REALITIES OF GLOBAL WARMING

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Roger Coppock

unread,
Oct 18, 2004, 11:53:08 AM10/18/04
to
Monday, October 18, 2004

by EDWARD C. WOLF

Last week I read some chilling news: The carbon dioxide concentration
in the Earth's atmosphere grew by more than two parts per million in
each of the past two years.

The increase, which scientists are calling "the Mauna Loa anomaly," is
noteworthy because it significantly exceeds the average increase in
carbon dioxide levels noted since measurements began atop the Hawaiian
volcano in 1958. That long-term trend is noteworthy because
scientists, with almost 50 years of continuous data documenting the
steady rise in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide levels, now agree that
the growth is attributable to human-caused emissions of the gas from
cars, power plants, factories, homes, and farming practices.

That recent measurements have exceeded the 46-year average for two
years running is not itself surprising. After all, averages are
calculated from numbers above and below the mean. But in the past,
significant departures above the average have been explained by
natural events, particularly El Nino events that raise sea surface
temperatures.

But 2002 and 2003 were not El Nino years. What I find chilling is not
the magnitude or direction of the increases, although they are
compatible with the possibility that global warming is spiraling out
of our control -- a scenario also consistent with the pattern of
droughts, monsoons, heat waves and high-strength hurricanes of recent
years. There's no scientific consensus yet that climate change is
accelerating, although the possibility is reasonable and the evidence
in its favor is growing.

What I find most chilling is that I didn't read about this in a U.S.
newspaper. I read about it in the on-line edition of The Guardian, a
British newspaper. Almost no one, at least in the United States,
appears to be paying attention. Our attention is riveted to our
president's claims that the invasion of Iraq was justified, based on
what he called at the time "darned good intelligence."

But what is intelligence, if not real information on which real
actions might be based? If so, then the quiet record of atmospheric
measurements made by American scientists at Mauna Loa constitutes real
intelligence, and we ignore it at our peril.

How will we find out what these recent anomalies mean? First, we have
to start talking about them. We have to ask our media to report on
them, our analysts and commentators to think about them and our
political leaders to address them.

The atmosphere is the world's greatest conspiracy -- quite literally,
that thing that we "breathe together" -- and changes in the atmosphere
and climate affect every one of Earth's 6.5 billion people. The issue
cuts across every line of political affiliation, religious conviction
and nationality.

Sensible public policy proposals, like those in the Climate
Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph
Lieberman, D-Conn., offer a starting point for voters concerned about
the atmosphere.

International events, like the Russian Parliament's decision to
approve the Kyoto climate treaty, which brings it into force as
international law, call for more reaction from the United States than
a blind eye.

Whatever the explanation of the Mauna Loa anomaly proves to be, I wish
it were as much a part of the national lexicon this fall as terror
networks, tax cuts and Swift boat veterans. Because we all have a
stake in knowing what's up.

Portland writer Edward Wolf chairs the Green House Network, a
nonprofit dedicated to public education about the clean energy
solutions to global warming.

From:
http://www.oregonlive.com/public_commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1097928157288440.xml

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,
Oct 18, 2004, 5:25:49 PM10/18/04
to
October 18, 2004

What are the 2004 monthly Mauna Loa carbon dioxide concentration numbers?

We've already been through the maximum, I heard somewhat above 379 ppm
in March, and September should have been the minimum, so it should be
climbing again, so we should be able to get an idea of 2004 trend fairly
soon.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Richard

unread,
Oct 20, 2004, 3:40:36 PM10/20/04
to
Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very much in favor of
restricting emissions. This ofcourse heavily influenced by our European
governments who keeps denying other views. Lately I've been reading into
a more opposing view.

One page I read yesterday pointed out that approx 400 mln years ago
levels of CO2 approached (or exceeded) 4000 ppm. And that with average
global temperatures slightly higher (like 1.5C) than today. Move up into
the future, 50 mln years ago levels of CO2 have lowered to slightly
lower than 1000 ppm. Temperatures however where at an alltime high.. 10C
higher than today! (R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III))

Article:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Another interesting story extends on debunking Mann's et al
data-interpretations (the famous "Northern
Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences,
Uncertainties, and Limitations" piece that heavily influenced the
European point of view). The Winter 2003-2004 story in 21st Century
features an article "The Ice Age Is Coming". It shows that there are
more interpretations of data than our European government would like us
to believe.

Article:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

hanson

unread,
Oct 20, 2004, 5:09:31 PM10/20/04
to
"Richard" <no....@spam.net> wrote in message
news:4176bf35$0$78279$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very much in favor of
> restricting emissions. This ofcourse heavily influenced by our European
> governments who keeps denying other views. Lately I've been reading into
> a more opposing view.
>
[hanson]
.....Why are you even diddling with emission restrictions? That's
just the gimmick. Kydioto is about money...*ENVIRO-DOLLARS!*

The *sources*, the socalled "polluters", which finance the Kydioto
enviro shits who whine so loud, have learned how to be just like
the greenies & know now how to make money off the "environment"
too, just like the green turds do. Environmentalism is just a vicious
$$$$$$$$$$$ circle jerk for $$$$$money$$$$$, that's THAT's ALL.

Strangely, the driving force in this sick green game, that makes NO
MONEY, are all those unpaid little green idiots who whine and cry,
and do enable all the other participants to harvest the green $$$$
thru' permit charges, user fees and enviro- & carbon surtaxes.

Naturally, the environment doesn't get any benefit in this phony,
diabolical green game. Here, just have a look and see who the big
green money players are......ahahaha.. AHAHAHA.....none of them
have anything to do with the "environment" except that they have
discovered that the real environment that counts is YOUR GREEN$$
IN YOUR WALLET.......ahahahahaha........see, here in
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
in section "climate" one reads under an enormous amount of out
and out green shit, designed to promote fears to make the carbon
tax a reality, so that the sharpies amongst green turds can collect
their new **green admin-fees** and other graft..... Quotes say:

== OIL COMPANIES like BP, Shell and RWE in Germany, have been
among the most active in the trading of **permits*..... AHAHAHAHA
== CO2 credit trading draws bankers' interest as fundamental
driver of coal, gas, metals markets........ahahahaha......AHAHAHA...
== As carbon emissions trading increases, the financial services
industry is preparing itself for a potentially lucrative market.....
== carbon emissions value at $15 a tonne, the surplus would be
worth just under $500 million to the Government.
== At Chicago Climate Exchange prices jumped to over US$11 per
tonne ($40/tC) following the Russian announcement
== The price of CO2 in Europe rose 20% to nearly euros 10 (£7) per
tonne on the back of the news from Moscow last night,
== Estimates the financial value of the European carbon market will
be worth 10 BILLION euros (£6.9bn) a year by 2007.

Where is the "environment here?.....It only shows that the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer in this global Kydioto Carbon
TAX trading scam. And all the poor, all the little green idiots,
they DO PAY for all this....it's their $$$$ that go into the pockets of
these rich oil-and banking bastards, fat bureaucrats & corrupt politicians.
YOU MADE YOURSELF POORER, all you well meaning little green idiots!

As if that were not bad enough, there is **precedent** that such
Carbon trading scams do NOT work, as is evident now as a result
from a TRIAL RUN for the CARBON TAX, in a Kydioto-type carbon
trading scheme (1991-2002) in Califorina, under then aeolinan chief
Flatu Lenz, that was/got so fucked up that they stopped the debacle
after 10 years during which, it now turns out that, green $$$ corruption
was so rampant, that now finally after years of reviews a green self
enriches administrator will go to jail:
Re: Smog Credit Trader Held in Fraud Case
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/?track=mainnav-environment
or http://www.ocefoundation.org/LATimes061704.pdf
or http://www.faultline.org/archives/2004_06.html
or http://reason.com/hitandrun/005705.shtml .....wherein it says:
......... and the LA Times reported -- Friday, June 18, 2004
Subjects: Smog, Fraud, Incentives, Arrests, Emissions trading
Locations: Los Angeles California -- People: Sholtz, Anne
Companies: South Coast Air Quality Management District's Carter
told U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick Walsh:
"that $13 million passed through [Anne Sholtz]'s **personal** bank
account at Wells Fargo alone during 2002. .... Amongst the schemes
she concocted was the selling of the same pollution credits to different
companies".....

