Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Phronesis]

Thought this news article was interesting. Many "falsehoods" that "massive AGW" pundits might find?
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?

But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Yes, CO2 does contribute to the greenhouse effect, but does the greenhouse effect contribute to cooling?

Below zero temperature hits Kuwait agricultural products

Extreme temperature changes around the world have been commonplace for many years. "For instance, the heavy rains that took place last April here in Kuwait were caused by very strong winds that reached the power of hurricanes. Storms of that nature have not been seen in Kuwait for more than ten years. Also, Saudi Arabia witnessed heavy rains two months ago, and now it's completely dry. The greenhouse effect, which can be blamed on modern industry, is responsible for these changes, and this problem will continue to develop in the coming years," Eisa Ramadan said.

How massive is CO2 contribution to climate change?
This paper states:

The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K.

Only 1.1 degree (max 1.6) increase if CO2 doubles. What is the estimated doubling time?
A New Look at Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere and is of considerable concern in global climate change because of its greenhouse gas warming potential. The rate of increase has accelerated since measurements began at Mauna Loa Observatory in 1958 where carbon dioxide increased from less than 1 part per million per year (ppm/yr) prior to 1970 to more than 2 ppm/yr in recent years (Keeling et al., 1995). This accelerating growth rate, which the London Guardian (2007) headlined a “Surge in carbon levels raises fear of runaway warming”, suggested that the terrestrial biosphere and oceans ability to take up carbon dioxide may be lessening as predicted from models and data (Fung et al., 2005; Le Quéré et al., 2007). Here we show that the anthropogenic component (atmospheric value reduced by the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm) of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing exponentially with a doubling time of about 35 years since the beginning of the industrial revolution (~1800). Even during the 1970's, when fossil fuel emissions dropped sharply in response to the “oil crisis” of 1973, the anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued increasing exponentially at Mauna Loa Observatory. Since the growth rate (time derivative) of an exponential has the same characteristic lifetime as the function itself, the carbon dioxide growth rate is also doubling at the same rate. This explains the observation that the linear growth rate of carbon dioxide has more than doubled in the past 40 years. The accelerating linear growth rate is simply the outcome of exponential growth in carbon dioxide with a nearly constant doubling time of about 35 years (about 2 %/yr) and appears to have tracked human population since the pre-industrial era.

35 years doubling time resulting in an increase of 1.1 degrees.

Luckily one of the "oceanic pumps" surprisingly switched on again.
Surprising Return of North Atlantic Circulation Pump

(Media-Newswire.com) - One of the “pumps” contributing to the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade, scientists reported Tuesday ( Dec. 23 ) in Nature Geoscience. The finding surprised scientists, who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump—which, in turn, would cause other far-reaching climate changes.

The “pump” in question is the sinking of cold, dense water in the North Atlantic Ocean in the winter. It drives water down into the lower limb of what is often described as the Great Ocean Conveyor. To replace that down-flowing water, warm surface waters from the tropics are pulled northward along the Conveyor’s upper limb.

The phenomenon helps draw down the man-made buildup of carbon dioxide from air to surface waters and eventually into the depths, where the greenhouse gas can be stored for centuries and offset global warming. It also transports warm tropical waters northward, where the ocean transfers heat to the air and keeps winter climate in the North Atlantic region much warmer than it would be otherwise.

So, a 35 year doubling (which is a massive amount of CO2) with a 1.1 degrees increase and now one of the "pumps" restarted to help remove atmospheric CO2.

Is AGW massive?

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Don't forget the cost of cooling: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/07/uk-starts-paying-subsidies-for-record-colds/

Anyone for the new relig...scam...etc? AGC .. Anthrowhatever Global Cooling? It's because of the CO2 .. more CO2 == cooling? (http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/how_carbon_dioxide_causes_global_cooling ... lol)

While I was petering around, I found this. (warning: chronolatic particles) http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-debunk-co2-myth.html

And for fun: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...lytelegraph/comments/sacred_document_torched/

 

[w1z4rd]

I must confess to not being a climate scientist, and so can only quote others. It's far too tedious to retype books and journals I have, so this sort of forum debate generally relies in web-based quotes. These are as accessible to you as they are to me. If you're truly interested you'd research them yourself.

The mere fact that both sides can pick authorities to support their case shows that this is not a settled matter and that the scientific debate is wide open -- a fact only the AGW activists refuse to acknowledge and indeed seek to repress and stifle by vicious ad hominems and buckets of spleen chucked at their detractors.

Besides, the aforegoing posts are not debate, properly speaking, but rather a serial quoting of those for and agin'. I'm far less interested in a 'forum debate' and refutations than in simply asserting the fact that AGW is far from settled science, and citing more knowledgable and credentialled experts who say the same. This has been done. You might not like all the links previously posted, but following many of them will bring you to cool, dispassionate science untainted by the shrill voice of politics. I know I can't convince you, any more than I can convince YammaGamma that the moon's not made of green cheese. You have to do that work yourself.

You dont really have a point here. There are two camps when it comes to evolution. Creationism and evolution and both side have an argument. Im sure to idiots both sides sound about right, but at the end of the day both sides are not right. In this case evolution is right.

Problem here is the way the media presents a science story. 99% of scientists will agree with point A, 1% will agree with point B, but when the media explains the story they give equal exposure to both points as though they were of equal value.

 

[BCO]

You dont really have a point here. There are two camps when it comes to evolution. Creationism and evolution and both side have an argument. Im sure to idiots both sides sound about right, but at the end of the day both sides are not right. In this case evolution is right.

Problem here is the way the media presents a science story. 99% of scientists will agree with point A, 1% will agree with point B, but when the media explains the story they give equal exposure to both points as though they were of equal value and then 75% of the masses out there believe the 1% of the scientists, because then they can absolve themselves of any responsibility..

 

[Phronesis]

Liberals asking for an apology from Mr. Gore?
Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
Maybe Mr. Gore should give more of his speeches to heat up one of the coldest winters In Europe and America in decades.

If it is cold, it is climate change due to global warming, if it is warm, it is due to global warming, if it is normal, just you wait, global warming is coming... beware .

 

[w1z4rd]

Theres actually a publication called the Huffington Post?

ROFLCOPTER

 

[Phronesis]

Yeah, funny name. Appearances can be deceiving though.
Wiki
The Huffington Post won the 2006 and 2007 Webby Awards for Best Politics Blog.

Huffington Post contributor Bennet Kelley was awarded the Los Angeles Press Club's 2007 Southern California Journalism Award for Online Commentary[6] for political commentary published on the site.[7]

It is ranked the most powerful blog in the world by The Observer.[8]

 

[w1z4rd]

Yeah, funny name. Appearances can be deceiving though.
Wiki
The Huffington Post won the 2006 and 2007 Webby Awards for Best Politics Blog.

Huffington Post contributor Bennet Kelley was awarded the Los Angeles Press Club's 2007 Southern California Journalism Award for Online Commentary[6] for political commentary published on the site.[7]

It is ranked the most powerful blog in the world by The Observer.[8]

Thats nice.

 

[BCO]

Who the **** is Harold Ambler?

The only remarkable thing about his article is that it was published in a liberal publication. Besides that, the article simply rehashes a number of the most common contrarian arguments that have been thoroughly debunked many times before. Pure tripe.

Response IN THE HUFFINGTON POST:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/huffington-post-blows-it_b_155696.html

 

[Phronesis]

Who the **** is Harold Ambler?

The only remarkable thing about his article is that it was published in a liberal publication. Besides that, the article simply rehashes a number of the most common contrarian arguments that have been thoroughly debunked many times before. Pure tripe.

Response IN THE HUFFINGTON POST:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/huffington-post-blows-it_b_155696.html

Well, is AGW really so massive as suggested by Mr Gore? Or do the models predict a max 1.6 degrees increase if the CO2 in the atmosphere doubles in the next 35 years.

 

[BCO]

Well, is AGW really so massive as suggested by Mr Gore? Or do the models predict a max 1.6 degrees increase if the CO2 in the atmosphere doubles in the next 35 years.

1.6 degrees is a lot. Also, this thread is not, nor has it ever been about Al Gore, yet you contrarians keep harping on about him.

 

[Phronesis]

1.6 degrees is a lot. Also, this thread is not, nor has it ever been about Al Gore, yet you contrarians keep harping on about him.

Do you support Al Gore's out of proportion views? The 1.6 degrees is the maximum range with a 1.1 average. The minimum being 0.6. What about 0.6 and 1.1? What did Al Gore preach? And how many people take his word as the final measure of truth? Not a lot?

 

[BCO]

Do you support Al Gore's out of proportion views? The 1.6 degrees is the maximum range with a 1.1 average. The minimum being 0.6. What about 0.6 and 1.1? What did Al Gore preach? And how many people take his word as the final measure of truth? Not a lot?

I think that Al Gore may have overstated the extent of possible sea level rises, but then again, it's very difficult to predict how the earth's systems will react to a mean global temperature increase.

The above, however, does not negate the fact that AGW is happening.

 

[Phronesis]

And the magnitude?
Thought this was interesting.
Temperature change and CO2 change: a scientific briefing

From the article:

 

[BCO]

And the magnitude?
Thought this was interesting.
Temperature change and CO2 change: a scientific briefing

From the article:

Downloaded the file. Opened it. Saw it was Monckton. Closed it.

 

[Phronesis]

For information regarding climate change skepticism, visit the best Science blog of 2008, What's up with that. Lots of science, MUCH more science than PZ Myers' blog (came second) which has just become a cesspool of whiny characters trying to sound smart.

 

[BCO]

For information regarding climate change skepticism, visit the best Science blog of 2008, What's up with that. Lots of science, MUCH more science than PZ Myers' blog (came second) which has just become a cesspool of whiny characters trying to sound smart.

You're talking about the 2008 Weblog Awards? Where anyone can vote?

Proof that there's a lot of ignorant people out there if WattsUpWithThat won the award as best science blog.

 

[Albereth]

my crop plants e.g. tomatoes and chillis are still producing like it's summer (this has never happened before), most flowers are still flowering, most the plants are confused about what time of year it is,

I thought plants were driven by the amount of light, more than the temperature. But who knows what goes through their freaky little minds?

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Some more global warming humor:

http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/

 

[BCO]

Wow, it's winter and it's cold so GW must not be happening.