That's totally incorrect
Marginally incorrect. There was an increase of about a tenth of a degree centigrade in the southern hemisphere. That's barely enough to melt the frost on Hillary's nipples.
Posted on 10/21/2006 5:44:49 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
That is what the climate models predict, but the article claims it goes against them
I am delighted that CORE, an organization I helped found in 1960 in Yellow Springs, Ohio, is on the right side of an issue that liberals are using to destroy economic opportunity for the poor and promote genocide for Africans.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Teresa Heinz-Kerry has been on the juice so long because she thinks it makes her intelligent. Getting married to that gigolo Kerry is proof that doesn't work.
It goes against the folks who are warning that the coasts are going to flood because Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt.
The problem with these global warming scenarios is that you have one to explain any weather phenomenon. If it gets colder, it's global warming, if it gets hotter it's global warming. It is called a tautology -- a worthless theory that explains nothing.
Marginally incorrect. There was an increase of about a tenth of a degree centigrade in the southern hemisphere. That's barely enough to melt the frost on Hillary's nipples.
Very astute observation. Once they learned their lesson about the dangers of waking a sleeping giant, it's possible that those stories about Godzilla are just a cover.
Their "weather machine" could be organic in nature, and perhaps the reason they have not yet rebuilt an extensive military is because they already have an "Ace in the hole!"
"Look out, Kim! Global warming is coming to get you!"
THE DEATH OF THE ARGUMENT FOR MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 19 October 2006
One year ago, in September 2005, you learned what is actually causing whatever global warming the earth is experiencing.
Solar Warming explained the specific mechanism involved: the sun's increased magnetic activity deflecting the rain of cosmic rays upon the atmosphere, resulting in fewer clouds reflecting sunlight back into space and thus a warmer earth.
There is no better correlation to the earth's climate than the sun's magnetic activity, denoted by sunspots. When this activity is high the earth warms; when it is low, the earth cools. (See the chart in Solar Warming.)
Another long-known correlation is that between the amount of cosmic radiation and clouds: the more the radiation, the more cloud cover; the less radiation, the less cloud cover.
Also known by scientists is that the sun's magnetic field shields or deflects cosmic rays away from earth. Since the sun's magnetic field and sunspot activity has been high through much of the 20th century, certain scientists hypothesized that the resultant decrease in cosmic radiation would result in less cloud formation and thus a warmer earth.
Among these scientists were Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, directors of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen.
Earlier this month, they released the results of very well-designed and controlled experiments demonstrating the chemical mechanism of cosmic ray action upon cloud formation. Their paper, Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions, is highly technical, but they provide a two easily-understandable explanations.
First is a graphic description, The SKY Experiment in Copenhagen. ("Sky" means "cloud" in Danish.) Second is a short essay, Influence of Cosmic Rays Upon the Earth's Climate.
Folks, this a big deal. These are the results of a controlled experiment by serious scientists, not some GIGO (garbage-in/garbage-out) computer climate modeling. They experimentally demonstrate how the cause of global warming or "climate change" is the sun, not us.
Remember, there are two separate arguments made by the global warming crowd: that there is in fact global warming, and that we humans are the cause. Thus their argument is called Anthropogenic (man-made) Warming. And thus they argue for shutting down human activity that generates the dreaded "greenhouse gas" of CO2 (carbon dioxide).
This argument has always been beyond stupid because CO2 accounts for less than 3% of greenhouse gases. 80% of such gases is water vapor, for which man is not responsible. Further, the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s, yet there was no appreciable increase in atmospheric CO2 until over a century later in the mid-1900s.
With an experimentally-verified alternate explanation to anthropogenic warming, the arguments of the global warming crowd for shutting down the world's economy (America's in particular) have been blown out of the water.
No wonder the enviros are getting pathologically hysterical, now demanding that "global warming deniers" be criminally prosecuted in Nuremberg-type war crime trials. (Google "global warming deniers" + "Nuremberg" and you'll get 18,000 hits.)
The Svensmark-Christensen experiments are also important in that they will generate a constituency for solar warming within the scientific community - namely, high-energy physicists.
The way things have been, all the money has been flowing to anthropogenic warming research. Money for particle accelerators has been in short supply. To study cosmic rays requires such accelerators, because cosmic rays can carry billions of electron volts. Some have been recorded at 1020 electron volts, and there is no current explanation of how those massive energies are generated.
Thus high-energy physicists are going to jump at the opportunity for funding and thus argue against man-made global warming. So much for scientific "consensus."
This will also get the Pentagon involved. Until the program was shut down by Clinton, a satellite-based particle beam generator was being developed as a space weapon. The proven cosmic ray-cloud formation connection allows for the development of lower power beam generators to simulate cosmic rays.
A proton-electron charged particle beam from a solar-powered satellite could create cloud cover in a specific area (such as a region suffering from drought) by painting the atmosphere with simulated cosmic rays. They wouldn't reach the earth or be harmful to people as the depth of atmospheric penetration can be controlled.
Thus any area of the earth could be cooled specifically. But in the meantime, as Solar Warming described, warming as a global
problem can now be solved - not only for free, but at negative cost. The solution to global warming will save money.
As the Svensmark-Christensen experiments showed, the ions created by cosmic rays attract molecules of sulfur dioxide. The resultant sulfate aerosols act as condensation nuclei for water droplets and cloud formation.
This can be simulated by providing sulfate aerosols directly into the lower stratosphere by having the world's airlines use high-sulfur jet fuel (much cheaper than mandated low-sulfur fuel) at cruise altitude.
Thousands of jetliners flying high over the planet every day using high-sulfur fuel (low-sulfur during ascent and descent) will create a cooler earth. It's such a perfect solution that, as Solar Warming observes, it will drive human-hating eco-fascists completely nuts.
You've got to hand it to the Danes. First they enrage Islamic fanatics with their Mohammed cartoons. Now they are going to enrage enviro fanatics with brilliant science. Let's raise a glass or two of Carlsberg to them.
Both graphs show the same data for the last 25 years. If you look carefully on your graph, you will see that there was an increase in southern hemisphere temperatures of about .28 to .38 -- a .1 degree Centigrade change.
But while we looking at that graph, notice the big increase in temperature from 1880 to 1940. That period had not nearly as much increase in CO2 emissions as the period from 1940 to 1979 when CO2 emissions were much greater. It doesn't say much for the CO2 theory.
"Do you realize what this means, Marty?" -- "It means this helmet is absolutely useless!" -- Dr. Emmett Brown
Veddy interesting. I keep waiting for prominent scientists to come to the conclusion that regardless of the role of man in glabal warming, the Sun will be the death of us all eventually anyway.
We must at some point acknowledge that the life cycle of the Sun will cause problems to Earth, and what do we plan to do about it? Your suggestion about the synthetic rays may be helpful for a time, but I have been suggesting that we will want to build large mirror arrays for the purpose of inducing climate changes, (or controlling them), throughout the solar system.
What can be used on Earth to reduce our temperature, can be used equally well to raise the temperature on Mars. We will need more lebensraum, and also more agricultural areas. I have described a method of producing both.
My scheme would also serve the purpose of getting us into space in a large way, without the typical problems associated with ordinary rocket propulsion.
Anyone who wants to help me save the world, you can start by sending a few large checks.
The specific data series of interest for the Northern [NH] and Southern [SH] Hemisphere can be found at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_6.0p and is the most current corrected MSU satellite data set available.
The graph shown is a surface temperature chart derived taken from meteorologic station data not satellite data from one of NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis pages here: [ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ]
Referring to the introductory page for those charts:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
You will find the following description of the data source which is not, in anyway, connected with satellite measures:
Background
The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established. Input data for the analysis, collected by many national meteorological services around the world, is the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997) except that the USHCN station records included were replaced by a later corrected version. These data were augmented by SCAR data from Antactic stations. Documentation of our analysis is provided by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001). The GISS analysis is updated monthly.
We modify the GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data in two stages to get to the station data on which all our tables, graphs, and maps are based: in stage 1 we try to combine at each location the time records of the various sources; in stage 2 we adjust the non-rural stations in such a way that their longterm trend of annual means is as close as possible to that of the mean of the neighboring rural stations. Non-rural stations that cannot be adjusted are dropped.
Our analysis includes results for a global temperature index as described by Hansen et al. (1996). The temperature index is formed by combining the meteorological station measurements over land with sea surface temperatures obtained primarily from satellite measurements, the HadISST data. Any uses of the temperature index data, i.e., the results including sea surface temperatures, should credit Reynolds, Rayner, Smith, et.al (2002). (See references.)
We limit our analysis to the period since 1880 because of the poor spatial coverage of stations prior to that time and the reduced possibility of checking records against those of nearby neighbors. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station record s that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999).
Save
And we are well on our way.
The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Human annual production of carbon dioxide is about two orders of magnitude greater than average annual emissions of carbon dioxide by volcanoes. (Please see the USGS page Volcanic Gases and Their Effects for details; look down the page for the comparison.) But regardless of the amount of CO2 produced by volcanoes, the simple fact is that the CO2 in the atmosphere has gone steadily upwards by about 2 parts per million per year, for the fifty some years it's been measured. It has gone up from 270 ppm before the 20th century to the present 382 ppm.
The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide.
Actually water vapor is by far the primary and most prevalent as well as one of the strongest greenhouse gases.
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural
% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999%
0.001% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502%
0.117% Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294%
0.066% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903%
0.047% Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025%
0.047% Total 100.00% 99.72
0.28%
The variation of water vapor in the formation and destruction of clouds is by far the greatest factor on climate and climate variation. In fact the UN/IPCC climate models fail to even begin accounting for this factor.
That is why Solar Activity and its effect on the magneticsphere deflection cosmic ray flux from the atmosphere is of such interest as regards any climate change. The latest research in this area suggests that the dominant factor in climate change currently is indeed the effects of solar activity in modulation of the Earth's lower cloud levels.
Refer: http://spacecenter.dk/xpdf/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf
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.