But, despite yet not surprisingly, the green shits are pressing ahead, on
an inter national scale, and expand this CARBON TAX CON globally. It
supposedly will be administered by the UN which, as can be seen, was
extremely efficient with Sholtz type scams in Iraq's FOOD FOR OIL
program. The Carbon tax program will be larger by magnitudes !!!!...

There, there, all you well meaning enviro activists, green turds,
enablers, facilitators and promoters of Carbon trading scams, IPCC
and Kydioto protocols: THAT IS WHAT CAN LOOK FORWARD TO!
Some sharp green turds will make $$Billions and you little green
idiots WILL PAY & PAY.......and the GW WILL CONTINUE! Unabated!
$$$$$$ == ONLY GREEN DOLLARS WILL BE TRADED == $$$$$$$
Either you fools are suspect of abetting such enviro crooks or you
are extraordinarily naive, stupid and brainless green assholes.........

But now, the Carbon Trading story gets even better......ahahaha..:

The Russians apparently just have ratified the Kydioto scam:
Smart move on their part.....and now all you little green idiots
can sing in/with great cheer:
----------- "...it's green, green, green
----------- on the far side of the hill
----------- and now that we got the carbon tax
----------- life is much more red-green still....."

ahahaha......BUT, listen you little green idiots, you obviously
do not realize that you have been fucked by the Ruskies,
galore!,...ahahahahaha...because you don't even know that
you are/and have been an unpaid enabler and facilitator
to this grand red-green con scam........ahahahaha.....

The Russians will get and take their CO2 emission credits,
these green $$$$$$....NO doubt!....and then they'll pay with
these green $$$$ for their just announced upgrading of their
missile und nuke arsenal...AHAHAHAHAHA...the RUSKIES
fucked you little green idiots!!!!!...ahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA..

The Ruskies, as usual, have no intent with Kydioto compliance
in the first place....but you dreamy-eyed, well-intended
little green idiots do not believe it. ....ahanahaha...But, then
when you finally complain to the Ruskies, they will prove
to you immediately and proudly that they indeed did & do so,
by showing you their brand-new shiny, upgraded arsenal
of ballistic missiles tipped with their latest multimega ton
nukes and they'll insist that this their way of complying!

They'll even offer you caviar & vodka to thank you for your
help....for that "carbon tax" which YOU have paid....and that
carbon that you now can be POTENTIALLY incinerated into
because of your own green greed and enviro fanaticism.....
AHAHAHA.........ahahahaha........AHAHAHAHAHAAHA.....

See, how you fucked yourself, AGAIN, you little green idiots
and you didn't even make a fucking dime.....AHAHAHAHA..
When will that dawn on you little green idiots .....ahahahaha
>
>
[Richard]

Eric Swanson

unread,
Oct 20, 2004, 6:40:27 PM10/20/04
to
In article <4176bf35$0$78279$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, no....@spam.net says...

>
>Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very much in favor of
>restricting emissions. This ofcourse heavily influenced by our European
>governments who keeps denying other views. Lately I've been reading into
>a more opposing view.
[cut]

>Another interesting story extends on debunking Mann's et al
>data-interpretations (the famous "Northern
>Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences,
>Uncertainties, and Limitations" piece that heavily influenced the
>European point of view). The Winter 2003-2004 story in 21st Century
>features an article "The Ice Age Is Coming". It shows that there are
>more interpretations of data than our European government would like us
>to believe.
>
>Article:
>http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

This article contains some basic errors and many of the points discussed on
this forum over the past 6 or 7 years. My favorite is the graph ( Figure 8)
lifted from Spencer and Christy's web site. The commentary associated with
it states that there is a global cooling of -0.06 deg C/decade. This is no
longer the case, as the data now shows a warming of about 0.08 deg C/decade.
Other researchers that have analyzed the same data have presented results
that indicate an even larger warming.

Spencer and Christy have not updated the web page referenced since 1998.
The graph was lifted from:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
This web page states that there is a warming trend of +0.04 deg C/decade.
But, this web page also is out of data, having not been updated since 2002.
I asked NASA about this and Roy Spencer agreed that, yes, the web page needed
to be updated. That was on 25 August, 2004...........

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 20, 2004, 6:39:10 PM10/20/04
to
Richard wrote:
> Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very much in favor of
> restricting emissions. This ofcourse heavily influenced by our
> European governments who keeps denying other views. Lately I've been
> reading into a more opposing view.
>
> One page I read yesterday pointed out that approx 400 mln years ago
> levels of CO2 approached (or exceeded) 4000 ppm.

Don't forget that hydrogen and methane. P.S. about 600 mya you have the
first multicellular organisms and oxygen levels of 3%, and by 400 mya you
are just starting the colonisation of the land by plants. Not what I would
call worth building your goddam time machine to go visit. Why are you so
concerned with the primordial past???

> And that with average
> global temperatures slightly higher (like 1.5C) than today.

Means nothing. Over that length of time the continents have come together
and separated a couple of times. The sun was significantly weaker. The seal
level was probably nearly at the maximum ( about another 80 meters from
where we are today and thus making for a lot more water vapor in the air).

The atmosphere was different in more ways that just CO2 levels. The CO2
excess was probably caused by the snowball earth (frozen to the equator due
to low CO2 levels and continents near the equatorial line) that required a
huge buildup of CO2 in order to reverse. With few plants and nearly no
oxygen it would take a LONG time to reduce that level significantly. Nor do
I get any confidence in your claim as to the global temperature at that
time.. How was this supposed to be determined???

> Move up
> into the future, 50 mln years ago levels of CO2 have lowered to
> slightly lower than 1000 ppm.

A remnant, likley of the methane explosion 55 mya from the tethys sea. The
oxidation of the methane would have resulted in high CO2 levels.

> Temperatures however where at an
> alltime high.. 10C higher than today! (R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB
> III))

Methane, you will note, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. This
sort of cherry picking of data instead of looking at the whole picture is
typical of junk science websites, so I presume you picked them up there.
They must be soooo proud that their shit is having an effect.

<more crap deleted>


Thomas Palm

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 2:40:00 AM10/21/04
to
Richard <no....@spam.net> wrote in news:4176bf35$0$78279
$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:

> Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very much in favor of
> restricting emissions. This ofcourse heavily influenced by our European
> governments who keeps denying other views. Lately I've been reading into
> a more opposing view.
>
> One page I read yesterday pointed out that approx 400 mln years ago
> levels of CO2 approached (or exceeded) 4000 ppm. And that with average
> global temperatures slightly higher (like 1.5C) than today. Move up into
> the future, 50 mln years ago levels of CO2 have lowered to slightly
> lower than 1000 ppm. Temperatures however where at an alltime high.. 10C
> higher than today! (R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III))

When you go that much further back you will have to take into account that
the sun was weaker and that continents had different positions which
greatly influenced the climate of the Earth. No one is claiming that CO2 is
the only factor that affects climate and thus assuming a direct correlation
is wrong.

> Another interesting story extends on debunking Mann's et al
> data-interpretations (the famous "Northern
> Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences,
> Uncertainties, and Limitations" piece that heavily influenced the
> European point of view). The Winter 2003-2004 story in 21st Century
> features an article "The Ice Age Is Coming". It shows that there are
> more interpretations of data than our European government would like us
> to believe.
> Article:
> http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

It's fun to see there are still people predicting an ice age today, but
it's also the crackpots who do it. LaRouche and his organization isn't
exactly known for its scientific competence, despite the name of the
journal.

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 4:59:26 AM10/21/04
to
In sci.environment Richard <no....@spam.net> wrote:
>http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

This contains the std intereglacials-are-10kyr-long-and-we've-had-10.5kyr
nonsense. Interglacials aren't 10kyr long; and the current one would be
expected to be longer than average (50kyr+) anyway, from purely orbital
arguments.

-W.

--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!

Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 5:03:18 AM10/21/04
to
hanson wrote:
> "Richard" <no....@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4176bf35$0$78279$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very much in favor of
>>restricting emissions. This ofcourse heavily influenced by our European
>>governments who keeps denying other views. Lately I've been reading into
>>a more opposing view.
>>
> See, how you fucked yourself, AGAIN, you little green idiots
> and you didn't even make a fucking dime.....AHAHAHAHA..
> When will that dawn on you little green idiots .....ahahahaha
>
Well now, you *should* read my posting again before hitting the "reply"
button. I said "lately I've been reading into a more opposing view"
meaning I'm open for a different point of view. Both articles I've given
underline your point of view. Get it? I'm NOT the "green idiot" you
think, but I am having considerable doubts with the "green idiot's"
point of view .. *sigh*

Richard

Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 5:07:49 AM10/21/04
to
Ian St. John wrote:
>
> Methane, you will note, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. This
> sort of cherry picking of data instead of looking at the whole picture is
> typical of junk science websites, so I presume you picked them up there.
> They must be soooo proud that their shit is having an effect.
>
right .. so why are we soooo concerned about CO2-levels? Apparently
there isn't a direct correlation between CO2-levels and rising-temperatures.

Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 5:11:41 AM10/21/04
to
Thomas Palm wrote:
>
> When you go that much further back you will have to take into account that
> the sun was weaker and that continents had different positions which
> greatly influenced the climate of the Earth. No one is claiming that CO2 is
> the only factor that affects climate and thus assuming a direct correlation
> is wrong.
>
Agreed, but this is what the European Union's Government is most
concerned about. Nothing is said about methane-emissions, or better, no
direct policy is developed meant to limit methane-emissions. Everyone is
sooo concerned about us breaking the 500ppm CO2-level.

Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 5:28:55 AM10/21/04
to
Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> This article contains some basic errors and many of the points discussed on
> this forum over the past 6 or 7 years. My favorite is the graph ( Figure 8)
> lifted from Spencer and Christy's web site. The commentary associated with
> it states that there is a global cooling of -0.06 deg C/decade. This is no
> longer the case, as the data now shows a warming of about 0.08 deg C/decade.
> Other researchers that have analyzed the same data have presented results
> that indicate an even larger warming.
>
> Spencer and Christy have not updated the web page referenced since 1998.
> The graph was lifted from:
> http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
> This web page states that there is a warming trend of +0.04 deg C/decade.
> But, this web page also is out of data, having not been updated since 2002.
> I asked NASA about this and Roy Spencer agreed that, yes, the web page needed
> to be updated. That was on 25 August, 2004...........
>
Thanks Eric, :) this is definitely more helpful in putting these
articles into the right perspective!

Richard

Thomas Palm

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 6:13:13 AM10/21/04
to
Richard <no....@spam.net> wrote in
news:41777d4d$0$25965$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:

At the moment CO2 is responsible for the major part of the added greenhouse
effects so it makes sense to fokus on it. You are wrong in claiming that no
one cares about methane or the other less significant greenhouse gasses,
though. Read the fine print and you will find that when people talk about
limiting CO2 emissions they generally mean "CO2 equivalents", i.e, the
other gases are included.


Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 7:55:08 AM10/21/04
to
Thomas Palm wrote:
>
> At the moment CO2 is responsible for the major part of the added greenhouse
> effects so it makes sense to fokus on it. You are wrong in claiming that no
> one cares about methane or the other less significant greenhouse gasses,
> though. Read the fine print and you will find that when people talk about
> limiting CO2 emissions they generally mean "CO2 equivalents", i.e, the
> other gases are included.
>
Ok, guess I've not been reading the articles well enough to spot other
than CO2-emissions. Thanks for clarifying that!

Richard

hanson

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 11:42:56 AM10/21/04
to
"Richard" <no....@spam.net> wrote in message
news:41777b56$0$65124$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> hanson wrote:
> > "Richard" <no....@spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:4176bf35$0$78279$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very much in favor of
> >>restricting emissions. This ofcourse heavily influenced by our European
> >>governments who keeps denying other views. Lately I've been reading into
> >>a more opposing view.
> >>
[hanson]

> > See, how you fucked yourself, AGAIN, you little green idiots
> > and you didn't even make a fucking dime.....AHAHAHAHA..
> > When will that dawn on you little green idiots .....ahahahaha
> >
[Richard]

> Well now, you *should* read my posting again before hitting the "reply"
> button. I said "lately I've been reading into a more opposing view"
> meaning I'm open for a different point of view. Both articles I've given
> underline your point of view. Get it? I'm NOT the "green idiot" you
> think, but I am having considerable doubts with the "green idiot's"
> point of view .. *sigh*
> Richard
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA.....ahahaha.....Richard, no, no,...that
"you little green idiots" was plural and NOT directed at
you, but at them, ALL those dreamy eyed little green idiots.
You, Richard, you are all right. My post was an affirmation
confirmation, addition and support for your views.

I am happy and I glad to see that more and more people
question the green turds' line and do realize that
= Environmentalism is by'n large just a hysteria that infected
= hordes of well meaning little green idiots who honestly
= believed that they did help/better/save the world, when
= in reality they were simple the unwitting & unpaid enablers
= and facilitators for the big green crooks who pocketed the
= $green$ from permit charges, user fees & enviro surtaxes.
= The well meaning little green idiots are the sad fallout of the
= largest con that was perpetrated onto mankind in the last 50
= years as they fell victim to this gargantuan green jerk off.
= Or have you never noticed that the issues disappear right
= after the money has been doled out and consumed by the
= greenies...... yet the problems will remain for future green
= harvesting, skimming and milking by the sharp green turds.

= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =

ahahaha......ahahahanson

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 7:42:00 AM10/21/04
to
In article <41777c65$0$42417$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
Apparently there is.

Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 12:39:15 PM10/21/04
to

Of *course* there is a direct relationship. Where the hell did you get than
non-sequitor???

It is just not the ONLY variable that affects the global temperature
equilibrium.

I will try to put this simply enough for you.

The *absense* of large increases in the levels of methane, does not dimish
the response to the *presence* of increasing CO2 levels. Each factor has
it's own specific direct relationship between concentration and the
greenhouse effect. This effect is somewhat non-linear with an inverse
exponential relationship. That is, each doubling of concentration should
have about the same effect on temperature.

Secondly, the relationship between changes in *more than one* variable is
not simple. They compete for some photons so the separate relationships are
*not* linearly additive. Mixtures of hydrogen, CO2, Methane that are
significantly different than todays levels will have a greenhouse effect
that is no relationship to the current one. Mix in a different level of
solar insolation from a weaker sun and you have gone well beyond the
boundaries of simple reasoning.

The arguments you presented are thus shown to be pure demagoguery, trying to
fool people with simplistic reasoning.

And you seem eager to be fooled.


As to the present, the changes in the atmsophere are relatively simple,
relating to increases mostly in CO2 and methane. This makes the reasoning
simpler, but still not totally clear as you have a bit of an unknown in the
response from water vapor which reacts to the increase in temperature from
the persistent greenhouse gases but not uniformly ( as water is not
distributed uniformly over the planet ) and you have simultaneous changes in
aerosols ( simulating a weaker sun ) and solar insolation ( from the 200
year solar cycle ).

None of this makes the relationship between GHGs and global temperature any
less important or eliminates the fact that the buildup of GHGs from industry
is continuing and becoming more dominant in the balance. This is likely to
start causing serious problems as the temperature continues to rise under
their influence.


Message has been deleted

Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 3:44:14 PM10/21/04
to
Ian St. John wrote:
> Of *course* there is a direct relationship. Where the hell did you get than
> non-sequitor???
>
Hmmm .. I *wish* the real world was that simple .. sorry, but I still
have considerable doubts.

Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 3:51:11 PM10/21/04
to
hanson wrote:

> = regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
> = $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
> = to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
> = which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
>

Well yeah. That's what I'm afraid of actually is happening here. Lately
you get to see more and more opposing data about the greenhouse-effect.
When you introduce this into a debate you pretty much get flamed to the
ground. Strange. Thought a healthy discussion about this subject with
the greenies might clarify things for me a bit. This however seems as
likely as hell freezing over.

Richard

Richard

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 4:00:30 PM10/21/04
to
Richard wrote:
>>
> Hmmm .. I *wish* the real world was that simple .. sorry, but I still
> have considerable doubts.

Lemme clarify this doubts on direct relationships. In another thread on
uk.sci.weather called "the winters of 1940-1942" there was this article
mentioned:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7011/abs/nature02982_fs.html

This describes the effect of El-Nino on Western European weather. Now, I
always assumed a fairly simple mechanism being present: when having an
El-Nino, European weather mainly sucks: heavy Westerlies bringing loads
and loads of rain and warm air. The above mentioned article however
involves a very strong El-Nino bringing exceptionally low surface
temperatures in Europe. Apparantly direct relationships aren't always
that direct. Now back to the CO2-matters. It is without a doubt that
around the year 1000 temperatures were considerably higher than of
today. This with lower CO2-levels. It seems this assumed direct
relationship therefore *could be* not that simple as it seems. At least
this data seems to point in that direction.

So, this is not a flame. I'm just seeking for people with understanding
of this matter to have an eye-opening discussion!

Richard

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 12:41:23 PM10/21/04
to
In article <4178155e$0$36860$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
Sure it can. But CO2 isn't the only factor.

If I add some HCl to water, the pH will go down. However, if somebody adds
even more NaOH, the pH will go up and it might look like HCl had no effect.

hanson

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 7:12:39 PM10/21/04
to
Woman, you have uncommon wisdom. -- Kudos to you!
You have wisdom that is totally lacking in the make up of
all those little green idiots, those willing but unpaid enablers
and facilitators for these domestic and foreign elitists who
intend to impoverish America down to third world status.

Enviro turds, the regulatory kind, are even worse! Still today,
enviros assist actively any terrorist with where to get his/her
"goodies" to make WMDs, by *forcing* companies to publish
and send mass mail letters out into the their surrounding
community to tell everybody, including terrorists, what kind
of haz-mat/dangerous materials, chemicals/bio/radioactive,
they use and have stored on their premises. - PBS/Bill Moyer
aired this earlier this year. The Enviro lawyer from a Wash.
Environmental Group, jumped up and down in fits, insisting
loudly that such terrorist enabling regulations must be kept
alive at all cost. The enemy is amongst us and it is GREEN!
hanson

"Cleopatra" <Lurch_Lurc...@linkedto.identicloak.com> wrote in
news:309fe327.04102...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<fuAdd.2523$KJ6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...


> > "Richard" <no....@spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:4176bf35$0$78279$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> > > Ever since the Kyoto agreements I've been always very
> > > much in favor of restricting emissions. This of course
> > > heavily influenced by our European governments who keeps
> > > denying other views. Lately I've been reading into a more
> > > opposing view.
> > >
> > [hanson]
> > .....Why are you even diddling with emission restrictions? That's
> > just the gimmick. Kydioto is about money...*ENVIRO-DOLLARS!*

> > = The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
> > = & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
> > = feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=

> > = regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
> > = $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
> > = to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
> > = which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
>

[Cleopatra]
> Actually, sir, you're dead on here. The Kyoto scam is designed
> principally to reduce the United States to another Third World nation
> with highly restrictive and punishing controls, and mostly aimed
> directly at the U.S.
>
> Beyond this, most of these Green charlatans and assorted
> enviro-whackos are simply useful idiots, foot soldiers in a war waged
> by elitists, mostly in Europe, to bring America to its knees and
> control through international environmental agreements what they can't
> control through their respective governments.
>
> No greater power can be wielded over people than by telling them what
> they can or cannot do with their own natural resources, and it matters
> not a bit whether it's your own government issuing the decrees or the
> UN doing it through agreements with your own government. These suckers
> will have us all living in caves given half a chance. Fuck the UN. We
> ought to raze that freakin' buliding in NYC to the ground and tell
> this crowd to relocate in the Sudan. There they can eat sand
> sandwiches and drink tea laced with more sand. That ought to satisfy
> their concern for the environment.
> Cleopatra
>
[hanson]
Woman, you have uncommon wisdom. Kudos to you!
You have wisdom that is totally lacking in the make up of
all those little green idiots, those willing but unpaid enablers
and facilitators for these domestic and foreign elitists who
intend to impoverish America down to third world status.

Enviro turds, the regulatory kind, are even worse! Still today,
enviros assist actively any terrorist with where to get his/her
"goodies" to make WMDs, by *forcing* companies to publish
and send mass mail letters out into the their surrounding
community to tell everybody, including terrorists, what kind
of haz-mat/dangerous materials, chemicals/bio/radioactive,
they use and have stored on their premises. - PBS/Bill Moyer
aired this earlier this year. The Enviro lawyer from a Wash.
Environmental Group, jumped up and down in fits, insisting
loudly that such terrorist enabling regulations must be kept
alive at all cost. The enemy is amongst us and it is GREEN!


Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 7:01:33 PM10/21/04
to
Richard wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>>>
>> Hmmm .. I *wish* the real world was that simple .. sorry, but I still
>> have considerable doubts.
>
> Lemme clarify this doubts on direct relationships. In another thread
> on uk.sci.weather called "the winters of 1940-1942" there was this
> article mentioned:
>
>
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7011/abs/nature02982_fs.html
>
> This describes the effect of El-Nino on Western European weather.
> Now, I always assumed a fairly simple mechanism being present: when
> having an El-Nino, European weather mainly sucks: heavy Westerlies
> bringing loads and loads of rain and warm air. The above mentioned
> article however involves a very strong El-Nino bringing exceptionally
> low surface temperatures in Europe. Apparantly direct relationships
> aren't always that direct. Now back to the CO2-matters. It is without
> a doubt that around the year 1000 temperatures were considerably
> higher than of today. This with lower CO2-levels. It seems this
> assumed direct relationship therefore *could be* not that simple as
> it seems. At least this data seems to point in that direction.

No. It points to a set of unrelated and incoherent facts or suppositions
that do not make a serious argument.

It is not a fact that GLOBAL temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago, for
example. This is a distortion that is created out of a regional warming in
the Western European area where most of the oldest documents remain so it
gives a distorted picture of the world. We know better because of long term
wide ranging dendrochronology , borehole and ice core studies.

Yes, El-Nino makes for changes in regional weather on a cyclical basis, but
that has nothing to do with the overall global thermal balance which is
based on the greenhouse effect, albedo, solar insolation, etc.

The direct relationship is a know fact of radiation physics. It is not
debatable. The only question has been whether there are any negative
feedbacks that might counter some of the warming. If you can show that, then
you can start doubting the issue.

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 8:11:19 PM10/21/04
to
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:01:33 -0400, "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:

><snip>


>The direct relationship is a know fact of radiation physics. It is not
>debatable. The only question has been whether there are any negative
>feedbacks that might counter some of the warming. If you can show that, then
>you can start doubting the issue.

I think another point should always be kept on the table, so to speak, where it
is in plain view:

"Global warming" isn't just temperature as one might read on a thermometer.
It's retained heat energy and that sometimes manifests itself as temperature but
also sometimes in other forms, such as in the heat of evaporation of water --
which causes no change in temperature, but still stores an incredible amount of
heat energy per gram evaporated. It can manifest itself as more energetic
weather systems, in other words. And it may actually cause *more* snow, not
less, as the evaporated moisture falls out in colder climates (for example, I
might expect to see greater snow precipitation in Antarctica and that would not
mean that global warming wasn't happening, but that it actually was happening.)

I'm coming into this group only to learn (sci.environment), but that much seems
clear to me from what I've read so far.

Jon

Ken

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 8:09:40 PM10/21/04
to
In 2001 the White House asked the US National academy of Science how
good the science is. It's worth a read. "Climate Change Science" It's
available online at
http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover.cgi?restric=NAP&term=climate+change+science&GO.x=0&GO.y=0
(I'm not sure that link fits the page - you can always look up the NAS
website and search for "Climate Change Science"). It ought to be
misquotable by all sides of this debate. The AGW skeptics can seize on
the admissions of areas of uncertainty and ignore the parts that say
the science is basically sound and the IPCC reports are essentially
correct as far as the NAS could determine. It doesn't go deep into
technicalities, but it does look at all the known contributors to
Global Warming including such things as airborne solids like soot, the
overall snowcover with it's effects on thermal absorbtion, the effects
of sulphate emmissions in countering warming and the effects of it's
reduction over recent years with the use of cleaner burning of coal
and reduced sulphur fuels.
Better to read it yourself.
Ken

hanson

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 8:30:19 PM10/21/04
to
"Richard" <no....@spam.net> wrote in message
news:4178132f$0$36860$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> hanson wrote:
> > = Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=

> > = $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
> > = to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
> > = which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
> >
[Richard]

> Well yeah. That's what I'm afraid of actually is happening here. Lately
> you get to see more and more opposing data about the greenhouse-effect.
> When you introduce this into a debate you pretty much get flamed to the
> ground. Strange. Thought a healthy discussion about this subject with
> the greenies might clarify things for me a bit. This however seems as
> likely as hell freezing over.
>
[hanson]
......AHAHAHAHAHA......ahahahaha.....no, no, Rich...it will only
happen when the hell turns green. See, you are going after
their raison d'etre, the source of their ill-gotten livelihood.
Follow the ever increasing hysteria and shrillness of the
environmentalists in these NGs and you'll get a clear pix.
All you will ever hear out of them are heavily green tinted facts
which will justify them to continue to feed off the graft from
their permit charges, user fees, enviro surtaxes and now the
Kydioto Carbon tax.
You'll never hear ANY truth out of them because they lie by
design in order to feed themselves. Their green scholars and
icons were preaching this from the outset, 30 years ago, that

= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)

ahahaha......ahahanson


Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 21, 2004, 11:15:46 PM10/21/04
to
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:01:33 -0400, "Ian St. John"
> <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> The direct relationship is a know fact of radiation physics. It is
>> not debatable. The only question has been whether there are any
>> negative feedbacks that might counter some of the warming. If you
>> can show that, then you can start doubting the issue.
>
> I think another point should always be kept on the table, so to
> speak, where it is in plain view:
>
> "Global warming" isn't just temperature as one might read on a
> thermometer.

Actually, it is, but averaged over both time and the entire globe to remove
the temporal and spacial dynamics.

> It's retained heat energy and that sometimes manifests
> itself as temperature but also sometimes in other forms, such as in
> the heat of evaporation of water -- which causes no change in
> temperature, but still stores an incredible amount of heat energy per
> gram evaporated.

Which is true and which can cause 'noise' in the signal, such as a peak
during El-Nino as more heat energy comes out of the oceans, but it cannot
change the overall signal trend. Over time, the conversions from 'latent' to
'sensible' heat average out.

> It can manifest itself as more energetic weather
> systems, in other words. And it may actually cause *more* snow, not
> less, as the evaporated moisture falls out in colder climates (for
> example, I might expect to see greater snow precipitation in
> Antarctica and that would not mean that global warming wasn't
> happening, but that it actually was happening.)

A more 'dynamic' weather system is certainly an easy prediction, but on the
conversion of global temperature change to climate change, the 'devil' is in
the details. Unlike global warming itself, the reaction of the climate to
the warming is rather hard to pin down. We can say only that it is almost
certain to make a mess (given that we have a massive investment in 'things
as they are' including climate) but the exact nature of the changes is open
to question.

>
> I'm coming into this group only to learn (sci.environment), but that
> much seems clear to me from what I've read so far.

You seem to have learned more than the trolls already at least.

>
> Jon


Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 2:34:16 AM10/22/04
to
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:15:46 -0400, "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:

>Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:01:33 -0400, "Ian St. John"
>> <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> The direct relationship is a know fact of radiation physics. It is
>>> not debatable. The only question has been whether there are any
>>> negative feedbacks that might counter some of the warming. If you
>>> can show that, then you can start doubting the issue.
>>
>> I think another point should always be kept on the table, so to
>> speak, where it is in plain view:
>>
>> "Global warming" isn't just temperature as one might read on a
>> thermometer.
>
>Actually, it is, but averaged over both time and the entire globe to remove
>the temporal and spacial dynamics.

Which you expand on more, shortly.

>> It's retained heat energy and that sometimes manifests
>> itself as temperature but also sometimes in other forms, such as in
>> the heat of evaporation of water -- which causes no change in
>> temperature, but still stores an incredible amount of heat energy per
>> gram evaporated.
>
>Which is true and which can cause 'noise' in the signal, such as a peak
>during El-Nino as more heat energy comes out of the oceans, but it cannot
>change the overall signal trend. Over time, the conversions from 'latent' to
>'sensible' heat average out.

By this, I take it that you mean that when the latent heat stored in moisture
(for example) falls out as precipitation, that this heat is returned to the
system as 'temperature', so that this storage is only temporary?

If so, let me ask a question. Is it possible that the atmosphere might store
some additional latent heat simply as additional humidity, particularly if the
average temperatures do also rise. In other words, isn't there at least *some*
heat energy that can be retained in the atmosphere and must be accounted for
through careful calorimetric analysis?

And evaporation isn't the only mechanism. There is latent heat in converting
ice to water, as well -- about half the calories per gram as from going from
liquid to vapor, if my poor memory serves. With the melting taking place, is
this also being accounted?

>> It can manifest itself as more energetic weather
>> systems, in other words. And it may actually cause *more* snow, not
>> less, as the evaporated moisture falls out in colder climates (for
>> example, I might expect to see greater snow precipitation in
>> Antarctica and that would not mean that global warming wasn't
>> happening, but that it actually was happening.)
>
>A more 'dynamic' weather system is certainly an easy prediction, but on the
>conversion of global temperature change to climate change, the 'devil' is in
>the details. Unlike global warming itself, the reaction of the climate to
>the warming is rather hard to pin down. We can say only that it is almost
>certain to make a mess (given that we have a massive investment in 'things
>as they are' including climate) but the exact nature of the changes is open
>to question.

Understood. I remember reading that trying to estimate high altitude versus low
altitude cloud formation, for example, is a big difficulty -- even assuming
increased evaporation.

>> I'm coming into this group only to learn (sci.environment), but that
>> much seems clear to me from what I've read so far.
>
>You seem to have learned more than the trolls already at least.

Nice to hear I'm doing better than the worst. I guess I'll try to be satisfied
with that.

Jon

Michael Tobis

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 4:30:54 AM10/22/04
to
Richard <no....@spam.net> wrote:

> right .. so why are we soooo concerned about CO2-levels? Apparently
> there isn't a direct correlation between CO2-levels and rising-temperatures.

We need to establish that we are talking about the same thing.

Because CO2 is not the only factor operating on multimillion year time
scales does not mean it is *uncorrelated* with global mean
temperature.

There's a great deal else that concerns me about how you are thinking
about this, but we can start there.

Please define "direct correlation" as you are using it, because in the
usual sense of the "correlation" what you say is unsupported and, in
fact, not supportable.

mt

Richard

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 5:01:18 AM10/22/04
to
Ken wrote:
> Better to read it yourself.
>
Thanks Ken! Interesting info!

Richard

Richard

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 5:20:13 AM10/22/04
to
Ian St. John wrote:
>
> It is not a fact that GLOBAL temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago, for
> example. This is a distortion that is created out of a regional warming in
> the Western European area where most of the oldest documents remain so it
> gives a distorted picture of the world. We know better because of long term
> wide ranging dendrochronology , borehole and ice core studies.
>
Ok, now we're getting to the interesting stuff.
Isn't it that only Mann said that there's *no* Medieval warming period
based on data collected in the Western US? And that this was challenged
by the Soon and Baliunas study that the warming period *does* exist? All
ofcourse based on proxy-data.
Also Mann's data does show there hasn't been a "Little Ice Age". Also
based on proxy data. However I know of a temperature set going back to
the early 1700s (KNMI: national weather institute here in The
Netherlands) that does show a significant cooling. Ok, now you say I'm
confusing weather with climate. But I'm only giving this fact to show
that Mann's proxy-conclusions show a different picture than actual
temperature readings done in the 1700s. The Soon and Baliunas study does
show a "Little Ice Age" in different parts of the world, so it may well
be reasonable to assume this was a worldwide phenomenon. The same study
also shows an equal picture for the "Medieval warming period".

Now I'm really confused. Why should Mann's conclusions be accepted
without a doubt and do we have to disregard Soon and Baliunas's???

Richard

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 5:42:01 AM10/22/04
to
October 22, 2004

Richard wrote:

> Now I'm really confused. Why should Mann's conclusions be accepted
> without a doubt and do we have to disregard Soon and Baliunas's???

Ummm, because Soon and Baliunas are well know cranks who get their funding from
industries who extract and sell hydrocarbons for profit? Perhaps?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.member.atlantic.net

>
>
> Richard

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 5:42:56 AM10/22/04
to
In sci.environment Richard <no....@spam.net> wrote:
>Ian St. John wrote:
>>
>> It is not a fact that GLOBAL temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago...

>>
>Ok, now we're getting to the interesting stuff.

Yes indeed. Why don't you start but sourcing your utter certainty that
T was higher 1000 years ago? You asserted that with no qualification
at all.

>Isn't it that only Mann said that there's *no* Medieval warming period
>based on data collected in the Western US?

Its pretty obvious from this that you are parrotting skeptic websites.
Wouldn't it be a good idea (if we're attempting to have a scientific
discussion) for you to source your claims?

Firstly, no, its not just Mann. The insistence on "Mann" is pretty
characteristic of the septic side. The paper you are trying to refer to
is Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 and following.

Secondly, it isn't just that paper. See:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-21.htm

for more.

>And that this was challenged
>by the Soon and Baliunas study that the warming period *does* exist? All
>ofcourse based on proxy-data.

The S+B article was a disaster area, see:

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm

>Also Mann's data does show there hasn't been a "Little Ice Age". Also
>based on proxy data. However I know of a temperature set going back to
>the early 1700s (KNMI: national weather institute here in The
>Netherlands) that does show a significant cooling. Ok, now you say I'm
>confusing weather with climate.

No, you're confusing a record from a single place with a hemispheric
average.

>But I'm only giving this fact to show
>that Mann's proxy-conclusions show a different picture than actual
>temperature readings done in the 1700s.

The LIA was iniitally an european thing, because thats where the researchers
were. Its not clear it was a hemispheric or global thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

>The Soon and Baliunas study does
>show a "Little Ice Age" in different parts of the world, so it may well
>be reasonable to assume this was a worldwide phenomenon. The same study
>also shows an equal picture for the "Medieval warming period".

>Now I'm really confused.

Thats true. Read up some of the links above and you will be less so.

-W.

--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!

Richard

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 5:48:56 AM10/22/04
to
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>
> Ummm, because Soon and Baliunas are well know cranks who get their funding from
> industries who extract and sell hydrocarbons for profit? Perhaps?
>
Ok, good point. But the same applies for Mann being on the IPCC and
having considerable vested interests!

But define "well known cranks". What study did they do that turned out
to be false? That would put things in a different perspective.

James Annan

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 7:00:56 AM10/22/04
to
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

> And evaporation isn't the only mechanism. There is latent heat in converting
> ice to water, as well -- about half the calories per gram as from going from
> liquid to vapor, if my poor memory serves. With the melting taking place, is
> this also being accounted?

Yes, it has all been accounted, and by far the dominant sink of all the
extra heat energy is in the world's oceans, which have warmed up by
about 16x10^22J in the last 4 decades. Which is rather close to the net
radiative balance implied by models.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 9:43:40 AM10/22/04
to

Well, that is one 'noise' but you must understand that the residence time of
any particular water vapor molecule runs around seven to ten days so any
variation in latent vs sensible heat due to water vapor is short term. These
are noise terms in the balance, and do not affect the long term average
temperature. It is also important to note that global warming must not only
warm the atmosphere ( which has a low heat content ) but must also warm the
heat sinks ( high heat content, such as the oceans, ice sheets and land )
so, while the warming is not really affected by the short term noise in the
processes, there *is* a significant 'lag' between the forcing and the
temperature as the system slowly moves toward equilibrium.

>
> If so, let me ask a question. Is it possible that the atmosphere
> might store some additional latent heat simply as additional
> humidity, particularly if the average temperatures do also rise. In
> other words, isn't there at least *some* heat energy that can be
> retained in the atmosphere and must be accounted for through careful
> calorimetric analysis?

Some in terms that the new atmsophere may have a higher water vapor content
total, but this is a small factor compared to the overall set of processes.
Higher absolute humidity is more important for reasons of floods, droughts,
and convective storms. The rule of thumb is a 6% increase in water vapor
content for a 1C change in global temperature. But that is only in areas
where there is more water to evaporate. Do not apply to the Sahara Desert
for obvious reasons.

More evaporation means higher latent heat carried away with evaporation, and
so, more sensible heat released on condensation, but the relative humidity
stays about the same since equations for evaporation rates have the relative
humidity as a term. While more water is evaporated in a warmer air mass, the
relative humidity change for the same area, wind speed, etc is approximately
constant.


>
> And evaporation isn't the only mechanism. There is latent heat in
> converting ice to water, as well -- about half the calories per gram
> as from going from liquid to vapor, if my poor memory serves. With
> the melting taking place, is this also being accounted?

No. Melting 50 cubic kilometers of the Greenland ice sheet every year, for
example, is not going to affect the equations enough since the total
insolation is so large in comparison. It will have local effects, of course
in terms of the 'heat engine' that distributes equatorial warmth to the
poles. You might try to work out the numbers if you are really interested,
but I did not see it as a term in the IPCC forcings.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/251.htm#tab611
Note: This WG1 reference is a good place to start on any question, however,
it will probably bowl you over with the detail to which the question has
been considered by the scientific community. First stage in learning is to
find a good reference and find out what we know so far.

>
>>> It can manifest itself as more energetic weather
>>> systems, in other words. And it may actually cause *more* snow, not
>>> less, as the evaporated moisture falls out in colder climates (for
>>> example, I might expect to see greater snow precipitation in
>>> Antarctica and that would not mean that global warming wasn't
>>> happening, but that it actually was happening.)
>>
>> A more 'dynamic' weather system is certainly an easy prediction, but
>> on the conversion of global temperature change to climate change,
>> the 'devil' is in the details. Unlike global warming itself, the
>> reaction of the climate to the warming is rather hard to pin down.
>> We can say only that it is almost certain to make a mess (given that
>> we have a massive investment in 'things as they are' including
>> climate) but the exact nature of the changes is open to question.
>
> Understood. I remember reading that trying to estimate high altitude
> versus low altitude cloud formation, for example, is a big difficulty
> -- even assuming increased evaporation.

And note that high clouds vs low clouds are opposite in effect on the
temperature.

>
>>> I'm coming into this group only to learn (sci.environment), but that
>>> much seems clear to me from what I've read so far.
>>
>> You seem to have learned more than the trolls already at least.
>
> Nice to hear I'm doing better than the worst. I guess I'll try to be
> satisfied with that.

Anyone who is interested in learning first learns that the more they know,
the less they understand ( of what they now see is there to be known). It
goes with the territory. The thing they really learn is how much they
*don't* know. And I count myself in that category. Only trolls feel that
they know everything. It is the test by which they are known.

>
> Jon


Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 10:46:33 AM10/22/04
to
Richard wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>>
>> It is not a fact that GLOBAL temperatures were higher 1,000 years
>> ago, for example. This is a distortion that is created out of a
>> regional warming in the Western European area where most of the
>> oldest documents remain so it gives a distorted picture of the
>> world. We know better because of long term wide ranging
>> dendrochronology , borehole and ice core studies.
>>
> Ok, now we're getting to the interesting stuff.

O.K.

> Isn't it that only Mann said that there's *no* Medieval warming period
> based on data collected in the Western US?

Very wrong.

1: There is a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age. It is, however,
regional in extent.
2: Mann did studies averaging the temperature trends of the entire Northern
Hemisphere, and this showed no spike during the MWP/LIA period, showing that
the MWP/LIA was a regional climate change associated with the movement of
heat from one region to another, NOT the overall temperature.
3: All dendrochronology, borehole and ice core studies are consistent with
this. One clue is that studies which exclude the equatorial regions up to
about 30 degrees show the MWP/LIA around the globe at high latitude with a
concentration in Western Europe where it was noted. This indicates that it
was a change in the heat distribution at high latitudes and probably
concentrated in Western Europe because the Asian continent blocks the
westerly flows.

> And that this was
> challenged by the Soon and Baliunas study that the warming period
> *does* exist?

