Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 03:31:23 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Did Humans Colonize the World by Boat?
Research suggests our ancestors traveled the oceans 70,000 years ago
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/20-did-humans-colonize-the-world-by-boat
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 6848 times)
0 Members and 96 Guests are viewing this topic.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2007, 07:47:50 am »

Allison,

Hopefully you don't stop reading at "hopefully".


Same old Merlin - a stuck record.

You got me there Allison - I am stuck on the same point-of-view.  Scientists tend to do that (at least credible ones do) when they are certain they are correct, or have at least raised a valid point.

The media doesn't offer competing sides of a story?  Gee, maybe that's because there aren't two sides to the truth.

I'd like to answer that a little differently than you are predicting.  I'll do it with a question instead of a comment.  First - we have to remove the pollution effect from the discussion becuase you and I are in heated agreement (I suspect); global pollution is bad.  Now, to the "meat of it".  Are you even sure that GCC is a bad thing?  Aside from the adverse financial effects it will have on the world's economies, is there a reason to think that GCC is going to hurt the planet?  Find some data on that and let's discuss it.  Also, since we know the planet moves through phases all on its own, are we certain that increasing temperatures aren't a "planetary defense mechanism" for something else we've done?  What if we are about to reduce the "immune response" of the planet?  These are just a couple of things that come to mind with the scientists who are furiously trying to find out "WHAT THE ACTUAL MECHANISM BEHIND GW & GCC REALLY IS."

{Hypothetically speaking}  How lousy would it be to find out that all of our pollution in the ocean was causing the planet to warm up inorder to correct the balance we screwed up?  We stop the one mechanism available to the planet to repair itself and then the oceans "die" - causing the weather to ruin the planet...  I'm certain, however, that the press would be there to make sure that the world knew the truth - "The scientists screwed it up!"  Mia culpa non grata and they would be very quick to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

I would just hate to eat all the birds, that eat the fleas that the rats carry after we've already killed all of the cats that hunt the rats...  You could get a plague that way...  Oh yeah, we did that already.  Sometimes - patiently studying a problem to determine the entire scope BEFORE we act is a really good thing.

The global warming skeptics get more time than they deserve anyway, their view is in the way minority - a view bought and funded by oil company propaganda.

I would hate to apply this logic to our system of vetting, politics, or law...  The notion that only the majority should get access to the public would have made sure that most of the good things in life never occurred.  So much for gay rights, emancipation, suffrage and independence from oppression!  For the record - the "skeptics" first developed in the scientific community; the oil companies came to them when they heard the message could benefit them.  Don't make assumptions just because they fit your angst.  I happen to be one of the skeptics and I do not receive one iota of revenue from "Big Oil", neither do either of the universities I am tenured at.

As for their not being as scientific consensus concerning global warming, more baloney. Take a poll, did we?

I'm not a fan of bologna; too fattening, although turkey bologna is tasty when served with a pickle.  Anyway, yes - there are a number of polls out there, and yes - I have been a part of several.  You are trying to boil the issue down to a single, all-encompassing topic that exists only in the media - not in the scientific community (where this discussion belongs).  There are many issues about GW and GCC that will never resound within the general public because the processes are just too complicated; hence they never get reported.  So this leaves only the uncomplicated "stuff" that makes the news, to which, the media debates in the press.  From our point of view, it's like watching the subject of the formation of the universe explained while leaving 50% of the information in the file and then reading only every third word from the prepared speech.  Sadly - that is only one error we find in the GW/GCC debate.

Whereas you claim that global warming evidence is "anecdotal," your evidence to the contrary happens to be simply opinion layered atop more opinion. Yep, that sure warants equal time! 

Hmmm....  I suppose that you must have missed all of the evidence.  Well, that can only mean one thing - You don't care to know the truth.   You must have also missed that I have never said that GW isn't happening, or that I know for certain that man isn't causing it.  You assume it - which is a little lower on the food chain than an opinion.  My point all along is that the debate is too emotionally charged, it is being played out in the public instead of the laboratories, and that the [anecdotal] evidence thus far is entirely inconclusive.  Beyond that, there are a number of questions that need to be answered first (there are scientists trying to answer them) before we go rushing headlong into the abyss of carbon reduction.  We've already discussed these, so I won't bore you with more reality.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2007, 07:57:34 am »

Carbon emissions get more time than they deserve Wink 

It's a bit like blaming someone's poor health on too much smoking, whilst the facts that they eat fast food, drink too much, sit around watching TV all day and never exercise are all ignored .....

Global Warming/climate change has become a one issue debate.  It ain't as simple as that.  Why do the AGWers ignore other factors?  Maybe because they find the real truth  too inconvenient? 

Anecdotal evidence is so convenient - and it resounds deeply (and quickly) with the general public.  It's like talking about a fat guy in McDonald's, eating a pie, a Big Mac, a biggie fry and a bucket of cola, "Do you think he knows why he's fat?"  It's easy to assume he's fat because of that buffet laid out in front of him - BUT - it doesn't make your observation true.  That big fat guy you are picking on might be my brother-in-law who treats himself to one "Gut-Busting-Meal" per month, but othewise is big & fat because he's confined to a wheelchair post vehicle accident where his thyroid gland (and other necessary hormone regulation systems) was removed by a piece of 1/2" black iron pipe doing 55mph.  The "easy" answer is always so comforting at first, but anecdotal evidence sucks when you are forced to look at reality; doesn't it?
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2007, 08:25:08 am »

Why?  because most of the natural occurrences have also been investigated and ruled out as the main cause,  too, although they do contribute, just aren't the main contribuitors.

Winston Churchill said something once that needs to be brought to the discussion:  "A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth can get its pants on."  You know why?  Because lies don't need to slow down for investigation, contemplation or discussion - they are like a nasty virus that makes everything they come in contact with, sick.  In this case, what we really have is a half-baked story, developed from observation only and filtered through the preconceived notion that man is at fault. 

In fact, the Natural Causes for this have not been investigated - so they certainly cannot have been excluded as contributors or suspects.  That's just a complete fabrication of the GW/GCC crowd.

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that gets the blame, methane does, too.  However, methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, which is why it gets the majority of the blame.

 Huh

Where are you getting this information from?  Methane, in its natural and man-made forms can have half-lives as long as 28 years depending upon the circumstances.  But what about SO2 (Sulfur-dioxide) & SO4 (sulphate)?  They are horrible for the environment as well and they last even longer.  Why isn't anyone trying to figure out their effect?  It is because they are most prevalent in natural form (from volcanic activity), thus they may be excluded.  This means that the natural events ARE NOT BEING investigated. 

