Posted on 07/23/2006 9:45:19 AM PDT by woofie
SANTA FE— Greenland has become global warming's poster child: rising temperatures melt glaciers, threatening a devastating rise in sea levels that could inundate coastal cities around the world.
Greenhouse gases from factories and cars are to blame, according to the conventional story, which features prominently in Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
And yet there was Los Alamos National Laboratory climate scientist Petr Chylek last week, standing before a gathering of his colleagues to explain that Greenland isn't actually warming.
What gives?
Chylek is a dissenter from the scientific mainstream. While most scientists think greenhouse gases are responsible for changes already seen in Earth's climate, Chylek believes the "data are inconclusive."
"You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change," Chylek said in an interview.
The Greenland story gained traction in February, when a team of U.S. scientists drew headlines around the world with new data suggesting Greenland's glaciers are melting and slipping into the ocean far more rapidly than previously thought.
Chylek shot back last month with evidence from Greenland temperature records showing the North Atlantic island was cooler in the second half of the 20th century than it was in the first.
The exchange is the sort of thing that happens all the time in science: researchers doing their best to make sense of imperfect and sometimes conflicting data.
But this is not just any science. In climate science, the debate over whether we need to change global energy production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions turns ordinary scientific disagreements into political minefields.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Witch doctors used astrology with events that coincided with on another. The two are not necessarily related. One needs to prove they are related.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Earth is warming. The last time I checked I did not see a mile thick ice sheet over much of North America.
We have gone through the math on how much Carbon Dioxide warms the earth a dozen times on FR. basically if we doubled the CO2 we have today it warm the planet by about 1/2 a degree C.
In other words the statement that Carbon Dioxide is warming the planet 5 deg C or greater is is a false premise.
Yes one can read such in many places.
One can also note that current computer models on which such statements about climate dependancy on CO2 are based, exclude the contributions of phenomena associated with solar activity and orbital inclination as primary drivers in the system.
The climate models used are rooted in apriori assumptions that thermal multiplying factors operate on the direct radiative effects of CO2, and somehow without operating on other thermal contributors to atmospheric temperature in equal manner.
To be blunt about it, no global climate model comes close to describing the atmosphere and the factors driving climate. All are very poor and simplistic representations at their very best, and ad-hoc accomodations to pre-conceived conclusions at their worst.
I am not going to drought your data. What I would like to know is why was the earth around 1000 years ago and 2000 years ago was much hotter then it is today?
Drought = doubt
They found the coastal areas to be green, and thought the whole island was green, if my elementary school teacher was correct.
"Solar radiation will not displace the dominant role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in global warming, but could be a significant contributing factor
You are aware there is a difference between solar radiation and solar activity are you not?
Solar radiation looks solely at the thermal input to the earth, Solar activity includes a broad range of effects that impinge on cloud cover and consequent albedo of the earth reflecting solar radiation away. This variation in albedo due to ionizing radiation is much greater than any solar radiation in thermal effect on the atmosphere.
You may find the CERN workshop on ion-aerosol-cloud interactions to be of interest in this regard. Just one of many factors totally unaccounted for in current climate models.
http://preprints.cern.ch/cernrep/2001/2001-007/2001-007.html
Your arguments ring true. Simulation often recreates assumptions. Certainly economic models can give the modeler exactly what he wants. Computer models are interesting, informative, sometimes generate insight and persuade. But computer models are not data, much less proof. We can predict the motion of the planets (with or without computers). But I think most other long term planning is unreliable.
If I remember right the heat from 3 miles under your feet contribute about 80% of the heat we have on earth. Why is that all of a sudden a constant? Or are you adding that into ‘green house’ gases?
Would you happen to know what by far the most powerful ‘green house’ gas or vapor that contributes to global warming is? This gas or vapor makes all other gases/vapors insignificant, what would it be?
that is rather funny considering Enron put 2 or 3 Billion dollars into trying to prove global warming is real.
bump for later.
I never said water Vapor is creating more heat then it was before. I do not know why temperatures change.
We need more data over a longer period of time to prove why temperatures change and even then the amount of variations is just to unpredictable and anyone that says other wise is scamming you.
and this Duke study estimates the solar forcing as being at least 10-30%.
The Duke study considers only variation in solar brightness and does not discuss how the atmospheric feedback processes supposedly multiplying the direct radiation effect of CO2 do not also multiply the direct radiation effects of solar radiation to the same degree.
I also notice that Duke study does not account for variation of solar activity which includes the variability of ion interaction effects on cloud formation due to the modulation of the solar magnetosphere affecting cosmic ray density shown to have a strong effect on cloud formation.
You are familiar with the ionozation trails found in a Wilson Cloud Chamber are you not? A phenonmenon directly related to the effect of ion particles in cloud formation and consequent variation in the reflection of solar radiation from the earth.
If you are unfamiliar with the effect, here's an article & paper based on such by Henrik Svensmark* Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division. Danish Meteorological Institute, Lyngbyvej 30. DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark , on such effects, which again are not accounted for in the estimates of solar effects on earth's temperature
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack/you_cannot_destroy_the_earth.guest.html
RUSH: Okay, we found this Charlton Heston piece. You people will remember this, some of you. Some of you will not. I forget what year. I think this is 1995 when we first aired this. On February 3rd of 1995 Charlton Heston called the program and wanted to read from Michael Crichton's prologue of Jurassic Park, and this is what it sounds like.
HESTON: You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.
It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
RUSH: Charlton Heston on this program from 1995 in February, and that's from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. He called here and wanted to read that. It was in the midst of some, you know, massively insane, absurd, radical environmental argument at the time.
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.