The Soon/Baliunas so called study did not establish that it did or didn't
exist. As a regional climate change, it is known to exist. What Soon and
Baliunas did was take a few cherry picked points and try to claim that it
was global. Their 'study' was seriously flawed.


> All ofcourse based on proxy-data.
> Also Mann's data does show there hasn't been a "Little Ice Age". Also
> based on proxy data.

No. It shows that there was not a GLOBAL MWP/LIA where the entire WORLD
warmed and cooled. Given the rate at which the MWP/LIA warmed and cooled in
Europe, the amount of energy to make this happen globally is just not to be
believed. Until you can come up with a reasonable mechnaism for such rapid
changes in the energy content of the globe, the issue is dead as a
comparison between global and regional temperature trends. The globe has
warmed by 0.6C in 120 years vs the MWP warming of 5C in a decade or so.
Obviously the greenhouse effect is too weak to explain a *GLOBAL* MWP/LIA so
what happened? They missed the sudden appearance of a nearby supernova? And
the LIA was caused by?

> However I know of a temperature set going back to
> the early 1700s (KNMI: national weather institute here in The
> Netherlands) that does show a significant cooling.

Exactly. And of course that is highly regional and in the Western European
area of the MWP/LIA. Should I be surprised??? Dendrochronology studies of
the Western Europe area clearly show the MWP and LIA. Your confusion is
between REGIONAL and GLOBAL. A trick that the junk science websites tend to
overwork.

> Ok, now you say I'm
> confusing weather with climate.

NO NO. Regional vs Global. \

> But I'm only giving this fact to show
> that Mann's proxy-conclusions show a different picture than actual
> temperature readings done in the 1700s.

No. They don't.

> The Soon and Baliunas study
> does show a "Little Ice Age" in different parts of the world,

No. It doesn't. It shows warming and cooling in different regions without a
connection either in time or space. Nor is there a postulate as to the
mechanism of warming or cooling the entire globe. Regional warmings and
coolings happen all the time and if you cherry pick a few you can establish
anything you like regardless of the facts. Which is what they did allowing
such a wide window of time that you couldn't help but find SOME warming or
cooling in the time frame from local climate processes.

> so it may well be reasonable to assume this was a worldwide phenomenon.

No. To show a global phenomenon, you would need to both show that the
warming and cooling were during the same period, not just overlapping in a
wide five century 'window' the MWP/LIA and you would have to show a
mechanism for adding millions of quads of energy to the globe over a decade
or less and then taking it away. Nobody has come up with anything reasonable
that I know of. The main determinant of the global total energy is the
tropopause where convection gives way to radiation heat transfer ( and thus
radiation to space ). Only three natural processes are known to affect the
thermal balance of the world significantly.

Volcanic eruptions can cast massive amounts of dust into the upper
atmsophere, but global volcanic activity of this magnitude would be recorded
everywhere as the 'end of the world'.

Solar insolation can change ( but this would also be noted and we have proxy
studies on the strength of the solar radiation ( from isotopes created by
cosmic rays which tend to follow the suns activity due to the shielding
effect of the solar magnetism ) and while the sun did decrease in magnitude
by about 0.24% during the 'Maunder Minimum' associated with the onset of the
LIA this does not come anywhere NEAR the amount necessary to explain either
the MWP or the LIA. It may have been a *trigger* event that changed the
regional climate dynamics to switch between the MWP and LIA.

The greenhouse effect can change the depth of atmosphere warmed and thus the
surface temperature,but no large releases of greenhouse gasses have been
postulated. This may be the most feasible mechanism, if you had a large
eruption of distrurbed methane clathrates. The instruments of the day would
not even notice a change in the methane content of the air, but you would
have though that such would be detected in modern analysis of ice core
samples which trap air from the period.

More importantly, *regional* analysis of the MWP in dendrochronology studies
NOT centered in Europe show no MWP or LIA period. Because the northern
hemisophere holds most of the land, and most of the trees, it is the most
robutstly determined area of the world for such studies. The southern
hemisphere has huge areas of ocean that cannot be well characterised. This
is one reason that he Mann, et al studies concentrated on the Northern
Hemisphere data. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/littleiceage.pdf
see Central England in Table 2 and compare with other regions. You can see
the distinct MWP/LIA trends in central england quite easily but ONLY there.

Note also that climate is though not to be able to cross the equator due to
the nature of the circulation cells and thus the NH and SH are separate in
their climate response. What could affect both hermispheres at the same
time? Only insolation, aerosols and the GHE as noted above and what could
drive any one of these mechanisms to a rate of warming ten to a hundred
times greater than the current? And without the driving mechanism being
dramatic enough to be noticed????? You just don't change planetary
equilibrium on that kind of scale at that kind of rate without a major
event.

> The
> same study also shows an equal picture for the "Medieval warming
> period".

The Soon and Baliunas study was a shitstorm, and does not show anything very
well. They are working outside of their area of expertise and are clearly
working on an predetermined agenda. Not a source of good science. They may
have some points about sensitivity to selection of data, but that is still
being argued. The principle component analysis is used by several other
scientists in the same field with similar results but with a different
selection of data which argues that the Mann, et al technique is robust.
Maybe too robust.. There is a recent paper out that claims it may
underestimate short term variability but the MWP and LIA were NOT short term
variations, so they should have showed even under the critique of their
methods as suppressing short term peaks and valleys.

>
> Now I'm really confused. Why should Mann's conclusions be accepted
> without a doubt

They aren't. They are just competent science done by an expert in that
field. Even the IPCC did theri own variations on his techniques to get their
own results and found them consistent overall with the Mann, et all 1999
paper.

> and do we have to disregard Soon and Baliunas's???

Rather than disregard them, you should critique their paper to see if they
have 'hit' on something. The climate scintists don't disregard them. I don't
even require you to come up with a mechanism for warming and cooling the
world. First the data, then the explanation. But first you must have SOLID
reasons for believing that the MWP/LIA was global in extent as well as
synchronous in time, and THEN you have the even more massive problem of
explaining this sort of weirdness in terms of where did the energy come from
and go to? Also, note that scientists showing a lack of impartiality such
as Soon, Baliuna, Michaels, etc should have to pass a harder review than
those who are just letting the cards fall as they may.

http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/publications/developments/climate_trends-03_e.html
Soon,W. and Baliunas,S. 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of
the past 1000 years. Climate Research 23:89-110.
In this paper, American astrophysicists Soon and Baliunas undertake a
comprehensive review of some 240 studies, published over the past 40 years,
that provide local and larger scale temperature and precipitation proxies
based on paleo data. They conclude that these studies show evidence of a
widespread Little Ice Age (LIA) anomaly (defined as of 50 year duration)
between 1300 and 1900, and a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) anomaly between 800
and 1300. Furthermore, for many locations, the MWP had a warmer 50 year peak
anomaly than that observed in the 20th century. They also find fault with
some of the methodologies used by Mann et al. in developing an aggregate
Northern Hemisphere proxy temperature record. Soon and Baliunas argue that
their findings undermine the conclusion of Mann et al. (and accepted by the
IPCC TAR) that the 20th century warm period was likely unprecedented within
the past 1000 years and therefore unusual. The study is a reminder that the
debate about whether or not the warming over the past 50 years could be
entirely due to natural causes is not over. However, in many respects, the
authors present conclusions similar to that of the IPCC, with one major
exception. That is that, while most areas of the Northern Hemisphere
experienced a warm period at some time during the 800 to 1300 MWP window,
the timing of the anomaly varied from location to location, so that there
was no single synchronous warm period over the Northern Hemisphere. When
spatially averaged, there was no clear evidence of a Northern Hemisphere
MWP.

Soon, W.W.-H., D.R. Legates, and S.L. Baliunas, 2004. Estimation and
representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded
surface temperatures: A note of caution. Geophys. Res. Letters., 31,
doi:10.1029/2003GL019141.
Three American scientists examine the methods recently used by some
paleoclimatologists to calculate smoothing trends for recent instrumental
temperature data. Past studies reported in the IPCC TAR and more recently by
Mann and Jones (2003) use a 40-year smoothing trend for both millennial
scale trend analysis and, for comparison purposes, for the instrumental
record of the past 150 years. For the last 20 years of the record, those
studies use a statistical technique for extending the trends to the end of
the record by using mean values to extrapolate up to 20 years into the
future. Soon et al. apply their own methods for calculating this extended
smoothed trend line to the end of the century. The results illustrate the
sensitivity of the trend calculations to the method used and the importance
of describing methodologies used in reporting data trends. However, they
also significantly overstate the problem by incorrectly claiming that some
of the published studies use the smoothing analyses to claim warming rates
between 2002 and 2003 of 1 to 2.5C/decade!


>
> Richard


Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 10:54:29 AM10/22/04
to
Ian St. John wrote:
:

> Only three natural processes are known to affect the thermal balance of
the
> world significantly.

Correction. "over this short a time period".

On the longer term, (millenia to millions of years) Sea level, continental
drift, abedo, ocean current paths, etc etc etc can have a massive combined
effect.


Richard

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 11:14:07 AM10/22/04
to
Ian St. John wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
>>Ian St. John wrote:
>>
[cut :D]
>
D*mn Ian, now *that* was the response I was looking for. Thanks!! Now
I'm off reading all of your response!

Richard

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 7:27:26 AM10/22/04
to
In article <4178d788$0$566$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,

Richard <no....@spam.net> wrote:
>Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>>
>> Ummm, because Soon and Baliunas are well know cranks who get their
funding from
>> industries who extract and sell hydrocarbons for profit? Perhaps?
>>
>Ok, good point. But the same applies for Mann being on the IPCC and
>having considerable vested interests!
>

No. That's like equating Mother Theresa and the VP of Enron because they
both work for somebody higher up.

Richard

unread,
Oct 22, 2004, 1:59:44 PM10/22/04
to
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> No. That's like equating Mother Theresa and the VP of Enron because they
> both work for somebody higher up.
>
hehehe .. Now I'm having a weird picture in my mind I can't get rid of :D

bw

unread,
Oct 23, 2004, 3:05:49 AM10/23/04
to
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:Ea9ed.58369$JG5.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...

Yes, we live on an ocean planet. Heat capacity (and therefore heat
transport) of a cubic meter of water (1000 kg) is many times greater than a
cubic meter of atmosphere (1.2 kg)

cubic meter water = 4186 Joules/kg ( per degree) x 1000 = 4186 KJ
cubic meter air = 1000 Joules/kg x 1.2 = 1.2 KJ

So the top meter of ocean holds about 3500 times the heat of the "bottom"
meter of atmosphere, which is the meter we live in. This is approximate
because 30 percent of the surface is rock with greater density but lower
heat capacity. Also, rock does not have currents like the ocean, but the
general idea is the "solid" and "liquid" earth hold most of the thermal
energy.

I have no idea how one can quantifiy global conditions without good
measurements of the oceans. It's my understanding that the GCMs have no
accounting for ocean currents.

Also, don't neglect biological feedbacks on atmospheric gas composition.

Brent Wegher


Ian St. John

unread,
Oct 23, 2004, 9:21:14 AM10/23/04
to

It is somewhat primitive still, but from my reading, it is not necessarily
missing entirely.

http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/mconk/
"In the Q-flux model, a fixed amount of energy is exchanged through ocean
currents. This mixed ocean layer treatment allows the model to predict the
ocean temperature; changes in the ocean heat content occur due to changes in
evaporation, radiation, etc. The coupled model is a combined AGCM
(Atmospheric General Circulation Model) and OGCM (Oceanic General
Circulation model). In this treatment, variables are allowed to vary in
response to one another, for example, SST in response to atmospheric
forcings. While the coupled model is the most physically realistic, because
it allows variables to change one another as they do in real life, it is
also the least accurate, as only the starting values are prescribed.
However, in order to make accurate predictions of future climate, we will
need to use a simulation like the coupled model."

>
> Also, don't neglect biological feedbacks on atmospheric gas
> composition.

I don't believe that they do. CO2 from decomposition to Methyl Chloride from
sea water,. etc are part of the IPCC study. Of course, it can always be
improved..

>
> Brent Wegher


James Annan

unread,
Oct 23, 2004, 10:10:29 AM10/23/04
to
Ian St. John wrote:

> bw wrote:
>

>>It's my understanding that the GCMs have
>>no accounting for ocean currents.
>
>
> It is somewhat primitive still, but from my reading, it is not necessarily
> missing entirely.
>
> http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/mconk/

"still"? Didn't you see the date there ^^^^ ? You are right of course
that "no accounting for ocean currents" is well wide of the mark.

Charles Hawtrey

unread,
Oct 23, 2004, 6:00:26 PM10/23/04
to
"bw" <bwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have no idea how one can quantifiy global conditions without good
>measurements of the oceans. It's my understanding that the GCMs have no
>accounting for ocean currents.

Bzzt -- sorry, no points.

Coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs have been around for many years, and are
in fact the standard present-day tool for climate projection. For a
starter see the web page of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
(CMIP):
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/index.html


Someone who deals with weather and teaches it

unread,
Oct 23, 2004, 7:41:33 PM10/23/04
to
Ok..Taking a look at all of what we call "Global warming"..What is a
warming process?.. It is condensation, which is going from a water
vapor to a liquid. If you go from condensation to freezing you will
add more heat to the atmosphere. There by adding more ice not melting
Ice, because melting is a cooling process.. Now, if you melt more Ice
then you freeze then you will cool the atmosphere. Well, take a look
at what you do when you melt the ice. You add more water to the
planet. Which this in turn will take longer to heat up. Increasing
evaporation which is another cooling process to the atmosphere. So,
Mother nature will always try to balance itself. It has been happening
for millenia and millenia...Long before we got here... Now, that being
said.. Should lead you to believe that the science part has always
been there..It is just Media driving fear into you to believe that you
will die soon if you dont stop and buy something.. So, buy what they
tell you and quit buying those SUV's that they tell you too, because
you will only live once... It is funny how the world works.. Mother
nature balanced on one side and media balanced on the other.. Who will
win.. In the end it will take billions of years for all the ice to
melt and while it is melting cooling the earth down we will then run
into an Ice age.. Just kidding.. If you believe everything that media
puts out you might as well give them all your money and shoot
yourself.. And if you don't believe what I just said about how the
cooling or warming process is then you need to do research on it..
Just quit buying into the Mass media and think... Thanks for listening
even if you didnt...

David Ball

unread,
Oct 23, 2004, 8:01:35 PM10/23/04
to
On 23 Oct 2004 16:41:33 -0700, jz...@yahoo.com (Someone who deals with

I certainly hope you were kidding when you said you teach
this. Frankly, sir, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Oct 25, 2004, 7:10:19 AM10/25/04
to
In article <b13f097a.04102...@posting.google.com>,

jz...@yahoo.com (Someone who deals with weather and teaches it) wrote:
>Ok..Taking a look at all of what we call "Global warming"..What is a
>warming process?.. It is condensation, which is going from a water
>vapor to a liquid. If you go from condensation to freezing you will
>add more heat to the atmosphere. There by adding more ice not melting
>Ice, because melting is a cooling process.. Now, if you melt more Ice
>then you freeze then you will cool the atmosphere. Well, take a look
>at what you do when you melt the ice. You add more water to the
>planet. Which this in turn will take longer to heat up. Increasing
>evaporation which is another cooling process to the atmosphere. So,
>Mother nature will always try to balance itself. It has been happening
>for millenia and millenia...Long before we got here...

But Mother Nature works slowly, and humans are causing rapid changes.


>Now, that being
>said.. Should lead you to believe that the science part has always
>been there..It is just Media driving fear into you to believe that you
>will die soon if you dont stop and buy something.. So, buy what they
>tell you and quit buying those SUV's that they tell you too, because
>you will only live once... It is funny how the world works.. Mother
>nature balanced on one side and media balanced on the other.. Who will
>win.. In the end it will take billions of years for all the ice to
>melt

Not if the warming increases.


>and while it is melting cooling the earth down we will then run
>into an Ice age.. Just kidding..

The scary part is, you don't believe you are.


>If you believe everything that media
>puts out you might as well give them all your money and shoot
>yourself.. And if you don't believe what I just said about how the
>cooling or warming process is then you need to do research on it..
>Just quit buying into the Mass media and think... Thanks for listening
>even if you didnt...

We read the science. You don't seem to.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages