Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

[Fidei Defensor]

West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80229075228.htm[/url]

[Justin86]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470881' date='Feb 29 2008, 10:50 AM']Interesting data.

It's worth noting, though, that if global warming is in fact happening, it would lead to global climate change which does not necessarily mean everywhere is getting hotter. Changes in the salinity of the oceans due to the melting of the fresh water frozen in the icecaps would lead to changes in currents which can mean changes in climate - i.e. colder winters, weird weather. But if you look at the icecaps, they are the areas that are warming. Scientists are predicting that the Arctic Ocean may become ice-free before 2015.[/quote]


[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1471395' date='Mar 1 2008, 07:39 AM']That's an issue of ozone depletion, which is worst above antarctica. Thanks to the CFCs that were put into the atmosphere, the ozone was depleted. And with that occuring above antarctica, combined with extra greenhouse gases, antarctica ends up colder than it used to be.

I think it would be worth quoting to following in order to help demonstrate the idea of how global warming and stratospheric cooling are related:[/quote]
Global warming causes global cooling? Give me a break! This is why so many people in America view you MMGW guys as nut jobs.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1472788' date='Mar 3 2008, 02:18 AM']Global warming causes global cooling? Give me a break! This is why so many people in America view you MMGW guys as nut jobs.[/quote]
Your lack of scientific knowledge disturbs me.

It is possible to have both warming at the surface and cooling in the upper atmosphere.

[jeffpugh]

I just got hit with Global Warming's best snowstorm. Snowbanks range from 5-7 (possibly 8) feet. I had to shovel about a foot and a half of snow off my driveway.... my brother's doing the 5 feet of snowplow snow off the front of the driveway now...

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1474575' date='Mar 9 2008, 09:33 AM']I just got hit with Global Warming's best snowstorm. Snowbanks range from 5-7 (possibly 8) feet. I had to shovel about a foot and a half of snow off my driveway.... my brother's doing the 5 feet of snowplow snow off the front of the driveway now...[/quote]
You, of all people, being a religious person, know that singluar examples don't disprove the whole.

[jeffpugh]

Heh.... hardly singular... it's widespread across Ontario, and guess what... the states too. It's hardly singular. It's record-breaking.

[Carnanc]

regarding the question of using anecdotal evidence in oppostion to global warming, the liberal media use such evidence all the time attributing every huricane, record warm temperature in one tiny part of the world, and every other envirnmental anamoly to global warming. to me it seems necessary to counter such example, with examples of our own, and thus to use the same tactics they do..

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='slywakka250' post='1474604' date='Mar 9 2008, 02:30 PM']regarding the question of using anecdotal evidence in oppostion to global warming, the liberal media use such evidence all the time attributing every huricane, record warm temperature in one tiny part of the world, and every other envirnmental anamoly to global warming. to me it seems necessary to counter such example, with examples of our own, and thus to use the same tactics they do..[/quote]

i concurr

[Apotheoun]

The speculative theories of doomsayers of whatever variety should be taken with a grain of salt, because the earth has always experienced natural fluctuations in temperature, and these fluctuations have caused mini-ice ages and warming periods in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html"]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html[/url]

it seems many want to go on their "gut" that emissions can't be that much on the big earth. but if you look at that graph, we're at least 33% more than normal with CO2, which means that chunk is from all us.... hardly a drop in the bucket. then, consider the temperature correlation with that.


---------------------------------

detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes.
if you don't know what i'm tlaking about, then don't debate me.


essential facts.
one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred.
the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources.
the other is that they think 1.5 or so degrees is all that can really be attributed to man made gases.

i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
--------------
The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).
---------
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
----------


scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
-------------
QUOTE
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
QUOTE
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.
----------------------




Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
-----------------
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): [url="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.."]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/..[/url].
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): [url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/.."]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/..[/url].
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [url="http://www.grida.no/.."]http://www.grida.no/..[/url].
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): [url="http://books.nap.edu/.."]http://books.nap.edu/..[/url].
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - [url="http://www.socc.ca/.."]http://www.socc.ca/..[/url].
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): [url="http://epa.gov/.."]http://epa.gov/..[/url].
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - [url="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/.."]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/..[/url].
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): [url="http://www.agu.org/.."]http://www.agu.org/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): [url="http://www.aip.org/.."]http://www.aip.org/..[/url].
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): [url="http://eo.ucar.edu/.."]http://eo.ucar.edu/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): [url="http://www.cmos.ca/.."]http://www.cmos.ca/..[/url].
-------------------------

so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense.

if the sun only acccounts for a third, that means the other third is coming from us, at least as far as i can tell from sources.
now, that two thirds might now be enough in itself. but, it's still the majority of hte heating, as far as i can see. so, if it's two thirds, i don't see how you could say that's not significant. to quibble on "significant" is just that, too, quibbling, so i hope no one does it, as it's not an argument worth fighting over.

qualifiers
-----------------
now, given that the flares will inevitably go down, the question is what to think of that warming that is occuring by us. when solar goes down, our warming wo't matter as much. in the mean time.... how much are we hurting the planet? this is the msot fundamental. it's hard to pin point specific levels of harm with specific temp increases.

what true is that we picked a very convenient time to be warming the planet any given solar cycle being up at the moment.

to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise.
to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic.

the question is what to do based on the uncertainty.
one thing i'm not sure of is why even if GW is so bad, if that's such a bad thing in the bigger picture. increased crop cycles etc. warmer etc. prob unintended side effects is what we have to worry about. i mean, manhattan would get flooded some, up to the WTC even, but is that so bad overall? pretty expensive an all but i don't know.

Edited March 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[peach_cube]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476271' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:05 PM']doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?[/quote]
Here's the thing, a singular active volcano will release thousands of tonnes of various gasses into the atmosphere each day. Volcanoes that are monitored are done so with with this in mind through COSPEC readings. One just needs to know the wind direction and drive under this invisible plume to see if there is an increase in volcanic activity that may signal a coming eruption. (See Mt. Pinatubo). A major volcanic eruption can disrupt weather patterns for years (the Storm of the Century in 1993 is partly thought to be a result of the Pinatubo eruption) with the aerosols blocking out sun for years. Major eruptions are infrequent, out gassing is quite regular.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476271' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:05 PM']so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense.[/quote]

I think you will find that due to increase in the amount of precipitation in the continent of Antarctica there has been an overall increase in the Antarctic ice cap, with the West antarctic the only one diminishing. The increased precipitation may be due to increased global temperatures, weakening circumpolar winds (which is actually good for the ozone layer), or other. It does result in more calving but that is due to increased push.

The ice caps have not gotten dirty (bad Al Gore, bad). Having discussions with Dr. Richard Alley and an associate that has seen these samples they have assured me that the industrial revolution can only be noted under thin section.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476271' date='Mar 12 2008, 02:05 PM']to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise.
to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic.[/quote]

While the annual mean minimum temperature has been rising the annual mean maximum temperature has showed little change. It's complex science. Take the solar constant, plus sunspot cycles, plus Milankovitch cycles, plus greenhouse gases, plus volcanic activity, plus aerosol fluctuations, plus snow cover, plus etc. The best bet is to ignore the extreme views on the subject, hope for more clarity in the data that is collected, and be prudent in the decisions that you as a consumer make. In my opinion there are far more pressing environmental concerns that are being pushed aside for this topic. Hopefully it will lead to debates on the sustainability of marine resources, the exploitation of the third world by multinational corporations, and others.

Just remember buying a hybrid car won't do diddly poo, 75% of U.S. energy consumption goes into heating and cooling our buildings. You are better off investing in some real high quality insulation, new windows, and a more efficient heater and air conditioner.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, even if volcanoes are more significant that i said.... that graph in the initial link by the EPA shows that our contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is irrefutably significant, and it's irrefutably not from volcanoes.
as to whether that's causing GW or what is exactly, is still debateble. but with that graph, at least as far as CO2 goes, the question is over.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png[/url]

there is another graph showing the CO2 and temp correlation. now, the last ice age was 11000 years ago, or the low point on the temp graph. i'd imagine each was a ice age, each low point. so... our CO2 is indeed rising naturally very much, but it's irrefutable that the recent CO2 has been significantly raised by us, as indicatd by that EPA graph.

so the question comes down to the correlation and caustion qustion. and it also comes down to things such as how much the ice etc would be melting and temp increasing even without our added CO2.

how much did it melt last peek? is an important question.

you can't deny that the EPA graph makes it look suspicioius. and that we're adding CO2 at an inopportune time.

but... if sun spots and sun activity was a signficant cause of the ice ages.... and we see CO2 correlation... which was really the cause, and how does sun activity tie with CO2 activity naturally? this is a very important question.
even if hte sun causes the CO2, if the Co2 causes the wrming, wouldn't our irrufutable significant increase cause more wrming? yes. but, the Co2 might just be a consequence of the sun or ice melting, and not a cause. this makes intuitive sense, cause if the ice melts, life would exhause Co2 etc, maybe. or if life is too insignificant to be the CO2 culprit, what could it be from?

Edited March 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[peach_cube]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476806' date='Mar 13 2008, 11:59 AM']well, even if volcanoes are more significant that i said.... that graph in the initial link by the EPA shows that our contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is irrefutably significant, and it's irrefutably not from volcanoes.
as to whether that's causing GW or what is exactly, is still debateble. but with that graph, at least as far as CO2 goes, the question is over.[/quote]
Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year (Giga tons of carbon per year). A recent update says 8.5 GT.

To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 GT C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 GT C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 GT C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 GT C. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT C.

The amount of of Carbon Dioxide that human activity is responsible is less around 1% of the total in the atmosphere. Of course our degree of error in estimating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given moment is around 5 to 6 percent.

Source [url="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm[/url]

Also interesting to make note of in light of the irrefutably significant graph:

[url="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm"]http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm[/url]

[peach_cube]

[img]http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg[/img]

I find this graph fairly interesting as well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what's needed is sun activity data back thousands of thousands of years ago to compare to temperature.
also, any other possible causes need put out there, and likewise compared. as of now, carbon and temp correlate.

[quote]Scafetta, 2006
"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century.
[url="http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/20.."]http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/20..[/url].

Foukal, 2006
"The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
[url="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v44.."]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v44..[/url].
[url="http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi.."]http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi..[/url].

Foukal, 2006
"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. … Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period."
[url="http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/b.."]http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/b..[/url].

Lockwood, 2007
"The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays."
[url="http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a.."]http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a..[/url].
[url="http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro.."]http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro..[/url].

Lockwood, 2007
“There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
[url="http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media.."]http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media..[/url].

Solanki, 2004
"Researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."
[url="http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsD.."]http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsD..[/url].

Ammann, 2007
“Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, greenhouse gas effects have dominated the last century.”
[url="http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/MEETINGS/2005_.."]http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/MEETINGS/2005_..[/url].

et. cetera[/quote]