Global warming is it really happening

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dwayne made the claim that there is a relationship between gravity, the movement of the magnetic poles and global warming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: It's a big pond to drink from...

No, it is not the difference between "cooler" and "warmer" that they are pointing out. It is the difference between "short-term" and "long-term" that they are pointing out. They are saying (rightly or wrongly) that there will be short-term, seasonal variations of hot and cold weather, but the overall, long-term trend in global surface temperatures is and has been up for a number of years.

The satellite data is still a controversial subject. The questions that are being explored seem to be what layer of the atmosphere is the satellites (and weather balloons) measuring and why are there variations between that data and the surface data. Some think that the two still agree when you factor in other atmospheric issues:

http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/99-175.shtml

The thing you've been failing to directly say (and I haven't seen it on John Daly's site either) is what do you do with the surface data? What you seem to be suggesting is that, since the ground station data cannot be relied upon (due to UHI and the like), the data should be dumped in favor of the satellite data. What other scientists are saying, on the other hand, is that surface data represents a significant amount of data from which to build proper models from and the satellite data is new data to add into those models and, ultimately, that the models must account for both sets of data!

p.s. The GISS did mention the cold in southern hemisphere, but it appears to depend upon where you look as to whether it is colder or warmer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok gloabal warming

When we look at the sun as it begins its magnetic reversal, what we see prior to the reversal, or at its initation, is that diameter of the sun shrinks by 10%, and then later rexspands.
in this shrinkage of the sun we see that there is a collaspe of gravity, or a increase in gravity to cause the collaspe of the suns shell,
this same event is happening on earth, one of earths gravity barriers is 65 miles(50) or so up in the atmophsere, here as the earth get ready for its magnetic reversal the atmosphere collaspes, here we see the problem with the Ozone depletion, causeing the ozone hole.
the collaspe of the atmosphere happens after the a effective change in the core of the earth, the is a increase in gravity as the shinks and contracts by about 10 %, ten % of the earths diameter is equal to about 80 miles.
the collapse recorded on the sun takes about 36 to 40 days, defining a forumla fo this as was done before relavant to the constant of the sun. give the time frame of about 46 years for the earth to collaspe, this collaspe is seen as the start of a magnetic reversal on the sun and it also so for the earth. the ozone hole was desicoverd i think about 30 years ago and has been getting larger ever since. what we see is the collapse of the atmopshere is the with the depletion of the ozone is just the shaking and trembling or the actual collaspe, when the actaul phsical collapse occurss the crust of the earth will shrink in contraction, some 40 miles, 20 miles in each hemishere, and others 10 miles.

The action of this collaspe of the atmosphere caused by the magentic reversal and gavity increase, causes the earth to warm,
in addtion when the atmophere of space intrudes in to earth the earth will cool, which will cause a ice age over a very large area of the earth. as for know the earth is increasing in gravity and the warming will be a result, untill the final collapse which will greatly heat the earth and then take it into a ice age.

the sky is falling the sky is falling Oh no the sky is really falling!

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

 

nuff said....

 

Yes I agree I think we need to get over it and move on, we do have the technology to reverse the affects humans create... but government('s) supress this technology, and for somewhat of a good reason, think about it smog and polution laws would no longer have a leg to stand on.

also volcanos spew out more cfc's and green-house gasses in one year then we have ever created, 100's to 1000's of time that amount each year.

all you gfreen-house freaks out there need to stop worrying about what you can't change.....

Seadoggy

 

sh**! i forgot to put the end quote command in so it's all runnin' together. sorry if yuo can't figure it out i'll re-submit, let me know...
seadoggy....

 

i read this in a recent post by fraggle rocker...:"I'm having trouble believing your a scientist at all...."

I'm having trouble beliving he's over the age of 13....oh well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Um, given your previous few posts, you don't appear to be doing much better... :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't just post for the sake of posting. Contribute to the discussion on global warming (which is what this thread is about).

