Posted on 07/23/2006 9:45:19 AM PDT by woofie
" == I do find it kinda humerus .... == "
The humerus would probably be a better weapon to carry against the climatoproctologists than the jawbone of an ass....
It seems like this should be just as important to research as the cause.
1975 Newsweek article on global cooling.
Newsweek ^ | April 28, 1975
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/661876/posts
There wss very little human pollution a 1000 years ago.The modern Rat party is only about 80 years old.
Newsweek, July issues, 1975
Sorry, don`t have the exact date
Global warming seems to be the number one cause for the loss of common sense. (you can quote me if you like)
An Inconvenient Movie (An Inconvenient Pack of Lies--Niman Style!)
I know ancient geezers have memory problems, so I'll keep reminding you that the OISM petition was based on a hoax and had pretty poor screening procedures.
The expected warming from doubled CO2 attributable solely to CO2, with absolutely nothing else changing in the climate system, would be 1.2 degrees C. (Source: IPCC Third Assessment Report).
*
I'd sure like to read that research, because I've frequently posted this link which provides research results that are a lot different:
"Two main conclusions result from our analysis of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]. The first is that the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated."
"Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO2-doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis which implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide."
This will end up being like the 9/11 Commission. Wherever the liberals want this to go, the committee will take them there.
”on your link the fellow says 4 watts more will cause 1.2C warming. But that does *not* check. With total power 492W/m^2 from your diagram, maintaining the present temperature of 291K, an increase to 496 would only increase the temperature by (496/492) ^ .25 = 1.002026 times. Multiplying by the original 291K temperature, that means +0.59C, half of what the link stated. He evidently did not include the back radiation in the power maintaining the present temperature. It is of course only the proportional change in the total power the surface is receiving, that will cause (4th root) changes in the mean temperature.” - JasonC ( 4/23/01)
cogitator JasonC math is correct your link is not. There is nothing to argue about here.
I, and the climate science community in general, don't agree with JasonC's analysis. Feel free to believe him if you want to. I'm sure it makes you feel better.
I did research the question. JasonC's on shaky ground because he doesn't consider how the radiative forcing is actually translated into the physics of Earth's climate system.
It has been shown time and time again that these 'climate specialists' have been wrong on their math therefor physicists are exactly what they needed in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.