The issues of carbon and methane emmissions are so complex that the general public is forced to believe the experts - otherwise, they would be perpetually "reacting" to the claims coming out in the media, and there would never be a "side" to take; everyone would be "for" & "against", depending upon the news.  So, someone stepped forward to choose sides for us, and what better way to do it than to split it right down "environmental lines".  If you are PRO-environment, you buy the whole GW story, "Hook - line & sinker".  If you are PRO-business, you hope for proof that GW is inevitable and that man can do nothing.  Well, that's what the media wants you to believe.  I'm PRO-logic, and I'm the guy that both sides hates.  I think the world is polluting the hell out itself, but I see no empirical evidence that global CO, SO2, SO4, CO2 & CH4 emmissions are proven to be a direct effect of man, or, that any of the the chemicals are causing global climate change.  I haven't seen any evidence at all that (GW) is causing global climate change (GCC) - In fact, I see just the opposite in the data!  So far the data in support of the Media's GW model is completely anecdotal & coincidental, wheras the evidence for GCC initiating GW actually makes sense!
 
The theory that the planet is heating up and creating its own added heat - to continue the warming cycle is just another potential answer for why GW is happening. I have been following the research of a team of scientists who are working on that model.  The evidence, if taken at face value, looks mighty damning to the IPCC report. Of course, the media is hardly interested, but I am.  The reason "why" I am is not because I don't want GW to be man-made though. It is because I want to know why the planet appears to be heating up. I want to know "why" because I want to know IF there is anything that CAN be done. I also want to know IF anything NEEDS to be done. If, in fact, this is a normal process and the planet is attempting to achieve "meteorological equilibrium", then the last thing I want to do is get in its way. It hearkens me back to the old addage, "If it ain't broke - don't break it!"

Anyway, the research into GW is so new and unsolved that there is no way that the IPCC can actually come out and definitively state that "mankind" is the cause - or that we can do anything about it.   The Assessment Reports (AR) are used to convey the findings of the IPCC.  AR1 in 1990 issued by the IPCC was a well written and well-vetted report that was not attacked.  AR2 (1995) was also - initially, but then wound up being altered (bastardized) prior to printing to the point that many of the contributing scientists removed their names from the authorship report.  AR3 (2001) was a total white-wash where only scientists who agreed with the idea of man-made GW were invited to participate.  That brings us to the AR4 report of 2007.  It was a foregone conclusion that it was going to take a strong stance on the man-made effects of GW.  They didn't bother trying to prove that GW even exists.  Somewhere between AR3 & AR4, GW became a fact, no longer a theory to debate; at least as far as the press is concerned.  It is a "sleight-of-hand" that has occurred in the realm of environmental science that only a select group of skeptics seem to have caught.  Many of us are trying to figure out why the "other" potential causes of GCC have been so quickly dismissed; particularlly the ones that blame the planet for changing things on its own.

Here is a summary of the "other" theory behind GW that has been kept relatively quiet.

There are other greenhouse gases that all GW fanatics acknowledge as being as bad (or worse) than carbon; methane and sulfur dioxide. Each gas comes from many sources, both natural and unnatural are measured in high concentrations across the planet's atmosphere. Computer modeling and simulations predict the activity and dispersion of the gasses, and try to determine how they manufacture global climate change.

The methane (CH4) emanating from draining bodies of water (swamps, creeks, wetlands) is decreasing naturally in random areas across the planet. This should be a good thing, however environmentalists will tell you that wetlands are important for wild-life... Luckily for some (unlucky for others) the Siberian lakes and permafrosts are melting slowly, and are replenishing that methane in the atmosphere at alarmingly high rates, further fueling GW (according to the IPCC). But at least new wetlands are being created; right? Volcanic activity is at an all-time low above ground, but at an unprecedented (in modern times) level under the oceans. That sulfur dioxide still manages to get to the atmosphere, and takes with it billions of cu. ft. of CO2. Much more CO, CO2 and SO2 arrive in the atmosphere from natural causes like vulcanism (including the sulfur lakes in N. Africa and the Mediterranean regions) than any other (man-made) source on the planet. Amazingly, as the temperature rises and the polar ice melts, the sea level rises as does the pressure on the volcanic plates; causing more vulcanism. This is what the researchers are calling the "Conveyor Belt Effect" or "Global Conveyor Theory". 
 
From a different point of view, it could also be said that the U.S. is a minor player in the global production of methane.  We use far less of it, we create less of it and we process next to none in comparison to China, most of Africa, and the Middle-East.  The EVIDENCE (from the IPCC) shows that the global saturation of CH4 is actually increasing, though the use of it world-wide is decreasing.  This can only mean "natural sources" are causing the increase...  Right? 
 
Peat bogs & perma frosts, hot springs & sulphur springs, swamps and bayous appear to be the culprits.  Atmospheric S02 & SO4 reflect sunlight back into space, causing localized cooling - creating unpredicatble weather patterns.  These patterns deliver cold air to hot areas and vice versa.  Ultimately the chemicals rain back down on the vegetation; killing it - releasing CO2 & CH4.  This creates a cycle in and of itself.   Add to it all of the escaping CH4, CO & CO2 from the natural sources that are not a product of the "Global Conveyor".  Man's contributions are puny although toxic.  Pollution is a problem. 

Even if you are a believer that mankind is causing GW, you have to ask yourself what started it all. It matters not, what version of the mechanism you choose to believe; the impetus is on the beginning; that which tipped the balance. From there, you venture back into history with the data and theories in your hands and compare it to what happened in days gone by. Can your data explain what happened 50, 75, 100, 1K, 10K, 1M years ago? If so, are the mechanisms in place to explain your hypothesis? Only if you answer yes to all of the questions can you be 90% certain that you know the cause.

The IPCC cannot boast that their theory answers the last two questions; only the first. Their computer models have been thoroughly unhinged in the past three outings, and their data was criticized by everyone (including the Queen) in the AR3. I'm not betting that AR4 fares any better, because thus far - I've been unimpressed.  Again - the big hold up with their report was the fact that Facts keeping appearing to disprove their current theory (as offered).  Observation continues to get in the way of theory - a sure sign of problems.

The "Global Conveyor Theory" actually can answer all three questions, and does so quite succintly. Their data is still in the early phases (because few climatologists want to work on an alternate theory of GW due to media pressures), their finances are tight (and scrutinized like a terrorist organization's by the GW fanatics), and their membership is small (you get the drill). I have faith that they will manage to bring a bit of attention to themselves in the near future once their computer models are complete. We wait and see with fingers crossed.

Ultimately, I want to know "what" to do, "if" we are able to do anything. Who knows - maybe we're trying to fix what ain't broke? Of course, all of this is a debate on GCC, what about the fact that most humans are filthy littering pigs?  Maybe - just maybe, if we cleaned up our act and stopped pooping where we drink (figuratively & literally), we might be able to affect a bit of change that would be noticeable to everyone.  We all know how much humans love immediate and obvious gratification!

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2007, 01:59:43 pm »

Quote
Allison,

Hopefully you don't stop reading at "hopefully".

Why should I have to?  Mostly what you ever offer in defense is snottiness and ego, by this time I have grown used to you and your delusions, Merl.