 

I don't understand your point.... ok since your not being very clear as to what you mean i'll try to cover all the bases

if your refering to my first reply (the long one) please prove me wrong on something i appreciate being led away from false ideas..

if the second, my appologies for being new to the format i'll try harder next time...

if the third is the case, then my question to you is : Are you posting replies just to be posting replies? or do you have something to add to the conversation.

if you don't understand a direct challenge to credabillity than i got a bridge in san-fransico for sale cheeeaap!

I would really like to hear from you on this and remember take what you THINK you know about what is going on around you, multiply that by infinity and you just might catch a glimpse of the big picture.

im out, seadoggy

 

You're right. I missed your first reply and, so, I spoke out of turn. Your last reply seemed a bit uncalled for given the (so far) limited number of posts you've made. It also seemed likely to turn this thread into a flame war and I hoped to cut that off at the pass and keep things on topic.

Oh well. If this is going to become flame war, I'll just unsubscribe the thread. I shouldn't have made a comment on your post.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I suggest to read all the surface data (rural area stations, not influenced by the "heat island effect") that shows <b>there is not a LONG TERM trernd towards warming.</b>
You are familiar with John Daly's page "What the Stations Say" at http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm showing <b>hundreds</b> of surface stations where you can see <font color=red><b>there is no warming trend.</b></font> So there is "official" data from surface stations, not satelite readings. Satelite read lower troposphere temperatures, precisely the region that models predict will warm first. As they are accurate to 0,01°C, we can assume the lower troposphere has not warmed. Period.

What I am against are computer modeling that purpot to predict the climate, tens or hundreds of year from now, <b>but have failed to predict next week's weather.</b> And all the fuss about warming is based on these totally non functional models! What can we expect from an equation (models are long and complex equations) with more than 1 million variables and constants, whose values have been corrected constantly (and given arbitrary values) because when "run in reverse", using values of past climates, cannot give the present temperatures and atmospheric conditions.

This, for those who don't know about what we're talking about, means that when you run the models inputting the known values of the past (say CO2, methane, etc, levels and temperatures, they miss present day temperatures and conditions by a megaparsec.

What can you think of an equation where an extremely importan variable has a negative or a positive value? This is what happens with <b>clouds</b>, that climatologists have not agreed yet if they cool the Earth or they contribute to warm the planet.

Climate models are just rubbish. And for the sake of rubbsih Kyoto wants to stop development and take mankind to the 10th Century. It angers me...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So now you're back to John Daly's site. Let me ask this then -- what would the following map look like if John Daly had done it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You didn't mention the previous article I posted a link for on this subject. It found a relationship between ozone depletion and lower temperatures in the troposphere. Here it is again:

http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/99-175.shtml

Bah! This is a fallacy in your thinking. Long-term trends are easier to predict than short-term fluctuations. That's the way statistical modelling works -- regardless of whether it is applied to something difficult like global warming or something trivial like flipping a coin! The inability to predict if the next flip of a coin will be heads or tails does not invalidate the prediction that, over thousands of flips, the average will be roughly 50-50!

 

{quote}Long-term trends are easier to predict than short-term fluctuations. [/quote]
If your computer modeling were so accurate, then why when you input well known climate data from the 19th Century and run the models to our days, their result are always way out of present climate conditions?

The article you mention merits a good analysis, I promise to post tomorrow. As an advance, it says this:

"Moreover, Keller and colleagues noticed that researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology had used a <b>computer simulation</b> with a <b>crude approximation of ozone depletion</b> to look at atmospheric temperatures and found that the upper troposphere did cool during the aftermath of Pinatubo. The Los Alamos researchers see this as another indication that their tropospheric-cooling hypothesis has merit."</b>

Now, are these people is trying to do sound science using a <b> computer simulatin with a crude approximation of ozone depletion</b>? Come on! First, they must show <b>actual records</b> that ozone levels have diminished outside the Antarctic region in the spring -<b>which they HAVE NOT</b>. If they provide us with such data, then I woul gladly analyze the rest of their stupid theory.

