Posted on 04/10/2009 12:58:07 PM PDT by saganite
The money quote:
He says, “If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it’s very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion”.
This doesn’t say that CO2 isn’t a factor in the temperature rise. It says there may be another factor.
What is sadly lacking is a breakdown as to how much of the rise is from which cause.
bookmark
It is so bizarely simple I'd have to say "the science is settled" concerning this issue.
So, where can we get more water vapor? We could, I suppose, heat the ocean's surface ~ maybe with a series of atomic explosions in a little used area. Alternatively we might build more large, shallow lakes ~ maybe extend irrigation systems into marginal lands ~ on a huge scale!
We have an 8,000 year old tradition of extending irrigation and building lakes. No doubt that's had an impact sufficient to hold off the presently overdue return to Ice Age conditions. Still, that's not going to last forever, particularly if we buy into the idea that we need to cool the Earth to protect it from some sort of "runaway greenhouse effect". In that case we'd return to the Ice Age much faster ~ maybe within weeks ~ possibly days!
Sun spots... Don’t let the science to cut flow of billions of dollars into the “warmers” pockets!
ping
Unfortunately that might not be possible. Look into "Chaos Theory".
It's a branch of mathematics describing "complex systems". You may have heard about the "Butterfly-effect" -- a butterfly flaps its wings in Peking and a month later you have tornadoes in Kansas. What that is saying is that with complex-systems (like the Earth's atmosphere) relatively small incremental inputs can have enormous effects given enough time & space. Similarly rather large inputs can seemingly have no discernable effect at all. Very counter-intuitive.
Anytime anybody -- including a climatologist -- tells you with certainty that CO2 levels are directly linked to Global Warming they are guilty of a gross oversimplification. They are probably also confusing Cause and Effect. The hard part is knowing when a scientist is speaking in simplified terms so that he can get his point across to a layman, or whether he's just blowing smoke to get his next grant application approved.
My astronomy class went out yesterday to look at the sun through the telescope and my prof was disappointed that there was no sunspot for us to view. Maybe this is the reason. I linked this email to him.
I’m more interested in this stuff than ever before, mainly because I understand it so much better.
If he’s an astronomy prof I’m surprised he doesn’t already know about the low sunspot cycle although many profs I knew in my college days didn’t do much reading outside their textbook.
Harvard Shmarvard... get me a west-coast Chemistry major who I can work with. No more distractions from astronomers or geologists.
We’re in a deep solar minimum...
we broke a lot of older records around here in SE WA state...
go to the NASA web page, note the years 1954 & 2009
A lot of the records that were broken were recorded back around 1954...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/centuryplot_gif2.gif
Look at 1944... I’m sure any of you WW2 vets that froze your butts off in the Ardennes would find that winter on the chart too...
CO2 as a temperature rising condition was disproven 100 years ago.
Sadly, that science has been ignored, while Darwin has been twisted inside to show that it is accurate. The scientific community is just as political as any other and they will cram any scientific theory to fit their political ideology.
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2009/02/04/greenhouse-theory-disproved-a-century-ago/
That is science that a fifth grader can understand.
New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2.
Excactly.
Geez, we learned about buffered solutions and systems in eqilibrium in high school for cryin’ out loud.
Gee who would have thought that the temperature on earth is somehow connected to the sun’s output. How could that Nobel Prize winning Al Gore have missed such a thing? Perhaps Obama better start thinking about re-engineering the sun so we don’t all freeze. (sarcasm)
There are occasional sunspots. None today.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html
Dad tells the story from his service in the Ardennes - he fell off his tank as it tipped over (a truck with a gun mounted on it and infantry hanging on for the ride) into a snow bank. Fortunately that the closest he came to becoming a casualty.
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.
