Global warming is it really happening

[Fraggle Rocker]

Please answer the question, Dwayne.

OK, Dwayne, I did you the courtesy of going to the U.S. government link that you provided. It is nothing but a map with no legend. It obviously tracks the movement of the earth's north magnetic pole, something we all know has been happening during historical times, but it does not in any way substantiate your extraordinary assertions. If this map is indeed part of a government document supporting the amazing points that you keep repeating, why isn't there the slightest suggestion of that on the one page you shared with us?

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Well it would seem that some have quite a imagination, ect.... regardless it is as usual people fail to understand that a magnetic reversal is a real event, i in general think that it is because so many of you do not want to face the change it is just to big of a change for you to take in all at once and relate that to a near future event that will involve you or your children. belivie me it is understandable! you will have to grow into it. as i exsplain it.
let me say this don't get strirred brained and panic, keep a cool head and think about waht you can do to prepare for such a event.

Dwayne, I hate to keep harping on the obvious, but you have NEVER responded to my own clearly stated reluctance to give your story much credence. Once again:

1. You simply do not appear to be an actual scientist. As illustrated in the above lengthy quote from just one of your writings, they are full of ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion. Scientists are not allowed to write that way. If they do, their papers are rejected. Your writing style is far below the minimum standard demanded of scientists in other ways as well. Your spelling is abominable, your grammar is nearly incoherent, and your punctuation looks like random budgie droppings. Some scientists are not accomplished writers, but they understand that in order to be respected they must either bite the bullet and learn the skill or have everything edited in detail by a spouse or colleague. Letting anyone see writings of this caliber invites doubts about your entire sense of judgment.

2. OK, so you're not a scientist. I'm not either. But when I post something controversial on this forum, I either include a summary of the original source with a citation, or a URL to it. Please don't tell me to wade through the entire fifteen pages of this thread to find proper citations in your earlier postings. Judging from the insufficiency of the one that I actually traced, I'm not convinced it would be worth the effort.

The burden of proof is on you. Please give us something that lends the slightest credibility to your statements, something written by a scientist and peer-reviewed by other scientists. We all know that the magnetic poles shift. What we need is proof that they have shifted a full 180 degrees during historical times.

 

[BatM]

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

 

[BatM]

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

Originally posted by Edufer

According to GISS, when weather goes cooler, fluctuations are <b>"natural"</b>, but when they get warmer, then they are <font color=red>"man-made". </font><b>What a laugh!</b>

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.

But, contrary to GISS assertion, temperature readings became <b>accurate just after 1979</b>, when wheather satellites were launched (the TIROS series).

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.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Thanks, Andre

Originally posted by Andre
Perhaps try the links in my previous post

Very helpful, thanks. Fascinating prospect. Also, incidentally, satisfied a question on another thread: How can the earth be a bunch of solid tectonic plates floating on a liquid center, when water is the only common substance which is less dense as a solid than a liquid? Turns out that the center is solid after all.

But I thought this thread was about global warming.

I guess Dwayne was suggesting that the magnetic flip-flops correlated with weather. I didn't see anything in your sources to suggest that. My money is still on variations in the sun's energy output. What's this business about the earth's orbit decaying? If that were true, I should think the popular press would have made one of their morbid carnivals out of it by now.

 

[Dwayne D.L.Rabon]

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

 

[Persol]

in addtion when the atmophere of space intrudes in to earth the earth will cool

nuff said....

 

[Seadoggy]

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

 

[Seadoggy]

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Global warming is caused by a increase in gravity, the earth gets about 3 feet closer to the sun every year

Well your contradicting yourself, have you ever actually studied global warming before?

1st question, have you calculated the temperature increase created by earth being three feet closer to the sun? probably not because if this is your explination and if you do your homework, we wouldn't have to worry about global warming for eon's

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
currently the earth bounces back and forth about 2 million miles in orbit

I personnaly don't know how far the earth "shimys" in it's orbit, but if you are correct about that and also correcxt about the 3 foot thing, then the temperature variations would be so greaqt that we wouldn't be here to discuss it anyway....humm...

however if you do decide to do the research id be interested in your findings and source material.

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
as well get farthe away from ALPHA the earths orbit is stays closer to the sun, this causes the earth to warm. this action of our sun to get farther from ALPHA also effects are rotation, and causes are magnetic pole to switch which occurs ever 5,000 years or so, the farther we get the sooner the pole switches, when the poles switch it destroys just about every thing on earth, the next one is due in 10 to 39 years, when the poles are about to switch gravity begins to pick up and cause the earth to warm and the upper atmopshere to to collaspe, and sure enough that happens right about the ozone level, the pole switch is the number one cause of the ozone hole, and if you check you will see that the ozone hole is right where ALPHA sets on 67 degrees? and moves across the sky with the earths tilt to the south pole 80 degress lat? the ozone hole starts where ever the ALPHA is at at that time or where it is not at i should say.


let me throw a differnt spin on that(not that i think your wrong but I beleive in looking at problems as a whole and in parts.

I geuss im partly repeating what i wrote in a previous reply, but, i'll try to explain it as best i can. when you get down to the "dirty" atomic level(quantum physics) We can create a magnectic feild to trap atoms in a confined space, however once we do this a evaporative cooling affect occurs,(like in a coffee mug) in witch only the most energized particles can escape the feild. and we all know that each atom is goverend by it's own set of "sub-laws", different atoms behave differently depending on temperature and other things, and if we take into account that speed, energy, and time are all directly realted to temperature we can conclude that some specific atoms (all the different types of atmosphere molecules in this instance)are able to ecscape magnetic feilds at different rates causing a more rapid exodus of one particular gas or substance, therefor we see larger decrease in one type of substance, possibally ozone gasses, and a smaller decrease, or for that mater, build up of other types of substances, posibally green-house gasses. Now aply your alpha centari idea to it and you come up with a hump in the atmosphere, at the above mentioned position, where its easier for this to occur.take that times infinity and you could almost do away with the idea that the earth ,and the humans on it, are responsible for global warming at all. humm. wouldn't that put all those green house nuts on there ears.

I have yet to create a working model to aply these "laws" to the earth's magnetic feild yet, but from my research it should work, i'll let you know when i've completed the model although the recent flux in the feild is making it difficult to get accurate data (has anyone been paying attention to solar activities latley? I can't seem to find a reliable souce of information, most palces i've been are out of date.) and on top of that i have a very,very limited source of reasearch material at the moment)
foot note: every time we launch a shuttle or put something in to space we remove energy from the feild, in the same way, when ever a astriod or someother form of space debris strikes the earth energy is added to the feild. anybody here study substances that collide with the earth? I'm interested in the types of materials the acctually make ground fall and the types of gasses they produce on there fiery decent to eatrh.


i have more but i want to give people a chance to prove me wrong, and i like to be proved wrong it keeps me from wasting my own time

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
The world should pay attention because it is soon in for a ride it will never forget, world civilization is in a struggle for its very existance. i mean it when i say it, it is hard rolling on humankind. without preplanning the human race is likly to go exstinct. and thats no joke. i just don't know how to make it ring in your ears so that the bell wakes up!

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

oh man.... dude.... umm... o.k. now this is just my opinionand i don't now what frame of mind you were in when you typed this but, you really need to get over the whole death thing because contrary to what you think your not that one person that's giong to live forever dude, maybe you should spend some time in a religuos forum...

in out seadoggy

 

[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....

 

[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

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by 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

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

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

 

[Seadoggy]

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

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Seadoggy
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

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.

 

[Edufer]

<b>BatM:</b> "... 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.

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...

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Edufer
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.

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?

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.

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

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>

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!

 

[Edufer]

{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.

 

[Edufer]

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:

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Edufer
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?

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

Originally from Tony Broccoli of NOAA GFDL

Climate models quantitatively represent radiative transfer theory along with other climate processes. Because our understanding of the atmosphere-ocean is incomplete (and will remain so), such models should be regarded as our best approximations of how the atmosphere works. To my knowledge, every climate model result ever published predicts a significant warming when CO2 is substantially increased. For a hypothetical doubling of CO2, such models predict a warming of roughly 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. Those who would claim that the climate is insensitive to CO2 levels have yet to develop a model that yields such a result.

So, what model are you using? :bugeye:

 

[BatM]

Ahh, but their ...

ability to predict long-term temperature changes, for example, is not called into question

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?

 

[Edufer]

Because our understanding of the atmosphere-ocean is incomplete (and will remain so), such models should be regarded as <b><font color=red>our best approximations</b></font> of how the atmosphere works.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.