52 replies to this topic

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Apeman - as you point out so well, we're start to see empirical data (tidal flooding, disappearing glaciers, shortened winters, animal migration deviations, rivers flooding in the winter, not the spring, weather extremes, etc) that can only be the result of climate warming. Instead of spending energy arguing about the causes, humans should be spending energy developing effective plans to deal with it.

Like I said once before, if a bunch of people are on the roof of a building that's on fire, they're almost certainly not arguing about what caused the fire. They're trying to figure out how to survive.

[Chris]

Thanks for the life history Ape, well done....!  I worked down there too until 1999 and moved out here....  Glad you can use a multi-meter...   A very handy tool.   And then there it was, "an almost" in Environmental Science...!   Every ES major I have ever met was a dyed in the wool lefty predisposed to progressive notions and politics.  Fits very well with your current belief system.....    And if you bothered to read my posting above on the Sun you would realize how wrong your response is....   Study the Sun and climate a little more, and not just from your pro AGW sites.   I'll list some more information below for you "warmists" to try and deny.....   Actual studies, articles, if you want the links you can find them from the titles..   Now you can tell me I am wrong, question my knowledge, education, and intelligence (just like you warmists do any other fellow "denier", Ph.D'd or not...) but I really want to see you deny Nasa, MIT, National Geographic, CERN, ABC, Nature magazine, Space.com, etc....    And on the political side, please note the dates of many these articles.  Notice anything...?  Yes, just before the Obama administration.  Once he was in, and the EPA was loaded up with even more "warmists", Environmental Science majors I'm pretty sure, the mandate came down that the "science" must support the AGW theory or you are not getting any funding and will be fired.  Now please don't try and say we got smarter...  You know the reason, we got more progressive "politics" in our science big time.  Now let's see who is the "denier".  Chris

 

NASA – Odyssey Studies Changing Weather And Climate On Mars –  Mars may be going through a period of climate change, new findings from NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter suggest...........

 

The Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame- The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer.

 

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN.  09/01/11. CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere.  In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.  Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth

 

NASA – Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically – “September 20, 2005 – New gullies that did not exist in mid-2002 have appeared on a Martian sand dune. That’s just one of the surprising discoveries that have..

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science- Scientists Said Sun Caused Global Warming – 1998- Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth. Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual – but a mini ice age could soon follow.

 

Nat Geo – Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming – “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..

 

Space.com: Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate: January 16, 2013, Even small changes in solar activity can impact Earth's climate in significant and surprisingly complex ways, researchers say.

The sun is a constant star when compared with many others in the galaxy. Some stars pulsate dramatically, varying wildly in size and brightness and even exploding. In comparison, the sun varies in the amount of light it emits by only 0.1 percent over the course of a relatively stable 11-year-long pattern known as the solar cycle.  Still, "the light reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere provides about 2,500 times as much energy as the total of all other sources combined," solar physicist Greg Kopp at the University of Colorado told SPACE.com. As such, even 0.1 percent of the amount of light the sun emits exceeds all other energy sources the Earth's atmosphere sees combined, such as the radioactivity naturally emitted from Earth's core, Kopp explained.

 

Forbes: Sorry, But With Global Warming It's The Sun, Stupid: 2011, European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland recently revealed an inverse correlation between periodic changes in sunspot activity levels, and quantities of cosmic rays entering Earth’s atmosphere that trigger surface-cooling cloud formations.

 

MIT – Pluto is Undergoing Global Warming –“October 9, 2002 – Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet’s atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years, a team of astronomers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).......

 

Study: Earth’s Orbit Causes Global Warming Today And Climate Change:  A new study out of Denmark found that fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, called Milankovitch cycles, have been causing periods of dramatic, short-term global warming for at least 1.4 billion years. Fluctuations in Earth’s orbit are even behind the long-term warming of today’s climate, conclude researchers.

 

ABC – Pluto Thought to be Warming up –“July 26, 2006 – Astronomers at the University of Tasmania have found that the solar system’s smallest planet is not getting colder as first thought and.......

 

MIT – Researcher Finds Evidence of Global Warming on Neptune’s Largest Moon – “June 24, 1998 -We’re not the only ones experiencing global warming. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989....

 

NASA-Global Warming Detected on Triton Neptune’s Largest Moon- ” June 28, 1998 – There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune’s largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless. The Earth is not alone in suffering global warming. According to observations made by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and.........

 

Nature.com – Prediction of a Global Climate Change on Jupiter- “March 9, 2004 – Jupiter’s atmosphere, as observed in the 1979 Voyager space craft images, is characterized by 12 zonal jet streams and about 80 vortices, the largest of which are the Great Red Spot and......

 

Space.com_New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change – “May 4, 2006 – A storm is brewing half a billion miles away and in a rare event, astronomers get to watch it closely..........

 

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming - Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.  A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate.  The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

 

Friends of Science: The Sun Causes Climate Change-The graph shows that changes in solar activity are the primary cause of climate change. Note the low solar activity periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715, the Little Ice Age) and during the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825).

[apeman45]

This just supports what I was trying to explain to you about your 100 million years ago CO2 levels.  Of course other planets are getting warmer because the sun is getting hotter 1% every 100 million years.  Pluto doesn't have the greenhouse gasses that we have on earth or not much of an atmosphere if any.  There in lies the problem on earth.  I could cherry pick quotes from a lot of sites like you did but I don't have to because I could reference entire articles and studies that you aren't interested in.  Who is president or heading up the EPA has absolutely nothing to do with GW. The warming of the rest of our solar system in your referenced studies is measured in millions of years.  How do you explain the below from the lefty Scripps Institution.  My daughter just applied for a job there.  She was corrupted by one of her parents and got a UC science degree.  Wonder what parent brainwashed her?  Hint: Her mother watches FOX news 24 hours a day.  

 

https://scripps.ucsd...2_800k_zoom.png

[Chris]

This just supports what I was trying to explain to you about your 100 million years ago CO2 levels.  Of course other planets are getting warmer because the sun is getting hotter 1% every 100 million years.  Pluto doesn't have the greenhouse gasses that we have on earth or not much of an atmosphere if any.  There in lies the problem on earth.  I could cherry pick quotes from a lot of sites like you did but I don't have to because I could reference entire articles and studies that you aren't interested in.  Who is president or heading up the EPA has absolutely nothing to do with GW. The warming of the rest of our solar system in your referenced studies is measured in millions of years.  How do you explain the below from the lefty Scripps Institution.  My daughter just applied for a job there.  She was corrupted by one of her parents and got a UC science degree.  Wonder what parent brainwashed her?  Hint: Her mother watches FOX news 24 hours a day.  

 

https://scripps.ucsd...2_800k_zoom.png

Scripps is a great place...!  Love the museum down there in San Diego.  An Oceanographers dream job...!  Good luck to your daughter, I hope she gets the job.  And a well done to both of you in seeing your daughter through a UC, I hope your wallet recovers soon.  I have my last one going away to University out of state this fall, my wallet will be hurting badly the next four years...   And thank you for acknowledging the solar stuff, the solar system, the big picture.  Most AGW dismiss those findings.  And I don't deny the CO2 charts, like the one you note, we are at about 400 ppm in CO2, and yes, there is a trend upwards since 1958.   No arguments from me there.  My argument is that humans are not responsible for this, that CO2 is not as evil as depicted by the AGW warmists, that CO2 is a by-product of natural global warming (Sun driven) that has occurred countless times in Earths history, and that all the worlds governments taxation and regulation of carbon is futile and hurtful to human productivity, quality of life, and the economy of the world.   So relax, CO2 is your friend, have a glass or red wine tonight and chill.   Apparently, the wine will be getting better soon...!   Thank you Sun...!   Chris

 

Is climate change making wine taste BETTER? Rising temperatures are causing early harvests and higher quality vintages

 

http://www.dailymail...y-vintages.html

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Apeman -  The challenge (as has been stated many times) is to explain the accelerating rate (the slope of the curve) of CO2 increase.  This phenomenon has never appeared before in the historical record, so can't be part of any "cycle",  whether terrestrial or solar. 

 

One other thing...I did a non-linear regression curve fit of the Scripps data and it appears to be logarithmic.  The current rate increase is about 1% per decade. So if the data is extrapolated, at some time in the not too distant future (couple centuries), the CO2 concentration will approach 1,000,000 ppm, or pure CO2.  This isn't going to happen, but how far will it go until other phenomena intervene and skew it off into some other progression.  Nobody knows.   And what will be the impact on humanity?  Not good.

[Chris]

Apeman -  The challenge (as has been stated many times) is to explain the accelerating rate (the slope of the curve) of CO2 increase.  This phenomenon has never appeared before in the historical record, so can't be part of any "cycle",  whether terrestrial or solar. 

 

One other thing...I did a non-linear regression curve fit of the Scripps data and it appears to be logarithmic.  The current rate increase is about 1% per decade. So if the data is extrapolated, at some time in the not too distant future (couple centuries), the CO2 concentration will approach 1,000,000 ppm, or pure CO2.  This isn't going to happen, but how far will it go until other phenomena intervene and skew it off into some other progression.  Nobody knows.   And what will be the impact on humanity?  Not good.

GoG, my disagreement with your math, your rate of change, is that you don't have the "fine" data from before 1958, or maybe 1850, or 1800 or so depending on how you view things.   One can not say that the rate of change that you say you are observing has not happened before.  The information, the data, before 1850, or 1800 or so (guessing on my part, but around there or later, or maybe 1958?) is not available.  We only have "approximate", or rough numbers from these times and they have been "smoothed out" over time so to say because we don't have those fine month to month measurements, those fine one year to one year measurements that we have now.  I think it is misleading on your part, and other "warmists", to rely on the "rate of change" argument because you don't have the "fine" data from thousands of years past, millions of years past.   And I think your fear of CO2 doubling is not a valid fear...   From what I have read if you double CO2 concentrations you get a 1 deg. C or F...  probably C...   I can't recall...  Increase, or rise in temperatures.   Not that big of a deal, nothing to fear here, move on folks....   I think you "warmists" read way too much into Man's contribution of CO2 and CO2 itself as a GHG..   I recall in some of your other postings that you mentioned water vapor is a way more contributing cause to global warming... And I agree from what I have read.  Water vapor is way more influential on our climate than CO2 by like 90% over CO2....  And the Sun is the big dog on the block regarding water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere.   CO2 is a by product of what is going on regarding the current warming trend as we come out of this little ice age that we are in, and not out of just yet.   Chris

[apeman45]

Chris - The keeling curve graph in inverse is the equivalent of my budget as the result of the cost of a UC education.  Still a great investment.

 

The doubling of CO2 levels would result in a 1 - 2.5 C temperature rise - 2 - 4.5 F.  Not a trivial amount.  The steepness of the keeling curve suggests that this is going to happen at an accelerating rate. I pray Grumpy Old guy is wrong with his logarithmic theory but it is without question going to be an issue for our kids and grandchildren.

 

https://www.climate....dustrial-levels

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Apeman - contrary to popular belief, I sincerely hope I'm wrong too.  Some call me a pessimist.  My definition of "pessimist" - an optimist with experience.