 

The article you told us to read is a joke. See:

The article: <font color=blue>”LOS ALAMOS, N.M., Dec. 16, 1999 -- Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory say they <b><font color=red>may have found</font></b> a way to dispel a major objection to global-warming theory.</font>

So they say. <b>Maybe…? Perhaps…?</B> Are they trying to “save face” by not saying <b>“we are completely sure”</b>?. Let’s see.

<b>The article:</b> <font color=blue>"We want the global-warming community to know that we've identified a <b>possible explanation</b> for why satellite atmospheric temperature and surface temperature trends can disagree,"</font>

Good. Now it becomes a <b>“possible explanation”</B>. I also have “possible explanations” that contradict theirs –and more plausible, too.

<b>The article:</b> <font color=blue>"The truth is that the temperature trends probably do agree when you consider the effect that massive ozone depletion caused by large volcanic eruptions has on the stratosphere and upper troposphere."</font>

Since the Pinatubo we had not significant volcanic activity enough to disturb the atmosphere. So here is where they start to have a punctured tire in their “possible” theory.

<b>The article:</b> <font color=blue>"If global warming were actually occurring, some scientists have said, then observers should be able to document warming trends in the atmosphere as well as on the surface. This doesn't always happen, however, and critics of global-warming theory use the trend disparity to discount the idea that Earth is slowly heating due to a buildup of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and other environmental factors.”</font>

You see? They are now acknowledging that there are scientists that don’t believe there is a global warming. Perhaps there is no such “consensus in the scientific community”, after all, as claimed by the IPCC.

<b>The article:</b> <font color=blue>"When you look at the first 13 years of satellite temperature records, you see pretty good agreement with the surface records. But <b>from 1992 to 1997</b> there is disagreement. During that time the stratosphere - the atmospheric layer above the troposphere that contains the ozone layer - cooled dramatically," Keller said. "We wondered if we could see some factor that would cause this, and that's when we started looking at the June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines."</font>

The effects of Pinatubo’s dust cloud lasted two tears, until 1993 –then why the lower troposphere kept cooling until 1997? Let’s see how these guys explain it.

<b>The article:</b> <font color=blue>"The massive eruption spewed huge quantities of ash and aerosols into the stratosphere. Through a complicated mechanism, volcanic dust enhances destruction of ozone by chlorofluorocarbons already present.</font>

At this point, we should stop reading and go into more productive activities. The ozone hole hoax have long been scientifically disproved, showing CFCs only reach altitudes of not more than 30 km, where <b>there is no UV radiation with energy enough to break apart CFCs molecules</b>. Moreover, the concentration of CFC molecules in those altitudes barely reach the <b>0,1 parts per trillion</b> (B. Fabian, S.A. Borders, and S. Penkett, <I>“Halocarbons in the Stratosphere”</I>, <b>Nature</b>, Dec. 24, 1981).

Besides, as demonstrated by S. Solomon, et al (from NOAA) in their 1988 study, S. Solomon, G.H. Mount, R.W. Sanders, R.O. Jakoubek, y A.L. Schmeltekopf, <I>“Nighttime Observations of OCLO in Winter Stratosphere Above Thule, Greenland”</I>; <b>Science</b> Vol. 242, Oct. 23, 1988, (pp. 550-555); and G.H. Mount, S. Solomon, R.W. Sanders, R.O. Jakoubek, A.L. Schmeltekopf, “Observations of Stratospheric NO2 and O3 in Thule, Greenland”, (pp. 555-558 in the same issue of Science); <b>chlorine atoms do not react with ozone molecules in mid air</b>: they need the hard surface of ice crystals provided by SPC (Stratospheric Polar Clouds) that form only when temperatures goes below <b>minus 82°C</b>. SPC are formed <b>ONLY in Antarctica’s stratosphere –only at the end of winter, beginning of spring</b>. So, and to put an end to this nonsense, the ozone layer is affected mostly by UV radiation, and sometimes by volcanic activity that spews the dust necessary to provide the “hard” surface needed by chlorine to react with ozone.

Summing up: No CFCs altitudes where they could be dissociated by strong UV radiation (wavelength shorter than 290 nm), then no chlorine provided by CFCs. Chlorine provided by volcanic activity needs hard surfaces to react with ozone –and that occurs only at Antarctica in the spring. Volcanic dust from Pinatubo lasted two years: chlorine attacked ozone for two years in mid latitudes and then stopped. The ozone layer was restored to its normal state.

But temperatures in the lower troposphere kept cooling. Why?

<b>The article:</b> <font color=blue>"Consequently, the eruption led to a wholesale depletion of Earth's protective ozone layer in the stratosphere, which has been observed. Because ozone absorbs the sun's ultraviolet rays, the layer normally heats the stratosphere; but with depletion of ozone from the volcanic blast, the stratosphere cooled.”</font>

So far so good. Only that the amount of heat absorbed by ozone is nil. Why? First: ozone concentrations in the stratosphere is 0,000003% (yes, three millionths percent!), while oxygen is found at 21% concentration. Ozone absorption of UV is minimal. When two ozone molecules combine to form three oxygen molecules, the reaction produces <b>64 kcal/mol</B>, ergo, the 1st Law of thermodynamics says that when one mol of ozone molecules is destroyed, it releases <b>32 kcal/mol</b>. Compare that amount of energy released with the energy absorbed by an oxygen molecule from incoming UV radiation = 118,111 kcal/mol. The figures speak by themselves. So all the reasoning following these “scientists’” explanation is flawed. Worthless. Leave the ozone stuff off the warming theory.

Then comes the part when they looked into El Niño and La Niña for more clues. Briefly:

<font color=blue>"Keller and his team looked at temperatures during the 1992 El Niño season. The upper troposphere was cooler than expected during that year, indicating that a cold stratosphere nestled directly above may have affected the troposphere.</font>

But they forgot to check with solar cycle 23. If they had checked, they would have found this graph, appearing in the page you despise so much:

http://www.john-daly.com/soi-temp.htm

The triple combination of a strong El Niño, a double peaked solar cycle, followed by another strong El Niño. Read this article and find 1998 John Daly’s prediction of climate conditions for the year 1999 and 2000, and you’ll see <b>he was right</B>. Until now, <b>no IPCC or global-warmer prophets have made an accurate prediction</b>. On the contrary, they have failed miserably.

<b>The article:</b> <font color=blue>"Critics of global warming hold the hypothesis that global warming doesn't exist because it isn't seen in the atmosphere by satellites," Keller said. "This observation by our team <b>potentially</B> eliminates one of the prime objections to global-warming theory.”</font>

Potentially, my boot!. There are many other reasons that dismiss the global warming theory. Satellite readings are just a small part of the overwhelming body of evidence that puts the warming theory in the place it deserves: among the pile of frauds that form the junk science used by the Greens.

I am sure they have been smoking this ----> :m:

 

Example? Actually, your statement seems to suffer the same fallacy as your previous statement, but I need more info to judge that by.

So, what model are you using? :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ahh, but their ...

Global weather is a complex problem to model, but the models are improving.

Has anyone ruled out the effects of increased CO2 on the atmosphere? If so, what model are they using? If not, then there must be agreement that CO2 will have an effect on the atmosphere, so what is the effect they expect?

 

Well, they said it: <b>our best approximation</b>. Not an <b><font color=red>accurate representation</font></b>. Your arguments rely only in computer modeling and links to dubious site, (and saying my arguments are fallacies –without giving proof of your assertions).

Computer modeling has been proven to be flawed. It just sucks. And we cannot jeopardize world’s economy just because “best approximation” modeling. If they cannot do it <b>“accurate”</b> to at least 1%, then keep trying until they can say: <b>“OK, now this is accurate to 1%.”</b> Matter is, models (or CGMs) have been perfected and modified over and over because their results <b>have been proven wrong.</B> They tweak with variables and constants until they get results that are near present real world conditions, thus warming forecasts and predictions have been <b>steadily going down</b>. As you remember, early predictions were in the order of 6°C – 10°C increase <b>for the year 2000</b>. Now they forecast for the year 2020 or the year 2100 (they will be dead by then, so nobody could say how stupid and incompetent they really are at climate predicting). The logic is that when they find the accurate variables for their algorithms, the models will predict <b>no warming at all</b> –they can even <b>predict cooling</b>.

Quoting the article in Nature magazine: <font color=blue>“Global climate during the past 10,000 years - since the last ice age ended - has remained relatively stable. Conversely, the ice age itself was interrupted by <b>numerous warm episodes</b> of a few hundred years each.” … “During D/O events, temperatures in the North Atlantic region typically rose by 5 to 10 oC in just a few decades before sinking again over the ensuing centuries. Last year, Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University and co-workers showed that the time between successive D/O events is often about 1,500, 3,000 or 4,500 years.“ … “The researchers suggested that the events were caused by some kind of periodic influence on climate that repeated every 1,500 years. They also proposed that the mechanism of D/O events might involve stochastic resonance.”</font>

No mention of human induced change here. It seems that warming and cooling indeed are caused by natural forces, a process on which man’s industrial activities had no influence at all –man didn’t exist then as a transforming force in nature.

And the colorful graph you showed asking how John Daly would picture it, just ask him –if you dare. I am a good friend of John Daly, (you can see in his page the Spanish section, whose translations are done by myself –the links point to my website.) but I doubt John will lose his time answering a question that has such an obvious answer. But go ahead, ask him and see what happens.

All I can say, at the moment, is: On which baseline are those temperature increase based? More importantly: On which data? Data taken from ground stations affected by “heat island effect”?. But the vast majority of weather stations in the world and satellite readings haven’t shown a warming, and in some cases have shown cooling, as can be seen in any report on these readings. The graph shows an increase in some areas of Antarctic of 1°C to 1,5°C, and this is a gross lie. Many areas in Africa show an increase of the same magnitude –when the stations records show there have been not any change in temperature. Read the records, check for yourself.

Thus, as the whole globe is covered by this graph –and there are no weather stations in the middle of the oceans, we can assume this is a computer generated graph construed on flawed data. Then we can honestly suspect that some tampering have been performed on the data presented in the graph. Every day it passes, I am more convinced that we are dealing with crooks in the NOAA and the IPCC.

Then, in climatology, how long is <b>LONG TERM</b>? Ten years, 20 years, 100 years? According to the data we have on the Earth’s climate, present models are making extremely <b>SHORT TERM</b> predictions, taking data from very <b>SHORT TERM</b> periods of time –barely a couple of centuries back. When you deal with data on the long term (as from the late Cretaceous, when CO2 levels were from 2,600 to 6,000 parts per million, while temperatures were <b>barely 1,5% higher than today</b>, you can see all the warming fallacy of blaming CO2 for the increase of temperatures goes to the trash can.

The inability to predict the climate in 20 years from now is like predicting the next flip of a coin, as you said. We can be dealing now with a phase in the flip coin where the coin has come “face” ten times in a row. Your comparison was not a lucky one.

Yes, of course. There are many scientists that rule out CO2 as the main cause for warming, as has been shown that CO2 lags behind temperature increase for as much as 100 years –ie., the climate warms, and then CO2 increases.

As you surely know, the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, that accounts for more than 95% of Earth’s atmosphere capability of heat retention. CO2 is just responsible for not more than 3,5% of such heat retention.

And these scientists don’t use models. They use real world measurements, real data from past climates, and sometimes proxy data. Modeling is for kids. Grown up people use the real McCoy information.