global warming myth

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

On 8/18/11 8:26 AM, Cal Peters wrote:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Glob...Resources.html

Re-read myths 1-3. Also, you are familiar with the Drake Equation, correct?
Then you know how one variable changed by a tiny amount can have a huge
effect on the outcome.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 8/18/11 8:26 AM, Cal Peters wrote:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Glob...Resources.html

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 8/18/11 8:26 AM, Cal Peters wrote:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Glob...Resources.html

On 18/08/2011 14:26, Cal Peters wrote:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

More anti-science smoke and mirrors from another lying dittohead site.

Very cleverly crafted to include true statements and non-sequitors in
equal measure to trick the general public into believing that we can
trash the planet forever without there being any consequences.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2011 14:26, Cal Peters wrote:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

More anti-science smoke and mirrors from another lying dittohead site.

How is it any different than providing an alternative interpretation of the
data?

Very cleverly crafted to include true statements and non-sequitors in
equal measure to trick the general public into believing that we can trash
the planet forever without there being any consequences.

And you base your "trash" analysis on what exactly? And what variables are
you considering to derive that conclusion?

This global warming analysis, like almost anything else in a long term
study, still depends on interpretation. There simply isn't enough data to
justify any conclusion, one way or the other. And how can you be certain
that the methods used to detemine data points from 100, 1000 or even a
million years ago are accurate?

Very interesting to see the effect such a post has here. Which side of the
isle comes forward? Which biases? Which data is real, false, interpreted?
Some folks even go so far as to create an entire page on promotion of global
warming "reality" instead of "myth". Fascinating.


Regards,
Martin Brown

On 8/18/11 9:12 AM, Cal Peters wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2011 14:26, Cal Peters wrote:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

More anti-science smoke and mirrors from another lying dittohead site.

How is it any different than providing an alternative interpretation of
the data?


Look at the history of CO2 in the atmosphere, coupled with a
very robust understanding of how the greenhouse gas CO2 absorbs
various bands of the IR spectrum. The physics is well understood.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The basic science is the CO2 is one of the greenhouse gasses.
Greenhouse gasses are understood and details of the interactions
with IR is understood in increasing detail.

Human are unleashing carbon in a few hundred years that was
sequester by nature over tens of millions of years. I've listed
some documentation for you.

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

The *History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide* on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Some fine points on radiative forcing

Hardy B. Granberg writes:
http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/p...s1?bypassSSO=1

"On the basis of radiation transfer theory, Raymond Pierrehumbert
(PHYSICS TODAY, January 2011, page 33 ) claims that as the ditch in
emission spectra seen from space widens, increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide renders Earth’s cooling less efficient. Across the ditch,
emission by CO2 varies with the temperatures of the strata from which
the emission occurs. As the concentration of CO2 increases, its emission
to space takes place from progressively higher levels. Near the edge of
the ditch, where the emission is from the troposphere, the levels become
colder. However, across the 14.5- to 15.5-μm (650–690 cm−1) band they
become warmer".

See: http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/p...s1?bypassSSO=1


Raymond T. Pierrehumbert replies:
http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/p...s2?bypassSSO=1

"Because the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause, emission near
the center of the CO2 band increases as CO2 concentration is increased
with temperature held fixed. However, the increased emission in that
spike is far outweighed by the decreased emission in the wings, as is
verified by all detailed calculations of radiative forcing.1 The
increased emission near the center of the CO2 band primarily acts to
cool the stratosphere, not the surface, and once the stratosphere comes
into equilibrium, the effect of ditch-shallowing becomes even less
pronounced.

"The papers Hardy Granberg refers to are attempts to detect the
signature of recent CO2 increase in the observed trend in spectra
between 1970 and 1997. That is a formidable task, given inter-annual
variability, observational errors, the small signal over such a short
time period, and the problem of intercomparison between measurements
taken with different satellites. The spectra discussed in those papers
incorporate the influence of temperature changes over the time period
and do not in any way imply that the CO2 increase has made cooling to
space more efficient. One doesn’t need to be able to accurately observe
the short-term trend in order to confirm that radiative transfer is
being done correctly. The comparisons of present-day spectra shown in my
article already amply demonstrate that".

See: http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/p...s2?bypassSSO=1

On Aug 18, 8:12*am, "Cal Peters" wrote:

This global warming analysis, like almost anything else in a long term
study, still depends on interpretation. *There simply isn't enough data to
justify any conclusion, one way or the other.

There is good reason to suspect that it may already be too late to
prevent catastrophic changes in the Earth's climate. Surely we should
*stop* doing something we know _may_ unbalance the world's climate
rather than taking chances.

The mere fact that an increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the
Earth's atmosphere is even _detectable_ is cause for concern. Human
activity should not disturb the functioning of the Earth's natural
cycles, because we're all dependent on them. And, for millions of
years, human activity did not do so.

Not only that, but we have another choice besides a drastic reduction
in human populations and a scaling back of industrial activity.
Nuclear power. So being on the safe side doesn't have to cost
anything, despite the claims of ecology activists that stopping global
warming is worth a heavy price.

John Savard

On Aug 18, 8:26*am, "Cal Peters" wrote:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com...lobal-warming/

Did you read myth number 1 and then compare the statement with
observations by NOTED CLIMATE DENIERS Roy Spencer and John Christy?
Christy and Spencer have been on the rubber chicken climate change
denier circuit for years yet they state their observations show
temperatures are increasing at a rate even faster than any other
observation platform. Did you ever look at the raw data yourself? You
can you know. Just go to www.ncdc,noaa.gov and you can pull down all
the data you want for free. Plug what you download into excel and see
what happens.

Myth #2 was just demolished in recent posts in this newsgroup. The so
called Little Ice Age only happened in western Europe and was due to
changes in North Atlantic circulation and Volcanic eruptions. The
scientist who coined the term Little Ice Age (Hoarce Lamb) has
repeatedly stated his work was being mis-represented and lied about.
I'd suggest you go read Hansen's paper and the papers describing both
the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, but TeaTerrorists/
Libertarians cann't read as docuemented by Rich Anderson and Peter Webb

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 8:12 am, "Cal Peters" wrote:

This global warming analysis, like almost anything else in a long term
study, still depends on interpretation. There simply isn't enough data to
justify any conclusion, one way or the other.

There is good reason to suspect that it may already be too late to
prevent catastrophic changes in the Earth's climate. Surely we should
*stop* doing something we know _may_ unbalance the world's climate
rather than taking chances.

______________________________
No, you work out what the facts are.

The mere fact that an increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the
Earth's atmosphere is even _detectable_ is cause for concern.

______________________________
Why? We can detect our effect everywhere else. Indeed we can measure many
chemicals and isotopes in the atmosphere. So what?


Human
activity should not disturb the functioning of the Earth's natural
cycles, because we're all dependent on them.
____________________________
We aren't.


And, for millions of
years, human activity did not do so.
____________________________
And for millions of years there were no sealed roads.

Not only that, but we have another choice besides a drastic reduction
in human populations and a scaling back of industrial activity.
Nuclear power. So being on the safe side doesn't have to cost
anything, despite the claims of ecology activists that stopping global
warming is worth a heavy price.
________________________
Happy with that compromise.

John Savard