Quote
You got me there Allison - I am stuck on the same point-of-view.  Scientists tend to do that (at least credible ones do) when they are certain they are correct, or have at least raised a valid point.

Except you haven't been correct once during the GW debate, Merl - you don't believe in it! And you've also never been correct about anything either.  My favorite was when you cited a whole host of scientific papers that you claimed backed up youir case - some of them written by Michael Mann and guys who have done the actual research to advance the global warming theory. I take it was cause you thought none of us knew who those guys were.

You're a hustler, Merl.  You may know about physics, but you know zilch when it comes to climatology.

Quote
Aside from the adverse financial effects it will have on the world's economies, is there a reason to think that GCC is going to hurt the planet?


Call me naive, but I think that flooded coastlines and vanishing species are going to hurt the planet, Merl.  That's the other really dumb arguments advanced by GWS (global warming sketics), "Hey, maybe global warming is a good thing!"

Believe what you want, though, you always do.


Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
The global warming skeptics get more time than they deserve anyway, their view is in the way minority - a view bought and funded by oil company propaganda.

I would hate to apply this logic to our system of vetting, politics, or law...  The notion that only the majority should get access to the public would have made sure that most of the good things in life never occurred.  So much for gay rights, emancipation, suffrage and independence from oppression! 


Yeah, sure, Merl, a tiny percentage of scientists should get equal time with all the REAL scientists who advance the global warming consensus.  I suppose if we could find one or two accredited nutjobs to advance the Great Sphagetti Monster's creation of the unverse theory you'd be all for allowing that, too, right?

Yep, let's just toss all the scientific rules out the window for you when it comes to global warming cause you don't like it.

Quote
For the record - the "skeptics" first developed in the scientific community; the oil companies came to them when they heard the message could benefit them.  Don't make assumptions just because they fit your angst.  I happen to be one of the skeptics and I do not receive one iota of revenue from "Big Oil", neither do either of the universities I am tenured at.

Yes, but your area is physics, not climatology. I am not "making assumptions to fill my angst."  The oil companies do fund the propaganda, just as the Bush people have been editing the scientific reports.  Any real scientist would be ashamed of this process.

Quote
Hmmm....  I suppose that you must have missed all of the evidence.  Well, that can only mean one thing - You don't care to know the truth.
 

Merl, don't put your own baggage on me, you're the one that doesn't care to know the truth.  You're the one biased against the idea that human beings are causing global warming.  You also seemingly don't believe there is a scientific consensus (there is). You've got issues, Merl.

Quote
My point all along is that the debate is too emotionally charged, it is being played out in the public instead of the laboratories, and that the [anecdotal] evidence thus far is entirely inconclusive. 


Gee, it's emotionally charged cause the fate of the planet is at stake if we don't do something?  If you can't get emotional about that, what good are you?

Quote
Beyond that, there are a number of questions that need to be answered first (there are scientists trying to answer them) before we go rushing headlong into the abyss of carbon reduction.  We've already discussed these, so I won't bore you with more reality.

Don't put that crap on me, Merl, you are the one disconnected to reality.  I have been following the scientfic information, all you have been doing is trying to discount it.



Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2007, 02:14:32 pm »

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 04:55:15 pm
Why?  because most of the natural occurrences have also been investigated and ruled out as the main cause,  too, although they do contribute, just aren't the main contribuitors.

Winston Churchill said something once that needs to be brought to the discussion:  "A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth can get its pants on."  You know why?  Because lies don't need to slow down for investigation, contemplation or discussion - they are like a nasty virus that makes everything they come in contact with, sick.  In this case, what we really have is a half-baked story, developed from observation only and filtered through the preconceived notion that man is at fault. 

In fact, the Natural Causes for this have not been investigated - so they certainly cannot have been excluded as contributors or suspects.  That's just a complete fabrication of the GW/GCC crowd.

Wrong again, Merl.  Apparently, you didn't see this article that was released in the fall, even though we printed it a couple of times at AR:

Sun 'not to blame' for global warming

The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study shows.

Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," US National Centre for Atmospheric Research spokesman Tom Wigley said.

Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures over the past century.

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.

Sunspots observations

They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.

They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.

"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.

Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another three degrees Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.

He said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.

Global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.

Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots.

Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.

Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.

- Reuters

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1740577.htm
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2007, 02:19:17 pm »

February 19, 2005

Why global warming is not natural
Report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent



THE strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a study of rising temperatures in the oceans.


The rise in marine temperatures — by an average of 0.5C (0.9F) in 40 years — can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, research has shown. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

“The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people,” said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable.”

Dr Barnett’s team examined seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and compared the patterns with those predicted by computer models of potential causes of climate change.

Natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases matched the observations almost precisely.

“What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model,” Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned.”

Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, rising temperatures can be observed up to 2,300ft below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 330ft down.

Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. “All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one,” Dr Barnett said.

The results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, should increase pressure on the US Administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force this week, he said. “It is time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join,” he said. “The debate is not — have we got a clear global warming signal; the debate is — what we are going to do about it.”

In a separate study a team led by Ruth Curry, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut, has established that 20,000 sq km of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995. Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516179.ece

Key Quote?

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people."

Which means all of the scientists who suggest that there is still some kind of debate are not being rational.  Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2007, 02:56:42 pm »

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 04:55:15 pm
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that gets the blame, methane does, too.  However, methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, which is why it gets the majority of the blame.

 

Where are you getting this information from?  Methane, in its natural and man-made forms can have half-lives as long as 28 years depending upon the circumstances.


As opposed to the 100 years or so that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere?  Where are you getting your information from?  I thought it was common knowledge that CO2 has a much longer lifespan in the air than methane.


Quote
The issues of carbon and methane emmissions are so complex that the general public is forced to believe the experts - otherwise, they would be perpetually "reacting" to the claims coming out in the media, and there would never be a "side" to take; everyone would be "for" & "against", depending upon the news.


I agree that it is complex, however, the short answer is that, when CO2 rises, temps usually follow, even if the time that it takes them to rise sometimes takes many years.


Quote
Even if you are a believer that mankind is causing GW, you have to ask yourself what started it all. It matters not, what version of the mechanism you choose to believe; the impetus is on the beginning; that which tipped the balance. From there, you venture back into history with the data and theories in your hands and compare it to what happened in days gone by. Can your data explain what happened 50, 75, 100, 1K, 10K, 1M years ago? If so, are the mechanisms in place to explain your hypothesis? Only if you answer yes to all of the questions can you be 90% certain that you know the cause.

Gosh, you are long-winded, Merlin!  Your argument is actually very much the same one that creationists use to make their point - simply because scientists don't have all the answers, you seem to believe that we don't have any of the answers. Anyone knows that theories get revised and as new data arises, apparently you believe that global warming should be held to a different standard.
Report Spam   Logged
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2007, 01:27:30 pm »

I'm going to print some material I found from the other forum as I found it useful:

Surprises from the Sun's South Pole

From
HERE





A joint ESA/NASA mission, Ulysses (named after the hero of Greek legend) is charting the unknown reaches of space above and below the poles of the Sun. Credits: ESA


Although very close to the minimum of its 11-year sunspot cycle, the Sun showed that it is still capable of producing a series of remarkably energetic outbursts - ESA-NASA Ulysses mission revealed.


In keeping with the first and second south polar passes (in 1994 and 2000), the latest high-latitude excursion of the joint ESA-NASA Ulysses mission has already produced some surprises. In mid-December 2006, although very close to the minimum of its 11-year sunspot cycle, the Sun showed that it is still capable of producing a series of remarkably energetic outbursts.



Variations of the coronal temperature measured with the SWICS instrument on board ESA-NASA’s Ulysses from December 1990 to January 2007. Solar wind flow from coronal holes is characterized by high solar wind speed (700-800 kilometres per second) and low coronal temperature (1 – 1.3 million Kelvin). Credits: R. von Steiger and G. Gloeckler


The solar storms, which were confined to the equatorial regions, produced quite intense bursts of particle radiation that were clearly observed by near-Earth satellites. Surprisingly, similar increases in radiation were detected by the instruments on board Ulysses, even though it was three times as far away and almost over the south solar pole. "Particle events of this kind were seen during the second polar passes in 2000 and 2001, at solar maximum," said Richard Marsden, ESA's Ulysses Project Scientist and Mission Manager. "We certainly didn't expect to see them at high latitudes at solar minimum!"

Scientists are busy trying to understand how the charged particles made it all the way to the poles. "Charged particles have to follow magnetic field lines, and the magnetic field pattern of the Sun near solar minimum ought to make it much more difficult for the particles to move in latitude," said Marsden.


One of the puzzles remaining from the first high-latitude passes in 1994 and 1995 has to do with the temperature of the Sun's poles. When Ulysses first passed over the south and then the north solar pole near solar minimum, it measured the temperatures of the large polar coronal holes.

"Surprisingly, the temperature in the north polar coronal hole was about 7 to 8 percent lower compared with the south polar coronal hole," said Professor George Gloeckler, Principal Investigator for the Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer (SWICS) on board Ulysses.

"We couldn't tell then whether this was simply due to progressive cooling of both polar coronal holes as the Sun was approaching its minimum level of activity in 1996, or whether this was an indication of a permanently cooler north pole."

Now, as Ulysses again passes over the large polar coronal holes of the Sun at solar minimum we will finally have the answer. Recent SWICS observations show that the average temperature of the southern polar coronal hole at the current solar minimum is as low as it was 10 years ago in the northern polar coronal hole. "This implies that the asymmetry between north and south has switched with the change of the magnetic polarity of the Sun," said Gloeckler. The definitive proof will come when Ulysses measures the temperature of the north polar coronal during the next 15 months.

Source: European Space Agency

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2007, 01:35:30 pm »

The climatic effects of water vapour
Feature: May 2003


Contrary to common belief, the greenhouse effect may have more to do with water in our atmosphere than gases such as carbon dioxide

Extreme variations in local weather and the seasons make it easy for people to mutter "greenhouse effect", and blame everything on carbon dioxide. Along with other man-made gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide has received a bad press for many years and is uniformly cited as the major cause of the greenhouse effect. This is simply not correct. While increases in carbon dioxide may be the source of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and therefore global warming, the role of the most vital molecule in our atmosphere - water - is rarely discussed. Indeed, water barely rates a mention in the hundreds of pages of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



Figure 1
The distribution of water in the atmosphere varies strongly with time, location and height, which makes it difficult to model. This image shows the distribution of water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere using model data from September 1996. The humid tropics (red) contain almost 100 times more water vapour than the dry poles (blue).



Many aspects of the seemingly simple water molecule conspire to make it difficult to model its effect on our climate. Unlike most other atmospheric gases, the distribution of water in the atmosphere varies strongly with time, location and altitude (figure 1). Water is also unique among atmospheric molecules because it changes phase at terrestrial temperatures. This means that it can transfer energy from its frozen form at the poles to its liquid and vapour forms in the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, water moves with the winds and can even diffuse up to the stratosphere, where it is responsible for destroying the ultraviolet-shielding ozone layer.

The atmosphere plays a crucial role in the Earth's radiation budget because it absorbs both the incoming radiation from the Sun and the outgoing radiation that is reflected from the planet's surface. However, the radiation in each of these processes has very different wavelengths. The Sun radiates approximately as a black body with a temperature of 5800 K, which peaks in the optical region at a wavelength of about 0.6 µm. The reflected radiation profile, on the other hand, is much closer to a black body at a temperature of 275 K, and has a peak at much longer infrared wavelengths (about 11 µm). The physical processes that lead to the absorption of radiation in the two regions are different, but water vapour plays the dominant role in both.

Balancing the books




Figure 2
The global energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system. Radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere in the ultraviolet (UV) and visible (VIS) regions of the spectrum contributes to the emission in the infrared region (IR). The incoming solar radiation is either reflected directly back into space, absorbed by the atmosphere or absorbed by the Earth's surface. The 67 W m-2 ultraviolet-visible absorption that is due to atmospheric trace gases, such as water, also translates into infrared emission, which combines with the infrared surface heat to emerge as some 195 W m-2. However, the measured atmospheric absorption is up to 30 W m-2 higher than models predict, and this is known as the absorption anomaly.


Physicists have been modelling the Earth's atmosphere for over a century, and we have built up a very detailed understanding of the key processes that are involved in the global energy budget (figure 2). For example, it is now well established that the top of the Earth's atmosphere receives a surface-averaged energy input from the Sun of 342 W m-2. This is calculated by knowing the amount of energy that is radiated by the Sun and the angle that the Earth subtends. If the incoming and outgoing radiation is not equal then the global energy budget does not balance and the temperature of the planet will change until a new balance is established. What is feared is that a build-up of greenhouse gases is causing an increase in the absorption of the outgoing, infrared radiation.

Satellite measurements show that 235 W m-2 of incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth, but the latest models and measurements suggest that the atmosphere is responsible for just 67 W m-2 of this amount. The rest is absorbed by the ground and by the oceans, which play a key role in the energy budget due to their large heat capacity and their ability to store carbon dioxide, and, of course, water vapour.

The greenhouse effect is precisely the difference between the long-wave radiation that is emitted by the Earth's surface and the upward thermal radiation that leaves the tropopause - the upper boundary of the turbulent portion of the atmosphere that we all inhabit. The greenhouse effect is about 146 W m-2 in clear skies and some 30 W m-2 higher under cloud cover.

There are a number of popular misconceptions about the greenhouse effect, notably that it is a bad thing. On the contrary, the greenhouse effect is a significant factor in making the Earth habitable. Without it the average temperature on Earth would be lowered by about 30 K, which would make most of the planet's surface decidedly chilly. Furthermore, it is the water vapour in the lower 10 km or so of the atmosphere, rather than man-made carbon-dioxide emissions, that contributes most to this warming effect.



Figure 3
Water in the atmosphere absorbs both incoming ultraviolet radiation from the Sun (a) and outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth (b). The red line in (a) and the blue line in (b) show the black-body spectrum that would be seen if there was no atmosphere. Note that the scales on each graph are different, indicating the different wavelengths of the incoming and outgoing radiation. The various dominant absorptions (dips) are mostly due to water, carbon dioxide, ozone and some molecular oxygen. Water vapour dominates throughout the (a) visible and (b) infrared. Carbon-dioxide absorption takes place mainly in the infrared and the bulk of it occurs in a narrow region between 12 and 18 µm. This is one of the mechanisms by which the surface of the Earth remains warm.


The absorption of light by molecules in the atmosphere generally results in two basic molecular processes: bound-free and bound-bound transitions. Bound-free transitions take place in the more energetic ultraviolet region of the spectrum and cause the molecules to break up. In bound-bound transitions, which occur at longer wavelengths, the molecules jump from some combination of rotational and vibrational states to another, which produces a very distinct "signature" (figure 3). It is therefore very easy to identify which atmospheric absorbers are at work, although it is much more difficult to work out the actual numbers. Nevertheless, large databases that list all the known molecular transitions and their associated properties have been compiled. The most widely used is the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database (HITRAN), which has been developed over many years by Larry Rothman, who is now at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge in the US.

But when the absorption values in the HITRAN database are used in model-atmosphere calculations, the results are disturbing. For clear skies, the models predict that the atmosphere absorbs much less sunlight than is measured by a variety of satellite and aircraft. The difference between the predictions and the measurements can be as large as 30 W m-2. (see "Radiation budget is called to account" by A Maurellis Physics World November 2001 pp22-23). This problem has become known as the absorption anomaly. And there are even worse problems in understanding absorption models when the sky is cloudy.

Not all models underestimate the amount of atmospheric absorption because some physicists choose to add extra absorption to their models to mop up the surplus radiation. However, the physical cause of the missing clear-sky absorption and its exact wavelength distribution remain unresolved, and a source of fertile speculation. Everyone's favourite molecule is always a candidate.

Our favourite molecule is water. Water vapour is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region. Indeed, ask any infrared astronomer about which regions of the spectrum provide the best views and you will get a list of the wavelengths where water does not absorb - the so-called atmospheric windows. After all, there have to be some pretty strong reasons to brave the inhospitable climate of Antarctica to build the South Pole Telescope, as US astronomers have recently undertaken. Water absorption bands are also present in the optical region and extend all the way to the ultraviolet, although they are less strong at shorter wavelengths. The precise effect of these absorption bands is hard to determine, despite the best efforts of many talented and dedicated scientists.


An incredible lightness of being

Air is largely composed of the diatomic molecules nitrogen and oxygen. So why is the transport of light through our atmosphere dominated by trace amounts of triatomic molecules such as water, carbon dioxide and ozone? After all, these molecules are only present above our heads at a level of about one part in 100,000.

The answer lies in the physics of the individual molecules involved. Molecules absorb radiation at characteristic wavelengths that excite one or more of their rotational, vibrational or electronic degrees of freedom. The probability that absorption occurs in a particular molecule gives the intensity of each line in the absorption spectrum. The intensities of these spectral lines depend on the net distribution of electronic charge within the molecule via dipole moments, which describe how the molecule responds to an applied electric field - such as that of an incoming light beam.

Symmetric linear molecules, such as N2, O2 and even CO2, have symmetric charge distributions and therefore they do not have a permanent dipole moment. Furthermore, dipole moments cannot be induced in symmetric diatomic molecules by vibrational or rotational excitation because this does not change their topology. N2 and O2 can therefore only absorb light through electronic excitation. There are some important oxygen absorption bands that are associated with electronic excitation in the visible portion of the spectrum (see figure 3), but these do not extend over many wavelengths and so do not block major amounts of radiation. This means that oxygen accounts for just 2% of the atmospheric absorption of incoming sunlight, and nitrogen accounts for essentially none.



Figure 4
The vibrational and rotational modes of water are very different to those of carbon dioxide. (a)-(c) Water has three vibrational modes that can all absorb or emit light. Carbon dioxide has four vibrational modes as it can bend in two directions, as shown by the black and green arrows in (b). The "symmetric stretch" mode (a) preserves the symmetry of carbon dioxide and therefore does not absorb light. (d) Carbon dioxide can rotate about its centre-of-mass in either of two directions that are perpendicular to the molecular axis. Both rotations have the same moments of inertia. Water, on the other hand, rotates asymmetrically about the three axes with a different moment of inertia in each direction. This asymmetry is responsible for the much greater complexity of water-vapour spectra.



The water molecule, on the other hand, has a bent triangular structure, as does ozone - which is not as symmetric as the formula O3 might suggest. Both of these molecules therefore possess permanent dipole moments, which means that they can absorb very long wavelength light that excites their rotational states. The asymmetry of water and ozone molecules causes the moments of inertia that govern the quanta of rotational motion to be different in each spatial direction (see figure 4). These "asymmetric top" molecules have complicated energy levels, which interact with light to produce dense spectral lines that contain little obvious structure.

More importantly for climatic issues, the vibrational degrees of freedom in water, ozone and carbon-dioxide molecules can absorb light in the infrared region. In the case of carbon dioxide it is these vibrations that break the symmetry of the molecule and enable it to become excited by atmospheric radiation. O3, like its near relative O2, has a number of low-lying electronic states that absorb light in the near ultraviolet. Unlike O2, however, the extensive vibrational and rotational structure of ozone means that its electronic transitions absorb radiation over a wide range of wavelengths. But what is so special about water that makes its absorptions extend all the way from the far infrared to the near ultraviolet?

The simplest answer to this is that water, unlike the other triatomic species, contains two atoms of hydrogen. The presence of hydrogen atoms has two important effects. When a water molecule rotates about its centre-of-mass - which is near the oxygen atom - it does so with small moments of inertia. This leads to a very wide-ranging rotational structure that causes absorption bands for all types of transitions to extend over large regions of the spectrum. Furthermore, the vibrational motions of water have a large amplitude because hydrogen atoms are very light. As a result, water does not vibrate as a simple harmonic oscillator - as most molecules do - and its vibrational transitions do not obey the general harmonic-selection rule. The only transitions allowed by this rule are those in which a vibrational quantum number changes by a single quantum. For water, transitions that involve changes of up to eight vibrational quanta are atmospherically important, which means that the water-vapour spectrum covers a large range of wavelengths and line intensities, and is generally very complex (figure 5).

Water, water on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?

The vibration-rotation spectrum of water has been the subject of numerous laboratory studies over many decades. Despite their atmospheric importance, the line intensities of water in the near-infrared and visible regions of the spectrum are actually very weak. To measure the line spectra, researchers shine light over a large range of wavelengths through a very long column of water. This simulates the several kilometres of water vapour that solar radiation traverses before it reaches the Earth's surface.

These long pathlengths are achieved in the laboratory by shining light through relatively short tubes - up to 50 m long - that have high reflectivity mirrors at their ends so that the light passes through the tube many times. Using this idea it has been possible to observe line intensities from strong transitions as well as numerous signatures of weak absorptions. High-resolution molecular spectroscopy has no difficulty in accurately measuring the wavelength of the spectral lines, but obtaining reliable measurements of the intensity of the lines - which tell us how much radiation is absorbed - presents much more of a challenge.

Water is also a nasty molecule to work with. Not because it is dangerous or attacks the experiment, but because its concentration is difficult to control. It forms droplets, it sticks to the walls of the tubes, it behaves unpredictably, and it does not mix properly with other gases. It is also present in the air in variable quantities, which makes it difficult to perform control experiments. Worse still, the absorption spectrum of water displays a huge dynamic range. Strong lines that are totally saturated (fully absorbing) in the atmosphere are close to very weak absorptions that must also be considered in any complete atmospheric model. Indeed, the individual dependence on the wavelength of light of these strong absorption lines is an important issue for atmospheric models.


Experiments that were performed by Roland Schermaul and the late Richard Learner at Imperial College in London in 2001 have cast previous measurements of the absorption spectrum of water into considerable doubt. The study was motivated by the European Space Agency (ESA), which was concerned that the uncertainty in water-vapour data was preventing important information on trace molecules in the atmosphere from being obtained. Schermaul and co-workers used the Molecular Spectroscopy Facility at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK to study the absorption of light by water vapour in air at wavelengths that varied from the near infrared to the orange. They found that the strong spectral lines absorbed significantly more light - between 5% and 25% - than previous laboratory measurements had suggested. This conclusion was given partial support by first-principle quantum-mechanical calculations, which can be used to estimate the strength of these absorptions.



Figure 5
A laboratory spectrum showing some of the thousands of absorptions of light that can take place in water vapour. The spectrum extends from the near infrared (left) almost to the green. At long wavelengths the absorption is saturated, but it becomes less so at shorter wavelengths. The band structure reflects the various ways in which water molecules can absorb light through their vibrational and rotational degrees of freedom. This spectrum was obtained by Roland Schermaul and co-workers using the Molecular Spectroscopy Facility at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.


In a parallel study, Schermaul and co-workers also measured the absorption of light by pure water vapour in an attempt to identify many of the weaker absorption lines that were predicted to be present in the spectrum (see figure 5). Similar studies were performed by Michel Carleer and co-workers from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium in 2002, who made measurements at shorter wavelengths that extended all the way into the ultraviolet - where the absorption lines of water are all weak.

These measurements were put into atmospheric models by Joanna Haigh's group at Imperial College to find out if they could explain the absorption anomaly. When the strength of the strong water absorption lines was increased in the model, the absorption of incoming sunlight rose by about 8 W m-2. This increased by a further 3 W m-2when the weak line parameters that were measured by Schermaul and co-workers were included. Together these increases represent about half of the absorption anomaly. Unfortunately, however, the situation is not quite this straightforward.

The increased absorption due to the weak water lines is generally accepted. Indeed, further increases are to be anticipated once the new, shorter-wavelength data from Carleer's team are also included in the models. However, other experiments, such as those performed by Linda Brown and colleagues from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that were reported in 2002, find significantly smaller increases in the strength of absorption by the strong lines. This issue remains unresolved, although calculations of the vibration-rotation spectrum of water might be able to shed light on it in the near future. Quantum-mechanical calculations have become essential for interpreting the results from experiments, especially for assigning individual observed lines to transitions between a particular pair of energy levels. Calculations can also provide a complete set of transitions that allow for even the weakest lines. The 30,000 or so water absorption lines that are listed in the HITRAN database, for example, can be supplemented by about one billion water transitions that have been computed in a separate attempt to model the steam in the atmospheres of dwarf stars (see Jones et al. in further reading).

The spectroscopic data that are required to model long-wave atmospheric absorptions are generally well characterized. When these data are put into atmospheric models, water turns out to be responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, while the much-reviled carbon-dioxide molecule accounts for just 26%. Ozone accounts for 8%, and methane and nitrous oxide - the atmospheric concentrations of which have been increased by human activity - contribute a further 8% to the greenhouse effect.

Should we ban dihydrogen monoxide?

We should not pretend that the effects of carbon dioxide are unimportant in the greenhouse effect. While the atmosphere has always contained a significant amount of water vapour, it is the apparent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the period of industrialization that is causing so much concern. It turns out that typical abundances of carbon dioxide are sufficient to make most of its absorption bands relatively opaque (see figure 3). Because the strong absorption bands are saturated, adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases its absorptions logarithmically rather than linearly - a fact that is recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is strongly related to temperature, as can be seen in figure 1. It might therefore appear that an increased greenhouse effect, which causes the atmosphere to get warmer, would also lead to more water vapour in the atmosphere. This would result in a positive-feedback system that causes the Earth to become increasingly warmer. However, as is often the case with atmospheric processes, the situation is not quite this simple. Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth's climate.

We have tried to outline some of the unresolved issues concerning water in the atmosphere. But there are others. For example, it is well known that at low temperature pairs of water molecules will stick together to form a weakly bound molecule known as a dimer. The absorption properties of the water dimer at visible wavelengths will be different from those of a single water molecule, but these remain to be characterized. Furthermore, it has so far proved impossible to determine the proportion of atmospheric water molecules that are present as dimers in either laboratory or atmospheric measurements. And we have not even dared to discuss the many problems in understanding clouds. Clouds are highly variable in their make-up, distribution and size. They contain aerosols and mini droplets of water vapour, which have spectroscopic properties that are even more uncertain than those of normal water vapour.

Another problem is that there are few data that tell us about the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere over history, which makes it difficult to determine the climatic effects from long-term changes in the atmosphere's water-vapour content. Fortunately, ESA's environmental satellite ENVISAT is now able to provide global coverage, and measure water-vapour signatures in the visible and near-infrared regions. Using complex mathematical techniques, the absorption spectra that are measured by satellites such as ENVISAT can be used to determine water-vapour columns, provided that accurate water-vapour spectroscopy is available.

A complete solution to the various problems that are associated with water absorption can only be obtained by constructing an accurate and comprehensive theoretical model of the spectrum of water. A significant step in this direction was taken in the last few months by Oleg Polyansky and co-workers at University College London. They showed that a combination of advanced quantum-mechanical calculations and high-performance computing can be used to predict the positions of water spectra with an accuracy that approaches that from experiments. These calculations included the effects of special relativity, quantum electrodynamics and the coupled motions of electrons and nuclei, which were generally neglected in previous studies. The team is currently trying to improve the accuracy of these calculations, and to obtain similar accuracies for the intensity of the absorption lines.

It is clear that the absorption of radiation by water vapour determines many characteristics of our atmosphere. While we would not try to provoke any worldwide movement that was aimed at suppressing water emissions, it would seem that the climatic role of water does not receive the general attention it deserves.

About the author
Ahilleas Maurellis is in the Earth-Oriented Sciences Division of the SRON National Institute for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, the Netherlands, e-mail a.n.maurellis@sron.nl. Jonathan Tennyson is head of the Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Positron Physics group at University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK, e-mail j.tennyson@ucl.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Credit also goes to I Am That I Am for finding both the previous two posts. 

Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2007, 04:12:56 pm »

Except you haven't been correct once during the GW debate, Merl - you don't believe in it! And you've also never been correct about anything either.  My favorite was when you cited a whole host of scientific papers that you claimed backed up youir case - some of them written by Michael Mann and guys who have done the actual research to advance the global warming theory. I take it was cause you thought none of us knew who those guys were.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell Byron:  Just because you SAY I'm wrong, doesn't make it so.  To say that I haven't been right about a single thing in the GW debate is simply hilarious, as it ignores the facts.  To say that, and I quote, "And you've also never been correct about anything either," just makes you look hysterical. 

As for the scientific papers - you still fail to recognize the significance of my point when I posted the links to them; even though I spelled it out for you.  In fact, you and I have been through this a couple of times already - you just don't want to see the truth.  In this case, I don't claim that I know the truth - I simply point out that the GW crowd doesn't either!  The assortment of scientific papers were to provide multiple views of the same aspect - many conflicting, and more than that - most showed signs of an evolving policy development.  The fact that many of the proponets of GW contradict each other is bad, but, from a scientific perspective - the evolution of the science is worse.  It is a sign that the science is nowhere nearly completed.  Again, as I have said many times, my complaint is that the work is incomplete - not that it is incorrect.  Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I just can't stand policy based upon incorrect, incoherent or incomplete analysis.  At any rate, I know you're a smart girl Allison - I find it hard to believe that, someone as well-versed in GW as you are, didn't understand the purpose for supplying links to the variety of sites I did.  Maybe you should go back and re-read my posting...  Ultimately though, think what you want about the posting  - I grow weary from trying to explain the obvious to you.

You're a hustler, Merl.  You may know about physics, but you know zilch when it comes to climatology.

Don't let *someone* read this - she'll accuse you of calling people names...  Anyway, you're partially right - I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you, Byron, Kristina, Al Gore or anyone else in this forum.  I have also never advertised myself as such, for I have always debated this topic from a logical point-of-view.  It's like Ben Franklin said, "Any scientist can be a scientist.  Once the fundamental understanding of science is taken to heart, the difference between chemistry and biology is location."  As long as I find fault with the "method" I can be certain that the "process" is flawed, therefore the "data" is uncertain.

Call me naive, but I think that flooded coastlines and vanishing species are going to hurt the planet, Merl.  That's the other really dumb arguments advanced by GWS (global warming sketics), "Hey, maybe global warming is a good thing!"

Believe what you want, though, you always do.

Come on Allison - that's not what I'm saying at all.  Don't try so hard to paint me with a brush that won't work.  Put the rhetoric and emotion aside for just a second and consider what I AM ACTUALLY SAYING (not what you expect me to say).  My point regarding the future effects of GW is that, none of the computer models have proven accurate (or even close), all predictions regarding climatic effect have been wrong and GW assumptions continue to be altered due to observational evidence.  In light of this, I think we need to investigate why all of the observational evidence continues to violate the theory.  Currently, the mainstream GW theory can not accomodate a cause for GCC and the GCC theory does not explain GW - yet - the media would have us believe that they are synonymous. 

Ultimately, instead of "believing what I want" as you would say, I would like to have something to believe in.  Something that is based in logic, proven with evidence and demonstrated through observation.  We don't have that, and even an academy award won't make Al's documentary any more legitimate.


Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Yeah, sure, Merl, a tiny percentage of scientists should get equal time with all the REAL scientists who advance the global warming consensus.  I suppose if we could find one or two accredited nutjobs to advance the Great Sphagetti Monster's creation of the unverse theory you'd be all for allowing that, too, right?

You see Allison, this is what you always do.  Instead of debating the Q & A, the facts, the logic or the evidence - you launch into some nonsensical reply that is, on its face, irrelevent.  We aren't talking about one or two scientists; we're talking about thousands, and you would know that if you didn't keep ignoring the critical reveiws.  So far, every article or journal that has been offered as support for my "skeptical opinion" has been written off by you as either: 1) Big Oil, 2) A nutcase (nutjob) 3)  A right-wing conspiracy or a variation of them all.  A pattern quickly develops as it appears  you will continue to ignore the criticism, no matter how much there is.  Spaghetti Monsters and their creation myths aside, you still failed to acknowledge that your version of the 1st amendment and/or freedom of the press appears  kind of lopsided.  That trait seems at odds with your liberal side.  All I said was, "The notion that only the majority should get access to the public would have made sure that most of the good things in life never occurred.  So much for gay rights, emancipation, suffrage and independence from oppression,"  I didn't mention creation myths or monsters of any sort.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Yep, let's just toss all the scientific rules out the window for you when it comes to global warming cause you don't like it.

Well, since the scientific method (which I know quite well) demands discussion & debate while viewing all possible angles, I am perplexed by your sarcasm.  To be honest, I dread pointing out to you, lest you lash back with vicious tone, but it is I who is attempting to bring some science to the discussion - not you.  You would only allow the popular opinion to be expressed while strangling dissent according to your previous reply.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Yes, but your area is physics, not climatology. I am not "making assumptions to fill my angst."  The oil companies do fund the propaganda, just as the Bush people have been editing the scientific reports.  Any real scientist would be ashamed of this process.

Allison, I am a professor of theoretical physics and statistical studies since leaving the world of revenue (a little humor for the sidelines).  I am immersed in all things liberal for many hours of the day, and I am surrounded by peers in every discipline of science, math, statistics, and sociology.  I get your point, and I understand it - hell, I'm not even trying to say that you are wrong!  Crimeny - you see conspiracy in everything, which causes you to miss the significance of real conspiracies when they arise.  You also spend too much time trying to assign blame, when you could be trying to create answers.  You continue to paint on this canvas with a spray gun, when a fine brush is required.  Big oil is not the problem, and if you think about it {logically}, you'll realize it.  We can discuss that later if you like- it would make a good thread.  Anyway, Dubyah isn't editing peer-reviewed scientific papers, and neither is Albert.  However, entire governments of the EU, America, and associated U.N. countries have been editing the AR4 document.  There's the beauty - AR4 isn't peer-reviewed.  That ceased after AR2 when the contributing scientists (many of them) removed their name from the authorship due to meddling from the U.N. and affiliated governments.  Long story - but interesting, I suggest you read about it.  You are right however; I am ashamed of the process - the whole process.  I think both sides and the middle are guilty of bad science, political influence, and attempting to appeal to a growing cult of personality instead of wowing us with their research.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
You also seemingly don't believe there is a scientific consensus (there is). You've got issues, Merl.

I never said that there was not a consensus.  I was disagreeing with you when you said that there is no consensus that the GW & GCC science is flawed and anecdotally based on observation instead of logic and data.  I have been very clear on this point, I cannot imagine why your are having such a difficult time understanding my position.  Though there is a "consensus" (several different ones), it does not necessarily mean "majority".  It often times is defined as a, "general agreement or concord", and that is how I see the various "consensuses", as concordances.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Gee, it's emotionally charged cause the fate of the planet is at stake if we don't do something?  If you can't get emotional about that, what good are you?

No Allison, that's not what I said, or meant, and you should have understood that.  I'll post it again so that you may re-read it:  "the debate is too emotionally charged, it is being played out in the public instead of the laboratories".  I take the whole issue very seriously, but running around yelling fire in a smoke-filled room doesn't save a life; it wastes energy and causes panic.  Human beings make seriously stupid decisions when they do so under duress. 

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Don't put that crap on me, Merl, you are the one disconnected to reality.  I have been following the scientfic information, all you have been doing is trying to discount it.

I have yet to put fecal matter on any part of you - I'm simply not into that; to each his (or her) own, I say.  I suppose that you think reality and popularity/majority are synonymous.  That would be the only way I could ever be accused of being disconnected from it.  C'est la vie...  Unlike some others, I don't mind less company when I formulate opinions, theories or predictions - it's fewer people I have to share the victory with when I turn out to be right.  That's pretty arrogant sounding, I know, but it doesn't make it any less truthful. 


It's been a pleasure, as always Allison.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2007, 01:34:30 pm »

I just printed this in the other forum, might as well print it over here, too, as ammo against the next pre-emptive strike against Gore:

Gore does use a lot of energy, that isn't the point, the energy he uses is electricity generated from renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution.


Quote
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility BillThink Tank Blasts Gore for Hypocrisy, Defenders Call Report a Last Gasp from Warming Skeptics

Al Gore, left, and Davis Guggenheim poses with the Oscar for best documentary feature for the film "An Inconvenient Truth" at the 79th Academy Awards Sunday, Feb. 25, 2007, in Los Angeles. (Kevork Djansezian/AP Photo)
 

By JAKE TAPPER

Feb. 26, 2007 — Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1

These efforts did little to impress Johnson. "I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."



The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.


Related:  Is Gore's Energy Consumption Hypocritical?




The press release from Johnson's group, an obscure conservative think tank founded by Johnson in 2004 when he was 24, was given splashy attention on the highly-trafficked Drudge Report Monday evening, and former Gore aides saw it as part of a piece, along with an Fox News Channel investigation from earlier this month of Gore's use of private planes in 2000. Last year, a seemingly amateurish Youtube video mocking the "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to have been produced by slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.



"Considering that he spends an overwhelming majority of his time advocating on behalf of and trying to affect change on this issue, it's not surprising that people who have a vested interest in protecting the status quo would go after him," said the former Gore aide.



Kreider says she's confident that the Gores' utility bills will decrease. "They bought an older home and they're in the process of upgrading the home," she said. "Unfortunately that means an increase in energy use in order to have an overall decrease in energy use down the road."



Gore is not the only environmentalist associated with "An Inconvenient Truth" who has come under fire for personal habits —

and not all the criticism has come from the Right.



Writing in The Atlantic Monthly in 2004, liberal writer Eric Alterman criticized producer Laurie David for her use of private Gulfstream jets. David, he wrote "reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable." New Republic writer Gregg Easterbrook followed up, computing that "one cross-country flight in a Gulfstream is the same, in terms of Persian-Gulf dependence and greenhouse-gas emissions, as if she drove a Hummer for an entire year."


Related:  Is Gore's Energy Consumption Hypocritical?




In an interview in 2006, David told ABC News that she was limiting her use of private planes and was flying commercial far more frequently.

So, as usual, the right wing propaganda machine is only giving you part of the story, the one that favors them.

As for the other theories put forward that the sun and other factors are what is driving global warming, to put it politely, you guys are entitled to your opinion. Smiley


Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2007, 06:01:25 pm »

I don't particularly follow the "skeptics" much in the news, although I do follow the [whole] issue through journals and discussions.  To be honest, I haven't ever heard much noise made out of the sun - as in the cycles of the sun - until someone over at AR posted something about it.  Because the solar flare and sunspot activity has been so closely monitored in the past, it's pretty easy to discount both as a potential culprit in the GCC - GW discussion.  I agree that there is some anecdotal evidence that it may be contributing to an already increasing temperature - but I see nothing that would indicate causality.

From a different perspective, I am certain that the potential for celestial influence, as a whole, has not been fully investigated, and I can make that comment with complete certainty.  In short, this planet's entire existence has been marked with cyclic phenomena - all of which is described, none of which explained.  At some point, the cycles of asteroid/meteor/comet bombardements, ice ages, incredible volcanic activity, world-wide & regional flooding and mass extinctions have to become more than just an "unfortunate coincidence".  Problem is, We've only been looking at the local astronomy in depth for 100 years and it takes thousands and millions for us to have moved through the universe at the intervals that the "coincidences" occur.

So, no - the "celestial question" has not been answered; not even slightly. 

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2007, 06:36:58 pm »

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged


When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.


So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.


Interesting point of view - whether you agree with it or not.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2007, 06:48:51 pm »

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.  Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.   In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.  "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.  Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.  "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.  By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.  "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.  "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."  The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.  "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.  These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.  Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.  "Mars has no moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. 

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.  He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.  But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.  Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.  "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Another interesting scientific opinion, whether you agree with it or not.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2007, 07:09:25 pm »

Here's a partial list of the specific glaciers that are not shrinking as GW & GCC predict, but are in fact - GROWING:


NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier


As an aside, the Engabreen glacier is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier, which has steadily increased in mass since the  1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.


Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 centimeters) per day.   http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

Want to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers?  Click here: http://www.nve.no/


CANADAHelm Glacier & Place Glacier
ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov
RUSSIA
Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)


GREENLAND
- Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.   One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml


NEW ZEALAND

All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.  The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the  foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)  Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two best-known  glaciers are still on the march - 31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier


SOUTH AMERICA- Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia) is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation, 30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile, is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier

Chile - Chile's Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere)
is also growing.


UNITED STATES
- Colorado
- Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuckson)
- California (Mount Shasta)
- Montana
- Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).

Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year September 20, 2004

How about this article?  "Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking Glacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming"
15 Feb 07 - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm

A very interesting quote....

"Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting. I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino, a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams into South America.

It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt. But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.

With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.

I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.  Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in Göteborg, Sweden."

Find the whole source here:  http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf

It's a lot of reading, but fun nonetheless.


Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy