmosphere is a given but
we are talking about a delta T that directly contradicts what would
happen if the warming were from an increase in insolation, a delta T
that would be greater through the whole column of the atmosphere. I am
sorry that your pet excuse is so easily slain but any intelligent
reader should be able to follow the qualitative argument here.
Have a nice day.
Mark Schaffer
You mean like this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
Why yes... it's all starting to become clear now. If you are going to
quote it would be helpful if readers had the link to the original, so
it could be determined if what you are quoting is accurate and in
context.
Mark Schaffer
You mean like this:
soelectron
wrote:
"sequitur"...
>One, all parties, including
>Christy, now acknowledge a warming of the lower atmosphere
Good increasing solar radiation means increasing UVBs _and_ UVAs!
> while there
>has been, minus the known effect of CFC ozone depletion, a cooling of
>the stratosphere.
Do tell:
http://sel.noaa.gov/alerts/archive/alerts_Jan2003.html
Space Weather Message Code: ALTSTR
Serial Number: 249
Issue Time: 2003 Jan 31 1340 UTC
ALERT: STRATWARM
Valid for UTC Day: 2003 Jan 31
Comment:
STRATWARM ALERT/FRIDAY/STRATWARM EXISTS
Still disturbed wave number two pattern of the circulation. Warm air
covers the polar region in the middle and upper stratosphere, leading
to a reversed temperature gradient between 60N and the Pole at the
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/defns.html
Stratosphere: the region of the atmosphere above the troposphere
The stratosphere extends from about 10km to about 50km in altitude.
Commercial airlines fly in the lower stratosphere. The stratosphere
gets warmer at higher altitudes. In fact, this warming is caused by
ozone absorbing ultraviolet radiation. Warm air remains in the upper
stratosphere, and cool air remains lower, so there is much less
vertical mixing in this region than in the troposphere.
> Two, the lapse rate of the atmosphere is a given but
>we are talking about a delta T
I'm sorry, you're a bullshit artist.
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/deltaT.html
Although solar eclipse predictions are based on Terrestrial Dynamical
Time, the position of the central eclipse path still depends on
Universal Time. To convert TDT predictions to UT, one must know the
difference between Terrestrial Dynamical Time and Universal Time. This
parameter is known as delta-T or ?T (?T = TDT - UT).
Stephenson and collaborators have produced a number of seminal works
in the field of Earth's rotation over the past several millennia. In
particular, they have identified hundreds of eclipse and occultation
observations in early European, Middle Eastern and Chinese annals,
manuscripts, canons and records. In spite of their relatively low
precision, these data represent our only record to the value of
delta-T during the past several millennia.
Values of delta T before AD 1600 pre-date the telescope and are based
on historic records of naked eye observations of eclipses and
occultations. A number of researchers have made significant
contributions in this area. In particular, Stephenson and Morrison
(1984) have fit hundreds of records with simple polynomials to achieve
a best fit for describing the value of delta-T from 700 BCE to 1600
CE. An abbreviated table of their results follows:
Year delta-T Longitude
(sec) Shift
-2000 54181 = 15h 03m 225.7°
-1500 39610 = 11h 00m 165.0°
-1000 27364 = 07h 36m 114.0°
-500 17444 = 04h 51m 72.7°
0 9848 = 02h 44m 41.0°
500 4577 = 01h 16m 19.1°
1000 1625 = 00h 27m 6.8°
1500 275 = 00h 05m 1.1°
Recent observed values for delta-T are as follows:
Year delta-T
(sec)
1970.0 40.18
1975.0 45.48
1980.0 50.54
1985.0 54.34
1990.0 56.86
1991.0 57.57
1992.0 58.31
1993.0 59.12
1994.0 59.99
1995.0 60.79
1996.0 61.63
1997.0 62.30
1998.0 62.97
1999.0 63.46
2000.0 63.83
2001.0 64.09
2002.0 64.30
2003.0 64.6 ???
Future values for delta-T are uncertain but may be approximated by
extrapolating recent values. However, the further into the future one
extrapolates, the greater the uncertainty in delta-T. See Historical
Values of Delta T for more details.
soelectron
wrote:
>
No I do not, do you need another replay, you startlingly clay-headed
liar?
soelectron
wrote:
>
No, I mean like turning up the heat in a closed loop system, which,
for practical purposes many assume earth to be.
Mark Schaffer
You apparently didn't realize we were discussing delta T meaning
temperatures not time. Why not just admit you have no idea regarding
the science of global warming and leave it at that.
Mark Schaffer
You apparently didn't realize we were discussing delta T meaning
Mark Schaffer
You apparently didn't realize we were discussing delta T meaning
soelectron
wrote:
You apparnetly NEGLECTED to define YOUR TERMS...HUM...GO FIGURE!
Mark Schaffer
In a discussion about the effects of any supposed change in sun
insolation on global warming the reader could reasonably be expected to
be intelligent enough to understand that delta T through a column of
air extending from the ground thru the mesosphere refers to
temperature. You have obviously failed this test and any readers would
be well advised to double check anything the entity known as
"soelectron" writes to persuade against AGW (that is Anthropogenic
Global Warming for the challenged). For real science you can check the
IPCC, NAS, NASA, and many official science organizations across the
globe and, please, read for context before you embarrass yourself as
the pitiful soelecton has.
hutterite
wrote:
Gee, go figure Delta = change and T= temperature.
Is your last name Einstein?
>You have obviously failed this test
"Test"?
You have failed to deliver even the slightest credible research data
points or credible urls.
The bullshit bluff was amusing, but the paucity of substantive
rebuttal marks you as a disgruntled grad student with nothing to say.
Mark Schaffer
Is there something hard to understand about the simple concept that if
the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
warming?
hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
Well...there you go again...
I never said "THE" cause, I said "A" cause, and by no means negligible
over time.
>for the current rapid increase in global
>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>warming?
Not at all, in fact perhaps just the opposite.
That's how SYSTEMIC alterations progress, there are a host of factors
including INCREASED sea floor volcanism and terrestrial volcanic
liberation of greenhouse gases.
All of which may act to COOL the upper atmosphere.
Go back and study the middle Cretaceous period please, you're simple
too clay-headed for further discourse on this.
Daniel Packman
Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>... if the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>warming
If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
neither is observed)
ef_hutterite
What the sun is doing is putting out more of BOTH!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global
warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05
percent per decade since the late 1970s.
"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or
more," Willson told SPACE.com today.
Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be
short-term. But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate
through the 20th Century, "it would have provided a significant
component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most
frigid.
A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth,
going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's
current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson
said.
Mark Schaffer
Fine, over what period of time and is it indeed increasing? Show a
cite for quantitative numbers from a reliable peer reviewed
publication. Or just click here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42
and here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=58
or more cautiously:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
>
> >for the current rapid increase in global
> >temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
> >warming?
>
> Not at all, in fact perhaps just the opposite.
>
> That's how SYSTEMIC alterations progress, there are a host of factors
> including INCREASED sea floor volcanism and terrestrial volcanic
> liberation of greenhouse gases.
I am sure you can show reliable quantitative evidence from peer review
research that is recent for this? And if so, how can volcanic GHG's
act differently than anthropogenic GHG's.
> All of which may act to COOL the upper atmosphere.
The link to the somewhat political MSU site shows this cooling but
where are the numbers to show the GHG emissions from volcanic activity
is up?
>
> Go back and study the middle Cretaceous period please, you're simple
> too clay-headed for further discourse on this.
Funny you should use the same phraseology that soelectron used. Any
relation? What, exactly, are you claiming for the middle Cretaceous
that would allow direct comparision with today?
2540 Dead
Thus contradicting the claim made in this thread, that a DECREASE in
solar activity was resulting in greater solar output.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:43:53 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>>In article <1152551497....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>... if the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
>>>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>>>warming
>>If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>>upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>>IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
>>neither is observed)
>
>What the sun is doing is putting out more of BOTH!
>
>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>......
You are quoting a secondary source, not a scientific article.
This reports research done by others and does so in such a
broad way that as a reader we cannot evaluate the work. Even
so, the caveats included in the article make it clear that this
effect is far from clearly shown or widely accepted.
ef_hutterite
Wel no kidding, we lacked the instrumentation to measure this for some
time, it's unsuprising there would be a lack of agreement on the
measurements.
Do you have anything of value of subtance to add here fool?
Mark Schaffer
I am curious,
Why would the sun's energy, in any form, not warm all molecules at any
layer? And what is the output of the sun in the IR spectrum? And why
would the sun's output increase in the lower energy spectrum of IR but
not in UV? This is very incoherent.
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
Did you read the articles?
The measure ment is for the last 30 years.
The statistical study implies perhaps the last century.
> Show a
>cite for quantitative numbers from a reliable peer reviewed
>publication.
You're rather a noxious klittle shithead, making claims for "peer
reviewed" after you've come in here and led with nohjing more than
BULLSHIT!
> Or just click here:
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42
>and here:
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=58
>or more cautiously:
>
>http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
>>
>> >for the current rapid increase in global
>> >temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>> >warming?
>>
>> Not at all, in fact perhaps just the opposite.
>>
>> That's how SYSTEMIC alterations progress, there are a host of factors
>> including INCREASED sea floor volcanism and terrestrial volcanic
>> liberation of greenhouse gases.
>
>I am sure you can show reliable quantitative evidence from peer review
>research that is recent for this?
You really have nothing to add to the discussion at all troll, fuck
off. I have presented several articles on the impact of volcanism on
greenhouse gases.
> And if so, how can volcanic GHG's
>act differently than anthropogenic GHG's.
Differently?
Bloody well read the data presented or sod off.
http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html
I like the new buzzword, btw, "anthropogenic"...you really are some
incessant grad-fly aren't you?
>> All of which may act to COOL the upper atmosphere.
>
>The link to the somewhat political MSU site shows this cooling but
>where are the numbers to show the GHG emissions from volcanic activity
>is up?
Read back in the thread, I've provided quite a bit of data.
>> Go back and study the middle Cretaceous period please, you're simple
>> too clay-headed for further discourse on this.
>
>Funny you should use the same phraseology that soelectron used. Any
>relation?
Would that matter to the discussion one iota?
>What, exactly, are you claiming for the middle Cretaceous
>that would allow direct comparision with today?
Volcanism and global warming perhaps?
You ARE slow on the uptake...
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <b9a5b2pp04nucuf3h...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:43:53 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1152551497....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>... if the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
>>>>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>>>>warming
>
>>>If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>>>upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>>>IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
>>>neither is observed)
>>
>>What the sun is doing is putting out more of BOTH!
>>
>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>>......
>
>You are quoting a secondary source, not a scientific article.
I am citing a well written summary of scientific data.
You, otoh, are sematic nitpicking.
>This reports research done by others and does so in such a
>broad way that as a reader we cannot evaluate the work.
No, it is quite comprehensible.
>Even
>so, the caveats included in the article make it clear that this
>effect is far from clearly shown or widely accepted.
Of course, it's only recently measurable data anyway.
But pair it with:
http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html
And some likely parallels can be drawn.
Daniel Packman
Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>Daniel Packman wrote:
>> If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>> upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>> IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
>> neither is observed)
>I am curious,
>Why would the sun's energy, in any form, not warm all molecules at any
>layer?
If all frequencies are absorbed equally by the atmosphere, then one would
expect absorption to occur proportional to density with the higher atmosphere
absorbing less since it is almost a vacuum. One would expect lower levels to
absorb more, but be subject to less incident radiation since some would have
already been absorbed by higher layers. To this simplistic picture, you have
to take into account reradiation from the atmosphere and ground, the absorption
of radiation by the ground, and gas motion.
But it is much more complicated since the absorption is dependent on
frequency. Very high energy radiation (extreme UV) is almost wholly
absorbed in the highest levels of the atmosphere. Other frequencies
are poorly absorbed by the atmosphere at all and warm the ground.
>And what is the output of the sun in the IR spectrum?
The sun is well modeled as a black body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
> And why
>would the sun's output increase in the lower energy spectrum of IR but
>not in UV?
One wouldn't expect this in general. It might occur for other stars if
there were intervening material that could absorb high radiation and
reradiate at lower frequencies.
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <1152574553.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>Daniel Packman wrote:
>
>>> If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>>> upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>>> IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
>>> neither is observed)
>
>>I am curious,
>
>>Why would the sun's energy, in any form, not warm all molecules at any
>>layer?
>
>If all frequencies are absorbed equally by the atmosphere, then one would
>expect absorption to occur proportional to density with the higher atmosphere
>absorbing less since it is almost a vacuum. One would expect lower levels to
>absorb more, but be subject to less incident radiation since some would have
>already been absorbed by higher layers. To this simplistic picture, you have
>to take into account reradiation from the atmosphere and ground, the absorption
>of radiation by the ground, and gas motion.
>
>But it is much more complicated since the absorption is dependent on
>frequency. Very high energy radiation (extreme UV) is almost wholly
>absorbed in the highest levels of the atmosphere. Other frequencies
>are poorly absorbed by the atmosphere at all and warm the ground.
UVB : short wavelength, high atmospehere.
UVA : longer wavelength, low atmosphere
>>And what is the output of the sun in the IR spectrum?
>
>The sun is well modeled as a black body.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
>
>> And why
>>would the sun's output increase in the lower energy spectrum of IR but
>>not in UV?
>
>One wouldn't expect this in general. It might occur for other stars if
>there were intervening material that could absorb high radiation and
>reradiate at lower frequencies.
As in say the planetary model of Saturn?
Lloyd Parker
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>>In article <1152551497....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>... if the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
>>>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>>>warming
>>
>>If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>>upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>>IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
>>neither is observed)
>
>What the sun is doing is putting out more of BOTH!
>
Not in the past 15 years.
>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global
>warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05
>percent per decade since the late 1970s.
Not in the 1990s.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>In article <b9a5b2pp04nucuf3h...@4ax.com>,
> ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:43:53 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1152551497....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>... if the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
>>>>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>>>>warming
>>>
>>>If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>>>upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>>>IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
>>>neither is observed)
>>
>>What the sun is doing is putting out more of BOTH!
>>
>
>Not in the past 15 years.
In the past 30 or so years, liar.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.
>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>>In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global
>>warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05
>>percent per decade since the late 1970s.
>
>Not in the 1990s.
Yup, the 90s too.
"In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's
ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully
piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a
long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991)
between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements
overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05
percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS
results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this
difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain.
Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible
for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a
significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the
solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major
finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and
man-made influences on climate.
NASA's ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the
long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year
minimum mission."
Mark Schaffer
intelligence.
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
Still waiting for you to present the slightest credible contradictory
evidence, well, not waiting really, as that would imply any hope of
seeing such....
Mark Schaffer
I have to give you credit for your continuing inability to understand
and interpret the sources you are quoting. I don't expect you to
actually admit your ignorance but any intelligent reader can note the
age of your links, the more recent data showing why you use that old
data, your inability to understand why, even if the sun is increasing
.05% per decade, that this does not explain away the basic physics
showing AGW to be true, or the false proposition that warming in other
ages discounts what climate researchers know today. For those
interested in actual research take your time with what IPCC, Real
Climate, the NAS, and other credible sources report and ignore posters
without the decency to use their real names and instead denigrate those
they disagree with.
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
And I have to note that yet again here you are, bereft of any
supportive urls, dancing and feinting, but utterly without a punch to
throw.
> I don't expect you to
>actually admit your ignorance but any intelligent reader can note the
>age of your links,
Does science have a shelf life?
Remind me to consign carbon dating and tree rings to the bit bucket as
well!
> the more recent data showing why you use that old
>data,
"Old data"?
The period from the 1970s forward is now "old data"?
>your inability to understand why, even if the sun is increasing
>.05% per decade, that this does not explain away the basic physics
>showing AGW to be true,
Well my goodness you bustling bumpkin, of course it doesn't "explain
it away", it is part and parcel of a series of inputs involved!
You really DO need to pay attention to what I've written, not what you
wish me to have said.
>or the false proposition that warming in other
>ages discounts what climate researchers know today.
Middle Cretaceous my friend, let history and geology be your guide.
>For those
>interested in actual research take your time with what IPCC, Real
>Climate, the NAS, and other credible sources report and ignore posters
>without the decency to use their real names and instead denigrate those
>they disagree with.
And by all means take the advice and content-free critique of some
disgruntled grad student whose summer lark fell from the sky like a
wing-shot pigeon.
Face it, you've disgraced yourself here, now stop the madness and grow
up.
Mark Schaffer
ef_hutterite wrote:
Nothing.
I have to give you credit for your continuing inability to understand
and interpret the sources you are quoting. I don't expect you to
actually admit your ignorance but any intelligent reader can note the
age of your links, the more recent data showing why you use that old
data, your inability to understand why, even if the sun is increasing
.05% per decade, that this does not explain away the basic physics
showing AGW to be true, or the false proposition that warming in other
ages discounts what climate researchers know today. For those
Lloyd Parker
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 06 13:23:20 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <b9a5b2pp04nucuf3h...@4ax.com>,
>> ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:43:53 +0000 (UTC),
>>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1152551497....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>... if the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
>>>>>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>>>>>warming
>>>>
>>>>If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>>>>upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>>>>IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of course,
>>>>neither is observed)
>>>
>>>What the sun is doing is putting out more of BOTH!
>>>
>>
>>Not in the past 15 years.
>
>In the past 30 or so years, liar.
>
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
>March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
>NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
>
Check their Image 4. Notice a decrease during the 1990s, yet the earth warmed
to its highest ever.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
Ever hear of the 11 year sunspot cycle Lloyd?
You fool.
Lame try.
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>
>ef_hutterite wrote:
> Nothing.
>
>I have to give you credit for
<SNIP>
Post this as many times as you wish.
It has already been replied to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I have to give you credit for your continuing inability to understand
>and interpret the sources you are quoting.
And I have to note that yet again here you are, bereft of any
supportive urls, dancing and feinting, but utterly without a punch to
throw.
> I don't expect you to
>actually admit your ignorance but any intelligent reader can note the
>age of your links,
Does science have a shelf life?
Remind me to consign carbon dating and tree rings to the bit bucket as
well!
> the more recent data showing why you use that old
>data,
"Old data"?
The period from the 1970s forward is now "old data"?
>your inability to understand why, even if the sun is increasing
>.05% per decade, that this does not explain away the basic physics
>showing AGW to be true,
Well my goodness you bustling bumpkin, of course it doesn't "explain
it away", it is part and parcel of a series of inputs involved!
You really DO need to pay attention to what I've written, not what you
wish me to have said.
>or the false proposition that warming in other
>ages discounts what climate researchers know today.
Middle Cretaceous my friend, let history and geology be your guide.
>For those
>interested in actual research take your time with what IPCC, Real
>Climate, the NAS, and other credible sources report and ignore posters
>without the decency to use their real names and instead denigrate those
>they disagree with.
And by all means take the advice and content-free critique of some
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 06 14:11:35 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>>>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
>>>March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
>>>NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
>>Check their Image 4. Notice a decrease during the 1990s, yet the earth warmed
>>to its highest ever.
>Ever hear of the 11 year sunspot cycle Lloyd?
The dominant change in the data is indeed the 11 year solar cycle.
A good reference to current results can be found here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
As they point out, accurate measurements have only been made since
space based detectors became available about 1978 and we have only
measured two solar minima. Note that the maxima do not show any
increase and the dataset is sufficiently short (only two minima)
that conclusions based on extrapolation are premature.
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <ovrab2p7dokkblnq9...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jul 06 14:11:35 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>......
>
>>>>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
>>>>March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
>>>>NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
>
>>>Check their Image 4. Notice a decrease during the 1990s, yet the earth warmed
>>>to its highest ever.
>
>>Ever hear of the 11 year sunspot cycle Lloyd?
>
>The dominant change in the data is indeed the 11 year solar cycle.
Of course, it is a cycle, a pattern...
>A good reference to current results can be found here:
>
>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>
>As they point out, accurate measurements have only been made since
>space based detectors became available about 1978
True.
>and we have only
>measured two solar minima.
Also true, Lloyd must be loving this..
>Note that the maxima do not show any
>increase and the dataset is sufficiently short (only two minima)
>that conclusions based on extrapolation are premature.
Nope, the middle Cretaceous is where I refer you as well.
And then the "little" ice age...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most
frigid.
Large-scale ocean and climate variations on Earth can also mask
long-term trends and can make it difficult to sort out what is normal,
what is unusual, and which effects might or might not result from
shifts in solar radiation.
To get above all this, scientists rely on measurements of total solar
energy, at all wavelengths, outside Earth's atmosphere. The figure
they derive is called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
Heating up
The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent
over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change,
Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were
maintained for a century or more.
On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2
percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of
the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however
equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a
year, the researchers estimate.
The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at
different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one
of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering
the trend.
A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth,
going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's
current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson
said.
As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
~ increasing solar radiation
~ increasing sea floor volcanism
~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
And I can, and will paper you to death with plenty of good studies on
all of the above!
enjoy!
Mark Schaffer
between a good study and bad one. Name one respected peer reviewed
article in a refereed journal that showes increasing sea floor
volcanism that in any way is causing an increase in GHG's. You can't
because no reputable journal would publish such drivel. See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/
and:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf
and:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm
for a complete debunking of ef_hutterite's nonsense.
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>The reader will understand that you wouldn't recognize the difference
>between a good study and bad one.
The reader will know that you were soundly spanked and now are engaged
in a fruitless quest to salvage the credibility you never had to begin
with.
> Name one respected peer reviewed
>article in a refereed journal that showes increasing sea floor
>volcanism that in any way is causing an increase in GHG's.
Well now let's try and banish another one of your strawmen, shall we.
I never stated that _sea floor volcanism_ is increasing greenhouse
gases; obviously with all that water above a goodly portion would be
absorbed and filtered out.
I DO say that it has effected overal warming by increasing sea
temperatures.
And given that is part of the global energy budget it is an important
factor, as last year's Gulf hurricane intensity correlation with
higher Gulf water temperatures demonstrated.
>You can't
>because no reputable journal would publish such drivel.
Nor have I said they would.
The studies I referenced, should you EVER choose to be honest (and no
one is holding their breath on this) discuss the impact of terrestrial
volcanism on greenhouse gases, and specifically cite the middle to
late Cretaceous period.
You're little more than a tiresome gnat, but here, for anyone still
following this thread, is the reference, yet again:
http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html
Rapid eruption of the vast Deccan Traps lava fields would have flooded
earth's surface with CO2, overwhelming surficial systems and sinks,
triggering rapid K-T transition greenhouse warming, chemical changes
in the oceans (McLean, 1985a, b, c; 1988, 1995), and the K-T mass
extinctions.
To read my paper "Deccan Traps mantle degassing in the terminal
Cretaceous marine extinctions" (Cretaceous Research, 1985), please
click on McLean (1985).
For evidence that a carbon cycle perturbation and greenhouse warming
began at the same time as the Deccan Traps volcanism and persisted for
the duration of the Deccan Traps volcanism, see Brazos River, Texas,
Isotope Record). Other localities showing evidences of K-T transition
warming are: Atlantic Ocean DSDP sites 384, 86, 95, 152, 144, 20C, 21,
356, 357, and 329; Indian Ocean DSDP sites 212, 217, 220, 237, and
253; South Atlantic DSDP site 524; Denmark; Biarritz, France;
Lattengebirge, Germany; Zumaya, Spain; Caravaca, Spain; and Pacific
and Atlantic Ocean DSDP sites.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:57:41 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
.....
>>A good reference to current results can be found here:
>>
>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>>
>>As they point out, accurate measurements have only been made since
>>space based detectors became available about 1978
>
>True.
>
>>and we have only
>>measured two solar minima.
>
>Also true, Lloyd must be loving this..
>
>>Note that the maxima do not show any
>>increase and the dataset is sufficiently short (only two minima)
>>that conclusions based on extrapolation are premature.
>
>Nope, the middle Cretaceous is where I refer you as well.
There remains only about 30 years measurement of total solar output.
Yes, we know the climate has changed over many time scales over
millenia. An absolute and complete understanding of all this variation
is not vital to examination of the last few hundred years. It would be
nice, but it is not a necessity.
>And then the "little" ice age...
>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most frigid.
This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
>.....
>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
Perhaps you can point out specific numbers to back this up.
>~ increasing solar radiation
Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
frequency of global volcanism"
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
this is not a greater source of such gasses.
Mark Schaffer
ef_hutterite wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2006 22:17:55 -0700, "Mark Schaffer"
> <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >The reader will understand that you wouldn't recognize the difference
> >between a good study and bad one.
>
> The reader will know that you were soundly spanked and now are engaged
> in a fruitless quest to salvage the credibility you never had to begin
> with.
>
> > Name one respected peer reviewed
> >article in a refereed journal that showes increasing sea floor
> >volcanism that in any way is causing an increase in GHG's.
>
> Well now let's try and banish another one of your strawmen, shall we.
>
> I never stated that _sea floor volcanism_ is increasing greenhouse
> gases; obviously with all that water above a goodly portion would be
> absorbed and filtered out.
>
> I DO say that it has effected overal warming by increasing sea
> temperatures.
I supplied. You are intellectually dishonest.
Mark Schaffer
ef_hutterite wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2006 22:17:55 -0700, "Mark Schaffer"
> <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >The reader will understand that you wouldn't recognize the difference
> >between a good study and bad one.
>
> The reader will know that you were soundly spanked and now are engaged
> in a fruitless quest to salvage the credibility you never had to begin
> with.
>
> > Name one respected peer reviewed
> >article in a refereed journal that showes increasing sea floor
> >volcanism that in any way is causing an increase in GHG's.
>
> Well now let's try and banish another one of your strawmen, shall we.
>
> I never stated that _sea floor volcanism_ is increasing greenhouse
> gases; obviously with all that water above a goodly portion would be
> absorbed and filtered out.
>
> I DO say that it has effected overal warming by increasing sea
> temperatures.
The reader will understand that you wouldn't recognize the difference
article in a refereed journal that showes increasing sea floor
because no reputable journal would publish such drivel. See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcani...
and:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContri...
Lloyd Parker
The report YOU cited shows solar activity decreasing in the 1990s yet the
earth warmed. Perhaps you should look at your own references.
Lloyd Parker
Please face a mirror and repeat the above sentence 3 times.
>
>On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2
>percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of
>the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however
>equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a
>year, the researchers estimate.
>
>The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at
>different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one
>of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering
>the trend.
>
>A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth,
>going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's
>current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson
>said.
>
>
>
>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
>
>~ increasing solar radiation
Taken into account.
>
>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
Not a new thing in the last 120 years.
>
>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
Ditto.
Lloyd Parker
Like citing the middle ages to try to prove feudalism is causing disease
today.
>
>You're little more than a tiresome gnat, but here, for anyone still
>following this thread, is the reference, yet again:
>
>http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages
/studentv.html
>Rapid eruption of the vast Deccan Traps lava fields would have flooded
>earth's surface with CO2, overwhelming surficial systems and sinks,
>triggering rapid K-T transition greenhouse warming, chemical changes
>in the oceans (McLean, 1985a, b, c; 1988, 1995), and the K-T mass
>extinctions.
Look at a calendar -- what year is it? What century?
ef_hutterite
wrote:
Well no kidding, ever hear of seasonal lag?
> Perhaps you should look at your own references.
Perhaps you should quit trying to massage the facts,
ef_hutterite
wrote:
Please face a timeline and note that there is no way to say it has NOT
been happening for a century or more as we have only had solid
instrumentation to measure for 30 years.
Middle Cretaceous for you Lloyd, you soon to be extinct intellectual
snob.
>>
>>On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2
>>percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of
>>the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however
>>equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a
>>year, the researchers estimate.
>>
>>The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at
>>different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one
>>of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering
>>the trend.
>>
>>A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth,
>>going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's
>>current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson
>>said.
>>
>>
>>
>>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
>>
>>~ increasing solar radiation
>
>Taken into account.
Not by you.
>>
>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>
>Not a new thing in the last 120 years.
Well really?
How much of that were we able to accurately measure 100 years ago?
Eh?
>>
>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>
>Ditto.
Yes it is a source, thank you.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>In article <jvkcb2pbon5t0opvb...@4ax.com>,
What a total fuckoff non sequitur, SCREW YOU TO HELL LLYOD, YOU LYING
POS!
>>
>>You're little more than a tiresome gnat, but here, for anyone still
>>following this thread, is the reference, yet again:
>>
>>http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages
>/studentv.html
>>Rapid eruption of the vast Deccan Traps lava fields would have flooded
>>earth's surface with CO2, overwhelming surficial systems and sinks,
>>triggering rapid K-T transition greenhouse warming, chemical changes
>>in the oceans (McLean, 1985a, b, c; 1988, 1995), and the K-T mass
>>extinctions.
>
>Look at a calendar -- what year is it? What century?
Look at history, which epocs might repeat?
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <r2abb25ajnjah7bda...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:57:41 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>.....
>>>A good reference to current results can be found here:
>>>
>>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>>>
>>>As they point out, accurate measurements have only been made since
>>>space based detectors became available about 1978
>>
>>True.
>>
>>>and we have only
>>>measured two solar minima.
>>
>>Also true, Lloyd must be loving this..
>>
>>>Note that the maxima do not show any
>>>increase and the dataset is sufficiently short (only two minima)
>>>that conclusions based on extrapolation are premature.
>>
>>Nope, the middle Cretaceous is where I refer you as well.
>
>There remains only about 30 years measurement of total solar output.
There stands the potential that more than 30 years of such increase
has occurred.
>Yes, we know the climate has changed over many time scales over
>millenia. An absolute and complete understanding of all this variation
>is not vital to examination of the last few hundred years. It would be
>nice, but it is not a necessity.
More than nice, didactic!
>>And then the "little" ice age...
>
>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>>Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most frigid.
>
>This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
>affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
>the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
No...there is quite a bit of data actually, whether you clay heads are
willing to integrate it to the models is another thing altogether.
>>.....
>>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
>
>Perhaps you can point out specific numbers to back this up.
Are you high?
We have Gore's slide show blather, Brokaw's forthcoming conformational
Discovery special, the entire lieberal community has made man-caused
CO2 warming their new secular religion!!!
>>~ increasing solar radiation
>
>Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
Current data is 30 years, do not so easily dismiss that the trend
might be longer.
>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>
>"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
>increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
>frequency of global volcanism"
>
>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
Believe as you wish, what were the measurement accuracies over the
past few hundred years.
This is as specious as the tornado/population deniers.
Oh I know...there are more of us, so that automatically means there
can't be possibly be more tornadic activity since we altered the urban
heatscape...it's just us noticing more, nothing else...right....
Sheesh!
>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>
>If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
>this is not a greater source of such gasses.
It is one of several inputs which can, for mesoscale purposes, be
spiked at various times while still showing a long term constancy.
Again, middle Cretaceous.
Keep denying and blaming one factor in the equation, that is why ALL
you lot look like "true believers".
Mark Schaffer
ef...whatever is not going to get what you and I are posting because he
doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do so. I am going to let him
believe he has 'won' while knowing the astute readers will see him for
the fool he is. I have solar on my roof, have bought carbon offsets,
xeriscaping, give to progressive causes, share a car with my wife, and
try to influence my co-workers in a positive fashion. What do you
suggest we can do in addition to these measures to overcome the high
levels of ignorance displayed by many United States citizens regarding
AGW?
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>
>ef_hutterite wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2006 22:17:55 -0700, "Mark Schaffer"
>> <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The reader will understand that you wouldn't recognize the difference
>> >between a good study and bad one.
>>
>> The reader will know that you were soundly spanked and now are engaged
>> in a fruitless quest to salvage the credibility you never had to begin
>> with.
>>
>> > Name one respected peer reviewed
>> >article in a refereed journal that showes increasing sea floor
>> >volcanism that in any way is causing an increase in GHG's.
>>
>> Well now let's try and banish another one of your strawmen, shall we.
>>
>> I never stated that _sea floor volcanism_ is increasing greenhouse
>> gases; obviously with all that water above a goodly portion would be
>> absorbed and filtered out.
>>
>> I DO say that it has effected overal warming by increasing sea
>> temperatures.
>Show the data that prove this.
Warm Oceans Raise Land Temperatures
Eos - Newspaper of American Geophysical Union | Vol. 87 No. 19 | 09
May 2006
During 2004, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were the third warmest in
the past 125 years, land surface temperatures were the fourth warmest,
and globally averaged temperatures likewise ranked fourth highest
[Levinson, 2005]. This article presents evidence that SSTs contributed
significantly to the widespread terrestrial and global tropospheric
warmth.
Eos - Newspaper of American Geophysical Union | Vol. 87 No. 22 | 30
May 2006
Abnormally high levels of methane gas in seafloor sediments could pose
a major hazard to coastal populations within the next 100 years
through their impact on climate change and sea level rise. Marine
scientists have known for many years that biogenic methane is
generated in shallow seabed sediments on continental margins,
especially in rapidly deposited muddy sediments with high organic
matter content.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/misc/gvn/fernandina.v20n02.html
Fernandina
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
0.37S, 91.55W; summit elev. 1,495 m
All times are local (= GMT - 6 hours)
The fissure eruption first observed on 25 January (Bulletin v. 20,
no. 1), has continued sending lava flows down the SW flank and into
the sea. All of the new flows appeared to be aa lavas (figure 11).
Godfrey Merlen compared the eruption intensity in late January to
5 March and concluded that it had decreased significantly.
According to reports at press time, eruptions continued through at
least 19 March.
In March the sea surface temperature was up to 45
deg C, while it was about 24.5 deg C at a distance from the new
delta.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves
as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an
important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.
The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long,
appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.
"Once formed they can possibly hang around for years," Murton said.
The heat from such events could have a dramatic effect on ocean
circulation, which plays a role in determining Earth's climate.
"The energy content is an order of magnitude greater [than ordinary
plumes], and the thermal power may be many orders of magnitude
greater," Murton said.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051024/volcano_pla.html
Oct. 27, 2005 — Noisy popping rocks hauled up from the deep Pacific
seafloor off northern Mexico appear to be from a very young undersea
volcano, say U.S. and Mexican geologists.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/01/MNGEL5B7VE1.DTL
A puzzling heating trend on the bottom of the North Pacific has left
oceanographers scratching their heads.
Since 1985, just south of the Aleutian Islands and about 3 miles
beneath the waves, in a pitch-black realm haunted by "Finding
Nemo"-style fish with nasty fangs and glowing antennae, the
temperature has risen by a tiny fraction of a degree --
five-thousandths of a degree Centigrade, to be exact.
Sounds slight, right? But the temperature shouldn't be rising at all,
or hardly at all, over such a geologically short time, according to
respected computer models. The history of science shows that slight
discrepancies occasionally lead to big discoveries, hence
oceanographers are carefully scrutinizing the find.
"We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have
warmed significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin,"
Japanese and Canadian scientists report in the current issue of the
journal Nature.
Masao Fukasawa of the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center in
Yokosuka, Japan, and five other researchers discovered the temperature
change by going to sea on three research vessels and measuring
deep-water temperatures across the North Pacific. Then they compared
those temperature measurements to measurements made by researchers in
1985.
The warming isn't caused by an impending El Niño, one of those quasi-
cyclical Pacific warming episodes that turn California either into a
floodplain or a drought land, experts say. That's because El Niños
concentrate farther south and in shallower water.
Nor can the warming be blamed on undersea volcanic eruptions -- not
easily, anyway. Volcanoes heat water only over short distances,
whereas the observed deep-sea warming stretches from one side of the
North Pacific to the other, the scientists say.
Climate scientist Andrew Weaver, of the University of Victoria in
British Columbia, said the undersea-volcanism possibility "was one of
the first things I thought about" when he read the Nature paper. Even
so, Weaver, who isn't connected with the Fukasawa team, doubts that
explanation because the warming is so uniform over a large area,
whereas undersea volcanism tends to be along midocean ridges.
The warming is especially strange because the deep waters of the North
Pacific are an old folks' home of the global ocean -- a sluggish,
bone- chilling abyss where, according to theory, nothing happens very
fast. Here are some of the world's "oldest" oceanic waters, about 800
years old. That is, they began sinking from the ocean surface to the
seafloor during the days of the Vikings.
Or so scientists assumed. Now, the Nature article reports that by some
unknown means and much faster than assumed, the solar-heated water is
finding its way to the ocean floor in decades, not centuries. In fact,
the researchers estimate it reached the bottom within 50 years.
But how?
The Fukasawa team's findings show a warming in the deep North Pacific
over a "shorter time scale and larger spatial scale than (has) ever
been believed," Fukasawa said in an e-mail. "As (far) as I know, our
result is the first which shows such a large-scale temperature change
in the global thermohaline circulation," that is, in global heat and
salt circulation via ocean currents.
Joseph Reid, a veteran oceanographer at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in La Jolla (San Diego County), not associated with the
research, said the undersea heating "is surprisingly large over that
period of time, some 20 years. It's the first convincing evidence of
warming at that depth. I can say I was surprised."
>>How convenient of you to cut the links
>I supplied. You are intellectually dishonest.
Your links are where you left them, I found them uselessly dismissive.
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>
>ef_hutterite wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2006 22:17:55 -0700, "Mark Schaffer"
>> <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The reader will understand that you wouldn't recognize the difference
>> >between a good study and bad one.
>>
>> The reader will know that you were soundly spanked and now are engaged
>> in a fruitless quest to salvage the credibility you never had to begin
>> with.
>>
>> > Name one respected peer reviewed
>> >article in a refereed journal that showes increasing sea floor
>> >volcanism that in any way is causing an increase in GHG's.
>>
>> Well now let's try and banish another one of your strawmen, shall we.
>>
>> I never stated that _sea floor volcanism_ is increasing greenhouse
>> gases; obviously with all that water above a goodly portion would be
>> absorbed and filtered out.
>>
>> I DO say that it has effected overal warming by increasing sea
>> temperatures.
>Here is the original unaltered post with links:
It's stil there, your repetition is the sign of child's temper
tantrum.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 06 14:45:12 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>>>The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent
>>>over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change,
>>>Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were
>>>maintained for a century or more.
>>Please face a mirror and repeat the above sentence 3 times.
>Please face a timeline and note that there is no way to say it has NOT
>been happening for a century or more as we have only had solid
>instrumentation to measure for 30 years.
Yes, the limited direct evidence doesn't tell us much about the
previous history of the solar output. Indirect measurements can be
made of sunspot numbers and radioactive isotopes in antarctic ice:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14751
THe conclusion here, which seems reasonable, is that the significant
rise in temperature since 1980 is indeed due to greenhouse gases, but
solar variation did (and does) play a large role in climate.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:07:11 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>There remains only about 30 years measurement of total solar output.
>There stands the potential that more than 30 years of such increase
>has occurred.
Yes. But the conclusions here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14751
suggest that recent variations are not large enough to
to dominate global heating since 1980.
.....
>>This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
>>affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
>>the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
>No...there is quite a bit of data actually, whether you clay heads are
>willing to integrate it to the models is another thing altogether.
Specifics?
......
>We have Gore's slide show blather, Brokaw's forthcoming conformational
>Discovery special, the entire lieberal community has made man-caused
>CO2 warming their new secular religion!!!
These are popular works, not scientific references.
Time, Newsweek, and the New York times are similarly not references.
>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>
>>Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
>
>Current data is 30 years, do not so easily dismiss that the trend
>might be longer.
It remains a factor to include. Modelers don't dismiss it.
>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>>"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
>>increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
>>frequency of global volcanism"
>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>
>Believe as you wish, what were the measurement accuracies over the
>past few hundred years.
>
>This is as specious as the tornado/population deniers.
Just because you are not an expert in the subject and haven't
studied it in depth like these authors doesn't make you an expert.
>Oh I know...there are more of us, so that automatically means there
>can't be possibly be more tornadic activity since we altered the urban
>heatscape...it's just us noticing more, nothing else...right....
This is not a convincing scientific refutation. Where are your numbers?
Show us your calculations.
>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>
>>If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
>>this is not a greater source of such gasses.
>It is one of several inputs which can, for mesoscale purposes, be
>spiked at various times while still showing a long term constancy.
Sure. And, as you have said, this source is mitigated by CO2 dissolving
in rain and sea water.
Daniel Packman
Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>...... What do you
>suggest we can do in addition to these measures to overcome the high
>levels of ignorance displayed by many United States citizens regarding
>AGW?
It is dismaying to see many scientific issues (global warming, evolution,
ozone hole...) "debated" in the press. The discussion devolves into a
meta discussion of "who funded the study", "what does this researcher
have to gain", and "what a typical political stance". One of the reasons
for this is that the audience feels well qualified to discuss these
secondary issues and a bit unsure about the science itself.
But, these *are* secondary issues. Geniuses can make mistakes and
biased sources can sometimes do the right thing. The science must
stand on its own.
Nevertheless, public understanding is vital because a great deal
depends on decisions we make on these issues. And these decisions
are properly the domain of the public (at least in this country),
not some self-proclaimed elite.
We must carefully steer conversations aware from the secondary issues
and back to the science itself. We would be helped if the general
populace had a better grouding in science.
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
Nice one Pack, you fucking asshole.
You know damned well the science has been ginned on global warming
into a political agenda, and sitting there at UCAR you have the
fucking gall to play the intellectual elitist card, you worthless son
of a bitch!
> I am going to let him
>believe he has 'won' while knowing the astute readers will see him for
>the fool he is.
What astute readers are seeing, you scum sucking hypocrite, are
"scientists" using their credentials to bully pulpit ONE global
warming input to the exception of all others, and you bastards have
the gall to play the card knowing damned well you're misrepresenting
the data.
I pity your poor closed minds, your unwillingness to do more than
"peer review" yourselves into orgies of circle jerk mutual
masturbation. What consummate assholes you are.
> I have solar on my roof, have bought carbon offsets,
>xeriscaping, give to progressive causes, share a car with my wife, and
>try to influence my co-workers in a positive fashion.
Thanks Pack, thanks for finally, after all these years, coming clean
to the fact you're a far left eco-weeny, elitist Boulderite whose true
agenda has so much less to do with science and so much more to do with
social engineering.
You have danced around revealing who and what you are for years,
literally years, and now it's out.
Bravo - honesty isn't something you embrace on a daily basis now is
it?
I mean come on, all these years we have danced here and not once would
you show your true self, and now, with a peanut gallery of adoring
academic hypocrites you feel at long last emboldened to take the
personal swipe at me, claim the elitist's high ground, and strut like
the cock of the walk.
FUCK YOU.
>What do you
>suggest we can do in addition to these measures to overcome the high
>levels of ignorance displayed by many United States citizens regarding
>AGW?
Oh fucking A, make all the children watch Al Gore's propagandist slide
show till they puke back the same scripted pseudo-scientific drivel he
does.
Go on, now we ALL know what the program of indoctrination is.
You worthless SOB.
ef_hutterite
Sorry, I flamed YOU when it was that pissant grad student twat
Shaeffer.
My bad.
But again you are playing ONE input over all the others, you're
dancing around the middle Cretaceous, and even in slamming greenhouse
gasses you're indicting the 1980s while ignoring the decades before
when we had little or NO pollution controls!
We have the unhappy coincidence - I believe - of several increasing
factors, solar radiation, sea floor volcanism, terrestrial volcanism,
AND certainly human carbon liberation.
But to point to man as the one and major factor is completely
premature.
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=116
Global Warming/Hurricane Link Debunked
The Cooler Heads coalition sponsored a science briefing for media and
congressional staff on October 9, featuring Dr. William Gray,
professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. Gray,
the foremost expert on hurricanes in the U.S., spoke about the link
between global warming and hurricanes.
According to Gray, hurricane activity follows a natural 20 to 40 year
cycle that is correlated to changes in ocean currents. The 1940s and
1950s, for example saw many land-falling tropical storms. From
1947-1960 there were 14 land-falling storms, but from 1960-1988 there
were only 2. We are now in a period of heightened hurricane activity.
The mechanism that controls the Earth’s most important and largest
ocean current, known as the thermohaline circulation, is salinity. The
Atlantic Ocean is much saltier than other oceans because there is more
evaporation than rain. This salty (and warmer) water travels north
where it sinks due to its higher density, cools and returns to the
south. There it warms and becomes saltier, beginning the process once
again.
Finally, Dr. Gray made some predictions. He believes that we are
entering a period of weakened thermohaline circulation which means
that we will see fewer land-falling hurricanes and a slight decrease
in global temperatures over the next 2 to 4 decades. He also predicted
that there will be fewer El Niño events over the next 20 to 30 years.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On 13 Jul 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "Mark Schaffer"
><mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>ef...whatever is not going to get what you and I are posting because he
>>doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do so.
>Nice one Pack, you fucking asshole.
You are atributing this post incorrectly.
I did not post it.
>You know damned well the science has been ginned on global warming ....
Everyone I know does the best and most honest job they can.
A simple apology on your part would be appropriate here.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:01:46 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
.....
>Sorry, I flamed YOU when it was that pissant grad student twat
>Shaeffer.
>
>My bad.
Good. Let's move on. And focus on issues, not Other Stuff.
>But again you are playing ONE input over all the others, you're
>dancing around the middle Cretaceous, and even in slamming greenhouse
>gasses you're indicting the 1980s while ignoring the decades before
>when we had little or NO pollution controls!
The correlation of CO2 to global temperature is rather strong
over many thousands of years. More to the point, the agreement
with theory (including phase lag) suggests that we do have a good
handle on the basic physics.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
>We have the unhappy coincidence - I believe - of several increasing
>factors, solar radiation, sea floor volcanism, terrestrial volcanism,
>AND certainly human carbon liberation.
I certainly hope so, particularly if these effects spontaneously reverse
themselves.
>But to point to man as the one and major factor is completely premature.
This conclusion suggests a paralysis of ignorance.
If we are the one significant factor that we have control over,
then we are justified in closely examining what we can do about
our contribution. How sure do we have to be before we take action?
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <75ndb2hqpu656mp9o...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:07:11 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>>>There remains only about 30 years measurement of total solar output.
>
>>There stands the potential that more than 30 years of such increase
>>has occurred.
>
>Yes. But the conclusions here:
>
>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14751
>
>suggest that recent variations are not large enough to
>to dominate global heating since 1980.
1980 is not the magic number, despite what the "blame man" crowd seem
to believe.
Global warming, like ozone depletion, is a LAGGING indicator!
>.....
>>>This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
>>>affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
>>>the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
>
>>No...there is quite a bit of data actually, whether you clay heads are
>>willing to integrate it to the models is another thing altogether.
>
>Specifics?
The web site I referenced on the Cretaceous.
>......
>>We have Gore's slide show blather, Brokaw's forthcoming conformational
>>Discovery special, the entire lieberal community has made man-caused
>>CO2 warming their new secular religion!!!
>
>These are popular works, not scientific references.
Do tell!
>Time, Newsweek, and the New York times are similarly not references.
Depends on whom they cite doesn't it?
Don't play the hidden study game here.
>>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>>
>>>Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
>>
>>Current data is 30 years, do not so easily dismiss that the trend
>>might be longer.
>
>It remains a factor to include. Modelers don't dismiss it.
Then why harp on the 30 year aspect?
Are we also to remand geology to Lyell's uniformitarianism only as
more recent measuring tools are of short duration?
>>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>
>>>"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
>>>increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
>>>frequency of global volcanism"
>
>>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>>
>>Believe as you wish, what were the measurement accuracies over the
>>past few hundred years.
>>
>>This is as specious as the tornado/population deniers.
>
>Just because you are not an expert in the subject and haven't
>studied it in depth like these authors doesn't make you an expert.
Don't even bother to play that card bud, you will soon be disabused of
those easy palliatives.
>>Oh I know...there are more of us, so that automatically means there
>>can't be possibly be more tornadic activity since we altered the urban
>>heatscape...it's just us noticing more, nothing else...right....
>
>This is not a convincing scientific refutation. Where are your numbers?
>Show us your calculations.
It's every as bit as convincing as claiming that a phenomenon which
may well have been unedr-reported might just as easily have been
increasing at the same time the population grew.
>>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>>
>>>If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
>>>this is not a greater source of such gasses.
>
>>It is one of several inputs which can, for mesoscale purposes, be
>>spiked at various times while still showing a long term constancy.
>
>Sure. And, as you have said, this source is mitigated by CO2 dissolving
>in rain and sea water.
It can be, but we both know there are many instances where sea floor
vents release significant greenhouse gases.
So don't just play one side of that coin.
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <1152835416.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>
>>...... What do you
>>suggest we can do in addition to these measures to overcome the high
>>levels of ignorance displayed by many United States citizens regarding
>>AGW?
>
>It is dismaying to see many scientific issues (global warming, evolution,
>ozone hole...) "debated" in the press.
Why?
>The discussion devolves into a
>meta discussion of "who funded the study", "what does this researcher
>have to gain", and "what a typical political stance". One of the reasons
>for this is that the audience feels well qualified to discuss these
>secondary issues and a bit unsure about the science itself.
That's a cop out.
There are plenty of capable credentialed scientific journalists who
can and DO relate to the layman the critical conclusions of what can
be quite dry and number-laden studies.
>But, these *are* secondary issues. Geniuses can make mistakes and
>biased sources can sometimes do the right thing. The science must
>stand on its own.
>
>Nevertheless, public understanding is vital because a great deal
>depends on decisions we make on these issues. And these decisions
>are properly the domain of the public (at least in this country),
>not some self-proclaimed elite.
Ouch.
>We must carefully steer conversations aware from the secondary issues
>and back to the science itself. We would be helped if the general
>populace had a better grouding in science.
And if you abandoned the elitist attitude, adopted a more tech-writer
practicality, and took matters into your own hands and released and
promoted, even self-published, useful synopses for all levels of
readership (grade school through college) as well as mass media...
Instead you sit at the locus of research and decry that the common man
hasn't received an invite to the ivory towers. Whose bloody fault is
that?
If nabobs like Mike Nelson can tornado dance their way into every
frigging elementary school in Colorado, where is the NCAR contingent
when it comes to providing concrete fundamentals in area science
classes K-12?
Riddle me that, bat boy!
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <oj0eb21p6u86rfvig...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On 13 Jul 2006 17:03:36 -0700, "Mark Schaffer"
>><mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>.......
>>>ef...whatever is not going to get what you and I are posting because he
>>>doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do so.
>
>>Nice one Pack, you fucking asshole.
>
>You are atributing this post incorrectly.
>I did not post it.
My bad, as I noted.
I will not multipane my reply windows again - entirely my error.
>>You know damned well the science has been ginned on global warming ....
>
>Everyone I know does the best and most honest job they can.
>A simple apology on your part would be appropriate here.
I have and do.
My bad.
I misattributed that and caught it seconds after the post went out,
sorry.
********************************************************************************
Now let me push you fairly into a corner.
Do you agree that we stand on the cusp (geologic time if you prefer)
of the next ice age?
And be candid; I have a strong suspicion that you lot have an inkling
that the golbal warming charade is just that, a feint from the reality
that swift climatic reversal is nigh.
Care to address that one?
ef_hutterite
<mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>ef...whatever is not going to get what you and I are posting because
Because you're both fucking LIARS!
Damn you for even playing at this, you lost wages junior college
cretin.
Your stunning lack of scientific acumen is mordantly dismissive, yet
vocally absurd.
And even worse, what the frigging Hell is a data base administrator
for UNLV doing pretending to be a climatologist???
What a fraud you are.
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <d71eb2pncj4a78pqk...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:01:46 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>.....
>>Sorry, I flamed YOU when it was that pissant grad student twat
>>Shaeffer.
>>
>>My bad.
>
>Good. Let's move on. And focus on issues, not Other Stuff.
As you wish, it was still my error.
>>But again you are playing ONE input over all the others, you're
>>dancing around the middle Cretaceous, and even in slamming greenhouse
>>gasses you're indicting the 1980s while ignoring the decades before
>>when we had little or NO pollution controls!
>
>The correlation of CO2 to global temperature is rather strong
>over many thousands of years.
Yes...
>More to the point, the agreement
>with theory (including phase lag) suggests that we do have a good
>handle on the basic physics.
Somewhat true, although if solar input was also increasing, along with
a few other suspects, how can we single out just ONE culprit?
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
>
>
>>We have the unhappy coincidence - I believe - of several increasing
>>factors, solar radiation, sea floor volcanism, terrestrial volcanism,
>>AND certainly human carbon liberation.
>
>I certainly hope so, particularly if these effects spontaneously reverse
>themselves.
Oh my, now that's a happy/unhappy situation, unless you really like
ice axes.
>>But to point to man as the one and major factor is completely premature.
>
>This conclusion suggests a paralysis of ignorance.
Really?
On whose part, Gore's?
>If we are the one significant factor that we have control over,
>then we are justified in closely examining what we can do about
>our contribution. How sure do we have to be before we take action?
If we SELL the need solely as an act of self-flagellation, clothe it
in a hatred for population growth, capitalism, technology, etc. we
have created a SECULAR religion, a faith based, self-loathing,
scientific/religious analog from which we can never receive true
absolution as long as we deny the rest of the climate model inputs.
Are you not getting my point?
Have I been obtuse in identifying how and why the human CO2 indictment
is being misrepresented???
Come on, you must know that be it Gore or Brokaw the cherry picking
has been obvious.
Far more salient and honest, if one wishes remediation of our own
impacts, to be forthright and note the other 3 factors warming this
sphere and our inability to moderate them and use THAT as a lynch pin
to cajole us into reduced CO2 production, don't you think?
Or is it Kosher to sell the science with a convenient boogy man and
ignore the realities of the Cretaceous record?
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:13:04 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>>In article <75ndb2hqpu656mp9o...@4ax.com>,
>>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:07:11 +0000 (UTC),
>>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>
>>>>There remains only about 30 years measurement of total solar output.
>>
>>>There stands the potential that more than 30 years of such increase
>>>has occurred.
>>
>>Yes. But the conclusions here:
>>
>>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14751
>>
>>suggest that recent variations are not large enough to
>>to dominate global heating since 1980.
>
>1980 is not the magic number, despite what the "blame man" crowd seem
>to believe.
I'm not sure what you mean. Any given date isn't, of course,
magical but 1980 is a convenient date to use as a base for
subsequent increases. Perhaps 1950 would be a better date:
http://zfacts.com/p/194.html
>Global warming, like ozone depletion, is a LAGGING indicator!
Lagging whatever is forcing it?
Ozone is depleted only after CFCs increase?
Warming occurs only after...
>>.....
>>>>This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
>>>>affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
>>>>the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
>>
>>>No...there is quite a bit of data actually, whether you clay heads are
>>>willing to integrate it to the models is another thing altogether.
>>
>>Specifics?
>
>The web site I referenced on the Cretaceous.
Yes, this shows that solar variation in the past has had
a profound affect on the earth's climate. Where is the
data on current variations?
>>......
>>>We have Gore's slide show blather, Brokaw's forthcoming conformational
>>>Discovery special, the entire lieberal community has made man-caused
>>>CO2 warming their new secular religion!!!
>>
>>These are popular works, not scientific references.
>Do tell!
>
>>Time, Newsweek, and the New York times are similarly not references.
>
>Depends on whom they cite doesn't it?
Only to the extent we get off our duffs and check
the actual papers they cite. They themselves are
not references.
>Don't play the hidden study game here.
This is no game.
>>>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>>>
>>>>Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
>>>
>>>Current data is 30 years, do not so easily dismiss that the trend
>>>might be longer.
>>
>>It remains a factor to include. Modelers don't dismiss it.
>
>Then why harp on the 30 year aspect?
It is simply the limitation we live with.
The limited data we have suggests solar variability
is not the dominant factor.
>Are we also to remand geology to Lyell's uniformitarianism only as
>more recent measuring tools are of short duration?
We use the tools and information we have.
>>>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>>
>>>>"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
>>>>increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
>>>>frequency of global volcanism"
>>
>>>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
.....
>>>Oh I know...there are more of us, so that automatically means there
>>>can't be possibly be more tornadic activity since we altered the urban
>>>heatscape...it's just us noticing more, nothing else...right....
>>This is not a convincing scientific refutation. Where are your numbers?
>>Show us your calculations.
>It's every as bit as convincing as claiming that a phenomenon which
>may well have been unedr-reported might just as easily have been
>increasing at the same time the population grew.
Both factors would result in more events being reported.
Have you gone over the numbers and seen that a constant
rate of volcanism with the known population increase
fits the observed rate increase?
>>>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>>>
>>>>If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
>>>>this is not a greater source of such gasses.
>>
>>>It is one of several inputs which can, for mesoscale purposes, be
>>>spiked at various times while still showing a long term constancy.
>>
>>Sure. And, as you have said, this source is mitigated by CO2 dissolving
>>in rain and sea water.
>
>It can be, but we both know there are many instances where sea floor
>vents release significant greenhouse gases.
>So don't just play one side of that coin.
CO2 budget is an area of careful research.
If you could show that a significant source
was being ignored, the science groupies would
flock to you.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>There are plenty of capable credentialed scientific journalists who
>can and DO relate to the layman the critical conclusions of what can
>be quite dry and number-laden studies.
And it seems even more theatrical carnies who use the
subject to entertain. There is *some* wheat amid the chaff.
.....
>>We must carefully steer conversations aware from the secondary issues
>>and back to the science itself. We would be helped if the general
>>populace had a better grouding in science.
>
>And if you abandoned the elitist attitude, adopted a more tech-writer
>practicality, and took matters into your own hands and released and
>promoted, even self-published, useful synopses for all levels of
>readership (grade school through college) as well as mass media...
Me? I'm not an expert in these fields.
>Instead you sit at the locus of research and decry that the common man
>hasn't received an invite to the ivory towers. Whose bloody fault is
>that?
I didn't know that shortcomings in science education in this
country was due my personal failure.
>If nabobs like Mike Nelson can tornado dance their way into every
>frigging elementary school in Colorado, where is the NCAR contingent
>when it comes to providing concrete fundamentals in area science
>classes K-12?
I try to do my meagre part on a personal level by helping out
at science fairs and the occasional science class. Others who
know more and have more social skills are doing a great job
engaging students.
Daniel Packman
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:56:40 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>The correlation of CO2 to global temperature is rather strong
>>over many thousands of years.
>
>Yes...
>>More to the point, the agreement
>>with theory (including phase lag) suggests that we do have a good
>>handle on the basic physics.
>Somewhat true, although if solar input was also increasing, along with
>a few other suspects, how can we single out just ONE culprit?
If solar input was a huge factor, then we wouldn't expect
the models to agree so well with the data.
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
>>
>>
>>>We have the unhappy coincidence - I believe - of several increasing
>>>factors, solar radiation, sea floor volcanism, terrestrial volcanism,
>>>AND certainly human carbon liberation.
>>
>>I certainly hope so, particularly if these effects spontaneously reverse
>>themselves.
>
>Oh my, now that's a happy/unhappy situation, unless you really like
>ice axes.
There is nothing like ice climbing - it is like being in
an exquisite chandalier. The light sparkles off each crystal.
>>>But to point to man as the one and major factor is completely premature.
>>
>>This conclusion suggests a paralysis of ignorance.
>
>Really?
>
>On whose part, Gore's?
You detract from the discussion by such a sidelight.
THe collective understanding of the problem within the
political structure has to reach enough consensus so
that action can take place.
>>If we are the one significant factor that we have control over,
>>then we are justified in closely examining what we can do about
>>our contribution. How sure do we have to be before we take action?
>
>If we SELL the need solely as an act of self-flagellation, clothe it
>in a hatred for population growth, capitalism, technology, etc. we
>have created a SECULAR religion, a faith based, self-loathing,
>scientific/religious analog from which we can never receive true
>absolution as long as we deny the rest of the climate model inputs.
>
>Are you not getting my point?
You seem to be making up some position that many people
would oppose but I don't know of anyone who espouses.
We identify that so much carbon is being wasted lighting
and heating buildings. Instead of freezing in the dark, we
find that two new industries can be born - one for efficient
lighting, one for efficient heating. More people make money,
everyone gets efficient lighting and heating, and less CO2
finds its way into the atmosphere. We need the business
community to find practical and lucrative ways to decrease
CO2 production. Then it will happen.
>Have I been obtuse in identifying how and why the human CO2 indictment
>is being misrepresented???
No, I just think your evidence is weak.
>Come on, you must know that be it Gore or Brokaw the cherry picking
>has been obvious.
They have nothing to do with the science and the original papers.
>Far more salient and honest, if one wishes remediation of our own
>impacts, to be forthright and note the other 3 factors warming this
>sphere and our inability to moderate them and use THAT as a lynch pin
>to cajole us into reduced CO2 production, don't you think?
I am completely unclear what you mean here. Perhaps it is too late.
>Or is it Kosher to sell the science with a convenient boogy man and
>ignore the realities of the Cretaceous record?
It is proper to use available models that agree with current
data and proceed.
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <8g6eb2hhncgb4iblh...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:13:04 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <75ndb2hqpu656mp9o...@4ax.com>,
>>>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:07:11 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>There remains only about 30 years measurement of total solar output.
>>>
>>>>There stands the potential that more than 30 years of such increase
>>>>has occurred.
>>>
>>>Yes. But the conclusions here:
>>>
>>>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14751
>>>
>>>suggest that recent variations are not large enough to
>>>to dominate global heating since 1980.
>>
>>1980 is not the magic number, despite what the "blame man" crowd seem
>>to believe.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. Any given date isn't, of course,
>magical but 1980 is a convenient date to use as a base for
>subsequent increases. Perhaps 1950 would be a better date:
>http://zfacts.com/p/194.html
Perhaps so, this notion that we ought blame one segment of
techno-society is absurd anyway.
>>Global warming, like ozone depletion, is a LAGGING indicator!
>
>Lagging whatever is forcing it?
Yes.
>Ozone is depleted only after CFCs increase?
>Warming occurs only after...
A host of inputs including:
~ increasing solar radiation
~sea floor volcanism
~terrestrial volcanism
~carbon liberation
>>>.....
>>>>>This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
>>>>>affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
>>>>>the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
>>>
>>>>No...there is quite a bit of data actually, whether you clay heads are
>>>>willing to integrate it to the models is another thing altogether.
>>>
>>>Specifics?
>>
>>The web site I referenced on the Cretaceous.
>
>Yes, this shows that solar variation in the past has had
>a profound affect on the earth's climate. Where is the
>data on current variations?
Still being parsed it would seem.
>>>......
>>>>We have Gore's slide show blather, Brokaw's forthcoming conformational
>>>>Discovery special, the entire lieberal community has made man-caused
>>>>CO2 warming their new secular religion!!!
>>>
>>>These are popular works, not scientific references.
>>Do tell!
>>
>>>Time, Newsweek, and the New York times are similarly not references.
>>
>>Depends on whom they cite doesn't it?
>
>Only to the extent we get off our duffs and check
>the actual papers they cite. They themselves are
>not references.
Semantics.
>>Don't play the hidden study game here.
>
>This is no game.
The notion that we lack the acumen to discuss the subject based on not
reading every scientific paper first hand is absurd.
>>>>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>>>>
>>>>>Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
>>>>
>>>>Current data is 30 years, do not so easily dismiss that the trend
>>>>might be longer.
>>>
>>>It remains a factor to include. Modelers don't dismiss it.
>>
>>Then why harp on the 30 year aspect?
>
>It is simply the limitation we live with.
>The limited data we have suggests solar variability
>is not the dominant factor.
The data suggest it very well COULD be.
And history confirms that it has been.
Thus it stands to reason that it should be again.
>>Are we also to remand geology to Lyell's uniformitarianism only as
>>more recent measuring tools are of short duration?
>
>We use the tools and information we have.
And then what, throw up our hands and say, we don't know for sure?
All the while blaming one factor because it's more easily measured?
>>>>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>>>
>>>>>"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
>>>>>increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
>>>>>frequency of global volcanism"
>>>
>>>>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>
>.....
>>>>Oh I know...there are more of us, so that automatically means there
>>>>can't be possibly be more tornadic activity since we altered the urban
>>>>heatscape...it's just us noticing more, nothing else...right....
>
>>>This is not a convincing scientific refutation. Where are your numbers?
>>>Show us your calculations.
>
>>It's every as bit as convincing as claiming that a phenomenon which
>>may well have been unedr-reported might just as easily have been
>>increasing at the same time the population grew.
>
>Both factors would result in more events being reported.
>Have you gone over the numbers and seen that a constant
>rate of volcanism with the known population increase
>fits the observed rate increase?
I say only that we see increasing sea floor volcanism now and that as
well we lack an adequate measurement data base to make strong
comparisons to past activity.
>>>>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>>>>
>>>>>If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
>>>>>this is not a greater source of such gasses.
>>>
>>>>It is one of several inputs which can, for mesoscale purposes, be
>>>>spiked at various times while still showing a long term constancy.
>>>
>>>Sure. And, as you have said, this source is mitigated by CO2 dissolving
>>>in rain and sea water.
>>
>>It can be, but we both know there are many instances where sea floor
>>vents release significant greenhouse gases.
>
>>So don't just play one side of that coin.
>
>CO2 budget is an area of careful research.
>If you could show that a significant source
>was being ignored, the science groupies would
>flock to you.
I'm sure you're right, and I'm also sure that the problem remains
multi-faceted and we continue to scapegoat ONE input.
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <ku6eb2pem20vp7lh9...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:27:38 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>....
>>There are plenty of capable credentialed scientific journalists who
>>can and DO relate to the layman the critical conclusions of what can
>>be quite dry and number-laden studies.
>
>And it seems even more theatrical carnies who use the
>subject to entertain. There is *some* wheat amid the chaff.
Yes there is, as Al Gore shows us.
>.....
>>>We must carefully steer conversations aware from the secondary issues
>>>and back to the science itself. We would be helped if the general
>>>populace had a better grouding in science.
>>
>>And if you abandoned the elitist attitude, adopted a more tech-writer
>>practicality, and took matters into your own hands and released and
>>promoted, even self-published, useful synopses for all levels of
>>readership (grade school through college) as well as mass media...
>
>Me? I'm not an expert in these fields.
Come now, you manage to present yourself here more than adequately.
>>Instead you sit at the locus of research and decry that the common man
>>hasn't received an invite to the ivory towers. Whose bloody fault is
>>that?
>
>I didn't know that shortcomings in science education in this
>country was due my personal failure.
It's due to the sumamry failure of ALL acientists.
Consider, who does a better job selling their wares, atmospheric
scientists or physicians?
It doesn't take long for the medical profession to saturate the
culture with the latest malady, and proposed cure, now does it?
>>If nabobs like Mike Nelson can tornado dance their way into every
>>frigging elementary school in Colorado, where is the NCAR contingent
>>when it comes to providing concrete fundamentals in area science
>>classes K-12?
>
>I try to do my meagre part on a personal level by helping out
>at science fairs and the occasional science class.
Ok, THAT is a POSITVE - congrats!
But what we need is mass media dialog, and on a broad and rational
basis.
>Others who
>know more and have more social skills are doing a great job
>engaging students.
>
>http://eo.ucar.edu/
Bravo, yet where is the media attention to this? You know as well as I
that the idiot box is the magic door to the masses, why aren't we all
talking about the global conveyor weakening, the polynya's
variability, etc?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/arctic_changes.html
The global ocean circulation is regulated by cold, dense water that
sinks in the Arctic. This water moves south toward the equator and
well below the surface in the Atlantic. Upon its circular return
northward, it pulls warm tropical water north along the surface,
where, like a hot-water heater, it releases heat back into the
atmosphere. An influx of fresh water to the Arctic Ocean could prevent
the water there from sinking and essentially halt this
conveyor-belt-like flow. Changes in ocean currents can greatly
complicate overall climate change and, among other things, leave some
regions, like England and eastern Canada, much cooler than they
otherwise would be.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html
The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in
warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent
years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe
winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today.
Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured
the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of
America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a
previous expedition 12 years ago.
The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of
1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up
temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the
circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous
expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found
only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up
in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists
to set up a Ł4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to
monitor changes in the current continuously.
ef_hutterite
pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>In article <019eb2paetmcnm4rm...@4ax.com>,
>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:56:40 +0000 (UTC),
>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>
>>>The correlation of CO2 to global temperature is rather strong
>>>over many thousands of years.
>>
>>Yes...
>
>>>More to the point, the agreement
>>>with theory (including phase lag) suggests that we do have a good
>>>handle on the basic physics.
>
>>Somewhat true, although if solar input was also increasing, along with
>>a few other suspects, how can we single out just ONE culprit?
>
>If solar input was a huge factor, then we wouldn't expect
>the models to agree so well with the data.
It needn't be a "huge" factor however if it is coupled with other
under-represented inputs like sea floor volcanism.
>>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
>>>
>>>
>>>>We have the unhappy coincidence - I believe - of several increasing
>>>>factors, solar radiation, sea floor volcanism, terrestrial volcanism,
>>>>AND certainly human carbon liberation.
>>>
>>>I certainly hope so, particularly if these effects spontaneously reverse
>>>themselves.
>>
>>Oh my, now that's a happy/unhappy situation, unless you really like
>>ice axes.
>
>There is nothing like ice climbing - it is like being in
>an exquisite chandalier. The light sparkles off each crystal.
Then you may find the next glaciation a joyful happenstance!
>>>>But to point to man as the one and major factor is completely premature.
>>>
>>>This conclusion suggests a paralysis of ignorance.
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>On whose part, Gore's?
>
>You detract from the discussion by such a sidelight.
He turns it that direction by such a spectacle.
>THe collective understanding of the problem within the
>political structure has to reach enough consensus so
>that action can take place.
Well there's the problem, you have an indictment reaching critical
mass based on at best incomplete data sets.
That bothers me.
>>>If we are the one significant factor that we have control over,
>>>then we are justified in closely examining what we can do about
>>>our contribution. How sure do we have to be before we take action?
>>
>>If we SELL the need solely as an act of self-flagellation, clothe it
>>in a hatred for population growth, capitalism, technology, etc. we
>>have created a SECULAR religion, a faith based, self-loathing,
>>scientific/religious analog from which we can never receive true
>>absolution as long as we deny the rest of the climate model inputs.
>>
>>Are you not getting my point?
>
>You seem to be making up some position that many people
>would oppose but I don't know of anyone who espouses.
I don't think so.
I'm saying that we're being sold a bill of good under suspect
premises.
>We identify that so much carbon is being wasted lighting
>and heating buildings. Instead of freezing in the dark, we
>find that two new industries can be born - one for efficient
>lighting, one for efficient heating. More people make money,
>everyone gets efficient lighting and heating, and less CO2
>finds its way into the atmosphere. We need the business
>community to find practical and lucrative ways to decrease
>CO2 production. Then it will happen.
I'm not quite as sanguine as you are regarding the means of achieving
this. True we could take a goodly portion of heating geothermal in
many locales, and yes we can mandate national rooftop solar and create
a vast decentralized grid interlock - those are easily practicable, if
costly remediations.
But as for transport, even hydrogen fuel cells seem destined to net as
much carbon liberation as they are alleged to diminish, perhaps more
in fact.
The sad truth is that short of some pie in the sky breakthrough like
zero point energy, we face only one key pollutant here - birth rates.
>>Have I been obtuse in identifying how and why the human CO2 indictment
>>is being misrepresented???
>
>No, I just think your evidence is weak.
Due mainly to recent advances in instrumentation, not a logical
analysis of historic epochs.
>>Come on, you must know that be it Gore or Brokaw the cherry picking
>>has been obvious.
>
>They have nothing to do with the science and the original papers.
They have everything to do with popular perceptions.
>>Far more salient and honest, if one wishes remediation of our own
>>impacts, to be forthright and note the other 3 factors warming this
>>sphere and our inability to moderate them and use THAT as a lynch pin
>>to cajole us into reduced CO2 production, don't you think?
>
>I am completely unclear what you mean here. Perhaps it is too late.
Yes, it may very well be.
If we're on the cusp of another glacial period, one perhaps ushered
more quickly along by our own CO2 impacts it may be too late for any
level of technological meddling to halt the inevitable.
But wouldn't it make sense to shrug off the sellf-flagellation and
sell the episode on the broad scale impact it would have on the
planet?
>>Or is it Kosher to sell the science with a convenient boogy man and
>>ignore the realities of the Cretaceous record?
>
>It is proper to use available models that agree with current
>data and proceed.
It may be "proper" but to deny the potential similarities to past
climatic changes is a grotesque shell game.
And THAT is what I propose we're doing, and all in the name of
propriety?
That's sad.
life...@charter.net
ef_hutterite wrote:
> I'm sure you're right, and I'm also sure that the problem remains
> multi-faceted and we continue to scapegoat ONE input.
God yer duimb. BUTT FUCKING DUMB.
You are clueless that you're clueless, it's s symptom of your disease.
ef_hutterite
>
>ef_hutterite wrote:
>
>> I'm sure you're right, and I'm also sure that the problem remains
>> multi-faceted and we continue to scapegoat ONE input.
>
>God yer duimb. BUTT FUCKING DUMB.
Nice content free rebuttal, very much in keeping with the level of
fanatacism on this matter.
>You are clueless that you're clueless, it's s symptom of your disease.
>
>http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Ah a spite blog, how indescribably TRITE!
Lloyd Parker
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 06 14:45:12 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>> ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:57:41 +0000 (UTC),
>>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <ovrab2p7dokkblnq9...@4ax.com>,
>>>>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Jul 06 14:11:35 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>......
>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.h
tm
>>l
>>>>>>>March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
>>>>>>>NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
>>>>
>>>>>>Check their Image 4. Notice a decrease during the 1990s, yet the earth
>>warmed
>>>>>>to its highest ever.
>>>>
>>>>>Ever hear of the 11 year sunspot cycle Lloyd?
>>>>
>>>>The dominant change in the data is indeed the 11 year solar cycle.
>>>
>>>Of course, it is a cycle, a pattern...
>>>
>>>>A good reference to current results can be found here:
>>>>
>>>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>>>>
>>>>As they point out, accurate measurements have only been made since
>>>>space based detectors became available about 1978
>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>>and we have only
>>>>measured two solar minima.
>>>
>>>Also true, Lloyd must be loving this..
>>>
>>>>Note that the maxima do not show any
>>>>increase and the dataset is sufficiently short (only two minima)
>>>>that conclusions based on extrapolation are premature.
>>>
>>>Nope, the middle Cretaceous is where I refer you as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>>>Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most
>>>frigid.
>>>
>>>long-term trends and can make it difficult to sort out what is normal,
>>>what is unusual, and which effects might or might not result from
>>>shifts in solar radiation.
>>>
>>>To get above all this, scientists rely on measurements of total solar
>>>energy, at all wavelengths, outside Earth's atmosphere. The figure
>>>they derive is called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
>>>
>>>Heating up
>>>
>>>The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent
>>>over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change,
>>>Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were
>>>maintained for a century or more.
>>
>>Please face a mirror and repeat the above sentence 3 times.
>
>Please face a timeline and note that there is no way to say it has NOT
>been happening for a century or more as we have only had solid
>instrumentation to measure for 30 years.
So how do you know the sun has been increasing for a century? It's a lot
easier to measure temp. here on earth than solar output.
Further, you'd have us all assume the added CO2 has no effect?
This has been studied in published articles -- they found solar variation
could account for, at most, 30% of the warming.
>
>Middle Cretaceous for you Lloyd, you soon to be extinct intellectual
>snob.
Again, please check your calendar.
>
>>>
>>>On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2
>>>percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of
>>>the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however
>>>equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a
>>>year, the researchers estimate.
>>>
>>>The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at
>>>different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one
>>>of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering
>>>the trend.
>>>
>>>A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth,
>>>going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's
>>>current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson
>>>said.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>>>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>>>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
>>>
>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>
>>Taken into account.
>
>Not by you.
>
By IPCC, NAS, etc. Read any of them?
>>>
>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>>
>>Not a new thing in the last 120 years.
>
>Well really?
>
>How much of that were we able to accurately measure 100 years ago?
From things like lava flows, I'd imagine we can tell a lot.
What evidence do you have it's increased, since YOU're claiming it's a factor.
>
>Eh?
>
>>>
>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>
>>Ditto.
>
>Yes it is a source, thank you.
>
Again, where's your evidence of an increase since 1860?
>>>
>>>And I can, and will paper you to death with plenty of good studies on
>>>all of the above!
>>>
>>>enjoy!
>
Lloyd Parker
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 06 14:48:08 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <jvkcb2pbon5t0opvb...@4ax.com>,
>> ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>On 12 Jul 2006 22:17:55 -0700, "Mark Schaffer"
>POS!
>
You keep bringing up the Cretaceous Era as if that were relevant.
>>>
>>>You're little more than a tiresome gnat, but here, for anyone still
>>>following this thread, is the reference, yet again:
>>>
>>>http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pag
es
>>/studentv.html
>>>Rapid eruption of the vast Deccan Traps lava fields would have flooded
>>>earth's surface with CO2, overwhelming surficial systems and sinks,
>>>triggering rapid K-T transition greenhouse warming, chemical changes
>>>in the oceans (McLean, 1985a, b, c; 1988, 1995), and the K-T mass
>>>extinctions.
>>
>>Look at a calendar -- what year is it? What century?
>
>Look at history, which epocs might repeat?
What MIGHT pigs do if they had wings?
>
>>>
>>>To read my paper "Deccan Traps mantle degassing in the terminal
>>>Cretaceous marine extinctions" (Cretaceous Research, 1985), please
>>>click on McLean (1985).
>>>
>>>For evidence that a carbon cycle perturbation and greenhouse warming
>>>began at the same time as the Deccan Traps volcanism and persisted for
>>>the duration of the Deccan Traps volcanism, see Brazos River, Texas,
>>>Isotope Record). Other localities showing evidences of K-T transition
>>>warming are: Atlantic Ocean DSDP sites 384, 86, 95, 152, 144, 20C, 21,
>>>356, 357, and 329; Indian Ocean DSDP sites 212, 217, 220, 237, and
>>>253; South Atlantic DSDP site 524; Denmark; Biarritz, France;
>>>Lattengebirge, Germany; Zumaya, Spain; Caravaca, Spain; and Pacific
>>>and Atlantic Ocean DSDP sites.
>
Lloyd Parker
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 06 14:40:00 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ovrab2p7dokkblnq9...@4ax.com>,
>> ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Jul 06 14:11:35 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <qqu7b21bu5egsvhep...@4ax.com>,
>>>> ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 11 Jul 06 13:23:20 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <b9a5b2pp04nucuf3h...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:43:53 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <1152551497....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>Mark Schaffer <mark.s...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>... if the sun was the cause for the current rapid increase in global
>>>>>>>>>temperatures then the entire atmosphere starting at the top would be
>>>>>>>>>warming
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If the sun were just putting out more UV, then we might expect the
>>>>>>>>upper atmosphere to warm more. If the sun were just putting out more
>>>>>>>>IR, then we might expect the lower atmosphere to warm more. (Of
course,
>>>>>>>>neither is observed)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What the sun is doing is putting out more of BOTH!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not in the past 15 years.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the past 30 or so years, liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.htm
l
>>>>>March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
>>>>>NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Check their Image 4. Notice a decrease during the 1990s, yet the earth
>>warmed
>>>>to its highest ever.
>>>
>>>Ever hear of the 11 year sunspot cycle Lloyd?
>>>
>>>
>>>Lame try.
>>
>>The report YOU cited shows solar activity decreasing in the 1990s yet the
>>earth warmed.
>
>Well no kidding, ever hear of seasonal lag?
So you're claiming the earth is going to cool shortly, to reflect the decrease
in solar activity? Care to wager?
>
>> Perhaps you should look at your own references.
>
>Perhaps you should quit trying to massage the facts,
Lloyd Parker
And what warmed the oceans?
"Observations show the oceans have warmed over the past 40 yr, with
appreciable regional variation and more warming at the surface than at depth.
Comparing the observations with results from two coupled ocean–atmosphere
climate models [the Parallel Climate Model version 1 (PCM) and the Hadley
Centre Coupled Climate Model version 3 (HadCM3)] that include anthropogenic
forcing shows remarkable agreement between the observed and model-estimated
warming."
Journal of Climate: Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 1873–1900.
Then you cite articles about volcanic plumes. You claim the sun may have been
increasing for years or centuries; have you ever realized these underwater
sources of heat have probably been around a long time too? Organisms have had
time to evolve to live in them, to use sulfure from them to make energy, etc.
Lloyd Parker
ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:07:11 +0000 (UTC),
>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>
>>In article <r2abb25ajnjah7bda...@4ax.com>,
>>ef_hutterite <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:57:41 +0000 (UTC),
>>>pa...@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:
>>
>>.....
>>>>A good reference to current results can be found here:
>>>>
>>>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>>>>
>>>>As they point out, accurate measurements have only been made since
>>>>space based detectors became available about 1978
>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>>and we have only
>>>>measured two solar minima.
>>>
>>>Also true, Lloyd must be loving this..
>>>
>>>>Note that the maxima do not show any
>>>>increase and the dataset is sufficiently short (only two minima)
>>>>that conclusions based on extrapolation are premature.
>>>
>>>Nope, the middle Cretaceous is where I refer you as well.
>>
>
>There stands the potential that more than 30 years of such increase
>has occurred.
There stands the potential that time travellers from the future have come
back too.
>
>>Yes, we know the climate has changed over many time scales over
>>millenia. An absolute and complete understanding of all this variation
>>is not vital to examination of the last few hundred years. It would be
>>nice, but it is not a necessity.
>
>More than nice, didactic!
>
>
>>>And then the "little" ice age...
>>
>>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>>>Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most
frigid.
>>
>>This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
>>affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
>>the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
>
>No...there is quite a bit of data actually, whether you clay heads are
>willing to integrate it to the models is another thing altogether.
There is NO data the sun's output is increasing, or has since 1990.
>
>>>.....
>>>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>>>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>>>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
>>
>>Perhaps you can point out specific numbers to back this up.
>
>Are you high?
>
>We have Gore's slide show blather, Brokaw's forthcoming conformational
>Discovery special, the entire lieberal community has made man-caused
>CO2 warming their new secular religion!!!
>
>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>
>>Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
>
>Current data is 30 years, do not so easily dismiss that the trend
>might be longer.
Again, pigs might fly too.
We have a greenhouse gas which has increased 30%. You claim volcanoes and the
sun increasing 100 years ago COULD be. Occam's Razor.
>
>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>>
>>"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
>>increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
>>frequency of global volcanism"
>>
>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>
>Believe as you wish, what were the measurement accuracies over the
>past few hundred years.
I'll believe real scientists over you.
>
>This is as specious as the tornado/population deniers.
>
>Oh I know...there are more of us, so that automatically means there
>can't be possibly be more tornadic activity since we altered the urban
>heatscape...it's just us noticing more, nothing else...right....
>
>Sheesh!
>
>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>
>>If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
>>this is not a greater source of such gasses.
>
>It is one of several inputs which can, for mesoscale purposes, be
>spiked at various times while still showing a long term constancy.
Sure, and moon splitting off from the earth was pretty nasty too. Neither is
affecting us today.
>
>Again, middle Cretaceous.
Again, 2006.
>
>Keep denying and blaming one factor in the equation, that is why ALL
>you lot look like "true believers".
Lloyd Parker
OK, official X-Files alert! Science in a big conspiracy! Call Mulder!
>and sitting there at UCAR you have the
>fucking gall to play the intellectual elitist card, you worthless son
>of a bitch!
>
>> I am going to let him
>>believe he has 'won' while knowing the astute readers will see him for
>>the fool he is.
>
>What astute readers are seeing, you scum sucking hypocrite, are
>"scientists" using their credentials to bully pulpit ONE global
>warming input to the exception of all others,
They're not. They're telling you what the science and the data shows. You
refuse to believe it because of some warped political bias you have.
You win the Karl Rove "when you have no argument, label the other side
traitors" award.
Lloyd Parker
No we get it. You regurgitate what you find on right-wing web sites. The
question is, are you so ignorant you believe them, or so dishonest and
unethical you hope we will?
>
>Have I been obtuse in identifying how and why the human CO2 indictment
>is being misrepresented???
Perhaps in your refusal to see the data and the science.
>
>Come on, you must know that be it Gore or Brokaw the cherry picking
>has been obvious.
>
>Far more salient and honest, if one wishes remediation of our own
>impacts, to be forthright and note the other 3 factors warming this
>sphere and our inability to moderate them and use THAT as a lynch pin
>to cajole us into reduced CO2 production, don't you think?
Since CO2 is the primary cause of the current warming, reducing its production
is rather wise, don't YOU think?
>
>Or is it Kosher to sell the science with a convenient boogy man and
>ignore the realities of the Cretaceous record?
Geez, man, we're not in the damn Cretaceous Period!
Lloyd Parker
Somehow I don't think that's affecting us now.
>and even in slamming greenhouse
>gasses you're indicting the 1980s while ignoring the decades before
>when we had little or NO pollution controls!
Uh, it's CO2 we're talking about.
>
>We have the unhappy coincidence - I believe - of several increasing
>factors, solar radiation, sea floor volcanism, terrestrial volcanism,
>AND certainly human carbon liberation.
Yet you can cite nothing showing those other causes are responsible for the
warming, and you've been provided with sources that say they aren't.
>
>But to point to man as the one and major factor \
Well, major anyway.
>is completely
>premature.
National Academy of Sciences. IPCC.
>
>http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=116
>Global Warming/Hurricane Link Debunked
Oh great, he gets his info from a right-wing web site. The old CEI. Now we
know why he is totally ignorant about the science.
Have you all noticed all the deniers either quote right-wing web sites or
right-wing editorials? No scientific journals, no scientific agencies.
Pathetic.
>
>The Cooler Heads coalition sponsored a science briefing for media and
>congressional staff on October 9, featuring Dr. William Gray,
>professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. Gray,
>the foremost expert on hurricanes in the U.S., spoke about the link
>between global warming and hurricanes.
>
National Academy of Sciences. Heard of it?
ef_hutterite
wrote:
Did I say that Lloyd?
Strawman season again!
ef_hutterite
wrote:
How do you know that it has not?
> It's a lot
>easier to measure temp. here on earth than solar output.
So just use the 'easy" data?
>Further, you'd have us all assume the added CO2 has no effect?
Did I EVER say that LLoyd, you fucking lying slimer?
NO!
>This has been studied in published articles -- they found solar variation
>could account for, at most, 30% of the warming.
Yes, and that's a SIGNIFICANT number, isn't it?
>>
>>Middle Cretaceous for you Lloyd, you soon to be extinct intellectual
>>snob.
>
>Again, please check your calendar.
Again, please check history.
>>
>>>>
>>>>On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2
>>>>percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of
>>>>the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however
>>>>equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a
>>>>year, the researchers estimate.
>>>>
>>>>The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at
>>>>different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one
>>>>of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering
>>>>the trend.
>>>>
>>>>A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth,
>>>>going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's
>>>>current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson
>>>>said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>>>>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>>>>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
>>>>
>>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>>
>>>Taken into account.
>>
>>Not by you.
>>
>
>By IPCC, NAS, etc. Read any of them?
Partly taken into account only.
>>>>
>>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>>>
>>>Not a new thing in the last 120 years.
>>
>>Well really?
>>
>>How much of that were we able to accurately measure 100 years ago?
>
>From things like lava flows, I'd imagine we can tell a lot.
You do realize that we've not even come close to examining all the sea
floor, don't you Lloyd?
>What evidence do you have it's increased, since YOU're claiming it's a factor.
I posted a host of urls - read them again at your liesure.
>>
>>Eh?
>>
>>>>
>>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>>
>>>Ditto.
>>
>>Yes it is a source, thank you.
>>
>
>Again, where's your evidence of an increase since 1860?
Is increase the metric?
All it has to do is be a part of the equation.
Multiple inputs Lloyd, dig it.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
Well do tell, and isn't ALL our climatic history on this planet
relevant?
Are you thinking?
>>>>
>>>>You're little more than a tiresome gnat, but here, for anyone still
>>>>following this thread, is the reference, yet again:
>>>>
>>>>http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pag
>es
>>>/studentv.html
>>>>Rapid eruption of the vast Deccan Traps lava fields would have flooded
>>>>earth's surface with CO2, overwhelming surficial systems and sinks,
>>>>triggering rapid K-T transition greenhouse warming, chemical changes
>>>>in the oceans (McLean, 1985a, b, c; 1988, 1995), and the K-T mass
>>>>extinctions.
>>>
>>>Look at a calendar -- what year is it? What century?
>>
>>Look at history, which epocs might repeat?
>
>What MIGHT pigs do if they had wings?
More idiotic non sequiturs, predictable.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>In article <75ndb2hqpu656mp9o...@4ax.com>,
Gee Lloyd, you've become almost as childish as that DBA from Lost
Wages...
>>
>>>Yes, we know the climate has changed over many time scales over
>>>millenia. An absolute and complete understanding of all this variation
>>>is not vital to examination of the last few hundred years. It would be
>>>nice, but it is not a necessity.
>>
>>More than nice, didactic!
>>
>>
>>>>And then the "little" ice age...
>>>
>>>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
>>>>Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most
>frigid.
>>>
>>>This suggests that solar variation in the past has had profound
>>>affect on the earth's climate. There is no data to suggest that
>>>the current solar activity is going through such a variation now.
>>
>>No...there is quite a bit of data actually, whether you clay heads are
>>willing to integrate it to the models is another thing altogether.
>
>There is NO data the sun's output is increasing, or has since 1990.
A lie.
>>
>>>>.....
>>>>As for conclusive or not, the case for global warming based on human
>>>>C02 liberation is equally suspect, as it continues to model but ONE
>>>>dominant input while denying or diminishing the factors of:
>>>
>>>Perhaps you can point out specific numbers to back this up.
>>
>>Are you high?
>>
>>We have Gore's slide show blather, Brokaw's forthcoming conformational
>>Discovery special, the entire lieberal community has made man-caused
>>CO2 warming their new secular religion!!!
>>
>>>>~ increasing solar radiation
>>>
>>>Current data shows this is not a dominant factor.
>>
>>Current data is 30 years, do not so easily dismiss that the trend
>>might be longer.
>
>Again, pigs might fly too.
Again a non sequitur.
>We have a greenhouse gas which has increased 30%. You claim volcanoes and the
>sun increasing 100 years ago COULD be. Occam's Razor.
I claim history repreats itself, don't cut yourself with that razor.
>>
>>>>~ increasing sea floor volcanism
>>>
>>>"We believe that this [increased activity] represents an
>>>increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased
>>>frequency of global volcanism"
>>>
>>>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data.html
>>
>>Believe as you wish, what were the measurement accuracies over the
>>past few hundred years.
>
>I'll believe real scientists over you.
No, you'll cherry pick who you prefer.
>>
>>This is as specious as the tornado/population deniers.
>>
>>Oh I know...there are more of us, so that automatically means there
>>can't be possibly be more tornadic activity since we altered the urban
>>heatscape...it's just us noticing more, nothing else...right....
>>
>>Sheesh!
>>
>>>>~ global volcanism as a source of green house gasses
>>>
>>>If the rate of volcanism has remained largely constant,
>>>this is not a greater source of such gasses.
>>
>>It is one of several inputs which can, for mesoscale purposes, be
>>spiked at various times while still showing a long term constancy.
>
>Sure, and moon splitting off from the earth was pretty nasty too. Neither is
>affecting us today.
More non sequiturs.
>>
>>Again, middle Cretaceous.
>
>Again, 2006.
Again - history repeats itself.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>In article <tindb25hb6q5v307j...@4ax.com>,
Why yes, all true, and ALL inputs to a global heat equation.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>In article <oj0eb21p6u86rfvig...@4ax.com>,
Start with Al Bore.
Just propagandists, no more.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
History repeats itself, no?
>>and even in slamming greenhouse
>>gasses you're indicting the 1980s while ignoring the decades before
>>when we had little or NO pollution controls!
>
>Uh, it's CO2 we're talking about.
Um...coal burning, oil burning, hello?
>>
>>We have the unhappy coincidence - I believe - of several increasing
>>factors, solar radiation, sea floor volcanism, terrestrial volcanism,
>>AND certainly human carbon liberation.
>
>Yet you can cite nothing showing those other causes are responsible for the
>warming, and you've been provided with sources that say they aren't.
They're ALL part of the equation, are they not?
THINK.
>>
>>But to point to man as the one and major factor \
>Well, major anyway.
>
>>is completely
>>premature.
>
>National Academy of Sciences. IPCC.
Premature.
Incomplete.
>>
>>http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=116
>>Global Warming/Hurricane Link Debunked
>
>Oh great, he gets his info from a right-wing web site. The old CEI. Now we
>know why he is totally ignorant about the science.
>
>Have you all noticed all the deniers either quote right-wing web sites or
>right-wing editorials? No scientific journals, no scientific agencies.
>Pathetic.
I've posted a wealth of diverse material, sorry you can't handle
multiple inputs.
>>
>>The Cooler Heads coalition sponsored a science briefing for media and
>>congressional staff on October 9, featuring Dr. William Gray,
>>professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. Gray,
>>the foremost expert on hurricanes in the U.S., spoke about the link
>>between global warming and hurricanes.
>>
>
>National Academy of Sciences. Heard of it?
Incomplete, learn it.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>In article <019eb2paetmcnm4rm...@4ax.com>,
You get nothing Lloyd, your cranium is a closed shop.
>You regurgitate what you find on right-wing web sites. The
>question is, are you so ignorant you believe them, or so dishonest and
>unethical you hope we will?
Is NASA a "right wing web site"?
>>
>>Have I been obtuse in identifying how and why the human CO2 indictment
>>is being misrepresented???
>
>Perhaps in your refusal to see the data and the science.
Nope, I see ALL the inputs, unlike YOU!
>>
>>Come on, you must know that be it Gore or Brokaw the cherry picking
>>has been obvious.
>>
>>Far more salient and honest, if one wishes remediation of our own
>>impacts, to be forthright and note the other 3 factors warming this
>>sphere and our inability to moderate them and use THAT as a lynch pin
>>to cajole us into reduced CO2 production, don't you think?
>
>Since CO2 is the primary cause
I'm not at all sure it is.
>of the current warming, reducing its production
>is rather wise, don't YOU think?
I think that it's been oversold.
>>
>>Or is it Kosher to sell the science with a convenient boogy man and
>>ignore the realities of the Cretaceous record?
>Geez, man, we're not in the damn Cretaceous Period!
Geez dumbasshole, historical patterns can and DO repeat!!!!