Global Warming: Additional Information People Need

quote:

---

Both graphs are of the same time period. The top graph is of temperature 'anomolies' and that's the key to the deception. On another thread here on Babble someone has posted another 'anomolly' graph, I presume unknowingly.

---

I posted the graph as 2007-2008 recorded surface temperatures as compared to the 'baseline'... The Baseline being defined right on the temp anomaly graph if you cared to read it. I'm impressed that you can pick out how deceptive the graph is and 'unknowingly' posted when you make it perfectly clear you haven't read or understood it. From your regurgitated posts so far (in this thread and the other one you've participated in), I'd question whether you've read and understood anything at all on the topic.

FYI, the graph I linked was from NOAA that makes all information used to create the Graph public, as well as the information on how the Mean was obtained. The 'Earth cooling' graph (I think) you've linked lacks sources, locations, or any information on how the mean was calculated. This is also known as BULLSHIT, but I'm guessing you're ability to skim over graphs without understanding applies to these graphs as well.

To add...

Great info Transplant n Policywonk... I wish this information could come out in more productive threads/discussions than this one has been

[ 12 May 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

That graph has come under some very heavy [b]academic[/b] fire.

---

There is nothing academic behind that 'fire'

It's really funny that this article you've posted is dated as 2008 and is refuting the hockey stick graph based on "Two Canadian Statisiical Researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick" that were thoroughly discredited in 2004.

The claim on the page that the are "Statistical researchers" is kinda funny... They're both from the mining sector.

quote:

---

A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). These criticisms are contained in two manuscripts (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2004–the latter manuscript was rejected by Nature; both are collectively henceforth referred to as "MM"). MM claim that the main features of the Mann et al (1998–henceforth MBH98) reconstruction, including the "hockey stick" shape of the reconstruction, are artifacts of a) the centering convention used by MBH98 in their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank ('ITRDB') data, b) the use of 4 infilled missing annual values (AD 1400-1403) in one tree-ring series (the 'St. Anne' Northern Treeline series), and c) the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980. Each of these claims are demonstrated to be false below.

[McIntyre and McKitrick have additionally been discredited in a recent peer-reviewed article by Rutherford et al (2004)].

---

You're posting information that has been thoroughly discredited (by multiple sources) and considered complete bullsh!t 4 years ago... Then claiming we're not reading you posts [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

While we're at it:

quote:

---

Here's some better labeled graphs at this link:

---

No they aren't... It's the same psuedo-science shit you keep posting in this thread. Check out figure 7 on your link that he claims comes from 'Chinese Science opening up'... I'm curious, do you cosinder a graph sourced as 'Chinese Science opening up' as some of the "heavy acadmic fire" that the hockey stick graph has come under? Using "my mom's aunts cousins twice removed daugher's great uncles father made this graph" is about as academically acceptable.

Want to regurg another link that uses the same psuedo science for us again? Maybe this time you can find something that was debunked a little more recently, I'm tired of going over the same things in these threads. Heh... Fortunately Transplant, Policywonk, and a few others do it before I can.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by This:
Just so I can get this straight, those attacking my info, or putting their nose up in the air over it and not even reading it, essentially agree with the Hockey Stick graph?

---

Do I read most of your information? Unfortunately yes. Do I read all of it? No. If you link to someone who says that the temperature has been declining since 1998, then I stop reading right then and there. That is purposeful dishonesty or ignorance and I have better things to do with my time.

As for the hockey stick graph, do I think that there were problems with Mann's 1998 version? Of course. The title of the "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations." And the report made sure to emphasize that this was an early attempt using early data and therefore there were lots of uncertainties and limitations. Since then there have been dozens of new graphs and they all more or less agree with Mann's original conclusion.

Furthermore and most importantly, most scientists and people like me don't think that the graph is very important (Deniers completely inflate the importance of the graph to the IPCC and scientific community). There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence. Global warming due to increases in GHGs was understood by the scientific community decades before the hockey stick graph. Really considering all we know, who cares?

quote:

---

That graph has come under some very heavy academic fire.

---

The graph has been on the whole duplicated a dozen times since then with stronger data. The constant attacks on Mann remind me of the attacks on Darwin. Modern creationists don't attack the modern theory of evolution they attack the original work by Charles Darwin and hope that their audience is too stupid to know (they are right) that the theory has grown astronomically since its beginning.

quote:

---

It doesn't even show the Medieval Warm Period where Britain had vineyards, or when the Thames froze during the Little Ice Age.

---

When didn't Britain have vineyards? The decrease in their number probably had as much if not more to do with political factors and a preference for French wine and then a re-emergence during the world wars when importing wine was more difficult.

The Thames started freezing on occassion after King John built a multi-piered London Bridge that dramatically slowed the passage of water. A new London bridge was built in 1825 which had far fewer piers and was built to enhance water flow.

Neither vineyards in England or the freezing of the River Thames is strong evidence for a global MWP or little Ice Age. Nor is it strong evidence that the MWP was warmer than it is today.

quote:

---

Two of the authors of The Hockey Stick run RealClimate.org that you keep sending me to. How can you trust a 'scientific' site that is trying some intimidatory tactics against dissenting opinion?

---

So let me get this straight it is fine for you to source McIntyre whose critique of Mann's graph was just as full of errors, but it is not ok for anyone else to source realclimate?

quote:

---

They are currently offering a 2,500 Euro bet against some climate modellers.

---

So what?? Bets have been made in science for ever.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by This:
[b]How can you trust a 'scientific' site that is trying some intimidatory tactics against dissenting opinion?[/b]

---

Have you gone to RealClimate and read what the stated aim of the bet is, or just accepted what someone else has told you the bet is about?

This is exactly what you don't get:
Opinion doesn't have anything to do with it.
It's about the science.
And when it comes to science, opinion doesn't mean squat.

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.
Life's tough, get a helmet.

Sven:

“It strikes me that most reports about global warming focus nearly exclusively on things like the melting polar ice caps, danger to polar bears, rising sea levels, etc. In other words, most reports focus only the damage that global warming is causing.

But, that’s only half of the picture.

The other half of the picture is what citizens must do, and the consequences they must bear, in order to drive CO2 omissions substantially downward…

…it seems to me that if we are going to have an intelligent public discussion about this issue, all aspects of the issue need to be understood and discussed (both the dangers of global warming and the real-life consequences of avoiding it).

The way the current discussion is often framed, it seems to me that most people likely believe that the government can simply pass laws and the matter will magically disappear...without any burden falling on individuals. The fact is that each person’s life would have to be drastically different than it is today.”

--

When I responded to this thread, I responded to Sven’s original comments. Since this is an important topic that affects us all I’ve tried to be respectful and sensible. The strongest attackers on any topic usually are afraid that you might be right. Up until a year ago I assumed that global warming did likely have an influence from human industrial pollution, because the media and government told me so, and I bought it. As I’ve said previously, we should differentiate between pollution emissions (and technology exists to curb those), and CO2 emissions which can accompany pollution.

When George Bush agrees with you on a political issue, you should have pause for thought. Using broadly available measurements, CO2 seems to be rising at a certain rate. People have noted that human contribution to this rise might be anywhere from 10% of that, or maybe as much as 50% depending on the theorizing.

So we have a few questions about the link between global warming and human CO2 production.

A) Is global warming happening, and is this a concern if it is?
B) Does CO2 have anything to do with causing global warming, and if so could we stop such an effect?
C) Is it true that we have already gone past the GW tipping point, the polar ice caps are melting, and we are doomed to fry?

Well to respond to A) Is global warming happening? We should take note of the fact that it is normal for climate to vary, and in recent historical memory it has been roughly 2 degrees warmer in Europe than at present. It also seems to be cooling or leveling off currently, the Arctic developed more ice last year than in the last 20 years. