Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Hmm. Was the GGWS inaccurate?

Let's debate.

1 posted on 03/25/2007 7:55:20 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Ultra Sonic 007
At the Senate hearing last week Al Gore boycotted what was supposed to be the Republican opening statement on this issue. Then he demanded "bipartisan cooperation." Gore appeared a few years ago at the Hollywood premiere of "The Day after Tomorrow"--an absurd science fiction fantasy about climate change with a Dick Cheney villain. Al Gore has politicized "global warming" and attempted to turn the scientific community against itself. He has become the little boy who cried, "Wolf!" What is sad is you can't even watch the Weather Channel or read Sports Illustrated without running into "global warming" politics.
25 posted on 03/25/2007 8:37:28 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
”CO2 lagging Temperature increase:
" Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback.."

In other words, “CO2 adds to some mysterious warming trend.”

Man these people are loons.

27 posted on 03/25/2007 8:44:14 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Follow the (public tax dollars for "grants" and "studies") money.


32 posted on 03/25/2007 9:11:34 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.

The don't talk about the graphing of sun spots and how sunspots corresponds with temperature change, as presented in the movie. They want to dismiss it with this nothing comment.
33 posted on 03/25/2007 9:13:54 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

What of this......

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070320093052tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

Scientists have traditionally relied upon indirect data gathering methods to study climate in the Earth's past, such as drilling ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. Such samples of accumulated snow and ice drilled from deep within ice sheets or glaciers contain trapped air bubbles whose composition can provide a picture of past climate conditions. Now, however, a group of NASA and university scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth's longest river.

Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere. Auroras are bright glows in the night sky that happen when mass is rapidly ejected from the sun's corona, or following solar flares. They are an excellent means of tracking variations in the sun's activity.

Feynman said that while ancient Nile and auroral records are generally "spotty," that was not the case for the particular 850-year period they studied.

"Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt," she said. "These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time."

A similarly accurate record exists for auroral activity during the same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity, because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as droughts and the deaths of kings.

"A great deal of modern scientific effort has gone into collecting these ancient auroral records, inter-comparing them and evaluating their accuracy," Ruzmaikin said. "They have been successfully used by aurora experts around the world to study longer time scale variations."

The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common - one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

"Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa," said Ruzmaikin. "The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources - Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya - are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa's climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis."

So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun's ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation's influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River's sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter.

Study findings were recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Source: JPL

judythpiazza@gmail.com


37 posted on 03/25/2007 9:21:33 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
"The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.

Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period.

Now who's being deceptive? (again) If they are now saying this wasn't true, then what did these global warming alarmists base all their "global cooling" cries in the 70's on? Surely they don't think we have forgotten all the cries of imminent doom and gloom, and how we needed to take immediate action to stop "global cooling".

That's the problem with lying. Eventually a liar forgets the lies he's told previously and ends up contradicting himself.

38 posted on 03/25/2007 9:22:10 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

There is value in having the ability to make people believe in nonsense.


40 posted on 03/25/2007 9:23:02 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo (If the Moon didn't exist, people would have traveled to Mars by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

I thought I saw reports that temperatures on other planets are also rising.

Wouldn't this indicate that the warming is a broader phenomenon than the "human-caused" hypothesis?

The fact that this article cavalierly dismisses the idea that the sun may be the driving force in Earth's warming would seem to conflict with this more generally observed extra-planetary warming.


41 posted on 03/25/2007 9:23:06 PM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

btt


42 posted on 03/25/2007 9:24:17 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Dammit!
We get to choose the time periods that support our doomsday scenarios.
How dare these deniers pick a different time period!

We get to decide; after all the stakes are too high...

Blah blah blah...
Same ol' same ol'.

44 posted on 03/25/2007 9:24:42 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
This looks like the equivalent of the hollywood types; except they're "Brit twits", of course.

The Joke Site

Doesn't matter how many moonbat links they provide, they never address fundamental "scientific" questions, like why for tens of thousands of years does CO2 increases always lag temperature rises, by significant amounts of time?

46 posted on 03/25/2007 9:30:56 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
"By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2" -- so temperatures go down but in effect go up? Temperature was being masked for 40 years? And how do they explain the rise in temperature before the 1940s when there was no great out put of C02?

"Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback." -- how can they prove this when the weather balloons and satellites have indicated that there is no greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere? They don't address this major point.

I still believe that the correlation between sun spots and weather, as shown in the movie by the near perfect fit of the two graphs mapped out over a long period of time, explains a lot. It's a better fit that C02 and weather, which this article doesn't address.
50 posted on 03/25/2007 9:54:35 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The Scientists Are The Bad Guys...

The Scientists?

Have the heretic researches all been excommunicated?

54 posted on 03/25/2007 10:02:23 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
"By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2"

-- So temperatures go down but, in effect, go up? Temperature was being masked for 40 years? And how do they explain the rise in temperature before the 1940s when there was no great out put of C02?

"Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback."

-- How can they prove this when, according to the movie, the weather balloons and satellites have indicated that there is no rise in greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere? They don't address this major point.

I still believe that the correlation between sun spots and weather, as shown in the movie by the near perfect fit of the two graphs mapped out over a long period of time, explains a lot. It's a better fit that C02 and weather, which this article doesn't address.
58 posted on 03/25/2007 10:15:57 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

59 posted on 03/25/2007 10:21:42 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:

“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)

So, the Sun, our source of heat; our furnace, if you will; the thing that provides us with sufficient warmth that life may flourish on this planet and without which we would all freeze to death, couldn't possibly have anything to do with global climate change. Right. Talk about beggaring belief. Solar "proxies" were looked at over a period of 1,000 years. What does that mean? Satellites over the past 30 years? Which satellites? Communications? Spy? What? Add to this the fact that they simply dismiss it out of hand throwing out this quote and then quickly moves on to another topic.

What really convinces me that anthropogenic GW supporters are wrong, is their uncanny imitation of those in history who threw other scientists in jail or burnt them at the stake for disagreeing with the orthodoxy. Their arguments are highly emotional and utterly violate the Scientific Method. They shriek like the pod people from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" when they discover someone who dares to question their conclusions. And then there's the fact that they all come up with the same solution: Government regulation. More money into their coffers. More taxes. The world's Capitalists are to blame!! We must punish the Capitalists!! We need more government control of the means of production! We need Socialism!! That is the consensus they're really talking about.

The above author claims that Channel 4's show contained "the language of polemic and smear." And yet, in the "scholarly" rebuttal that follows, the author relies heavily on just that kind of language, citing journalists and true believers in the Anthropogenic GW community whose chief argument against those who participated in the film is "they're paid off by Big Oil." Then, the author really tips his or her hat at the end when he or she claims that Blair falsified pre-war intelligence. That's an argument from the Left. No objectivity there. This is agenda driven science, which is no science at all. Rationality and reason indeed.

61 posted on 03/25/2007 10:26:56 PM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2.

There's something about this that doesn't make sense to me.

Energy doesn't just disappear. These particles wouldn't be able to brake solar energy without getting hotter themselves. Since these partcles come in direct contact with either the rest of the atmosphere or with the the earth itself, the heat they absorbed would get transferred to the earth anyway. So it seems to me that whatever heat that's missing from the solar energy that was "braked" would be made up for by the heat from these very particles.

69 posted on 03/25/2007 11:40:01 PM PDT by Dave Olson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
This article is more than deceptive it is looney, with comments like :

“The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.”

Or

“particles In the (atmosphere) have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”

Note they admit the data doesn’t show warming, even though they are arguing the data should show warming, and accuse the film maker as being deceptive, simply for pointing out the truth!

“We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past.”


But in the the same paragraph it is stated

“the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years”


Again they make the accusation that the film claim is deceptive, then they actually agree with the claim, there are 800 year lags between global temperature rise and CO2, which proves that in some cases temp rise could causes Co2 and not the other way around.

“Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun.”


But they also say that the films hypnotists that global warming can be caused by the sun is deceptive

“The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility”


So which is it , does the sun play a role in warming or not? Apparently they are very confused!

But here is the doozy:

” a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance.”


So If the relative masses of CO2 are irrelevant, assuming we can also talk about the additional gasses caused by humans, then what is all the fuss about? Laugh, You can’t make this stuff up, too funny, the mass of Co2 gasses which would have to also include those that are added by humans, are irrelevant now, only because it suits the relative goal to repudiate the movie, even thought it refutes their own claims at the same time?
71 posted on 03/25/2007 11:47:53 PM PDT by seastay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

reminds me of the great Dupont Freon Swindle of the 1980's......


75 posted on 03/26/2007 4:20:07 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

ggws left a mark!

now the charges of neo-conservative (what the phuck is that?) against the scientists

exactly as predicted - the left resorts to personal attacks and smears to support their lies

bury the cockroaches


76 posted on 03/26/2007 4:31:58 AM PDT by Enduring Freedom (now is the time to kill their leaders with extreme prejudice and plant the seeds of a hopeful spring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson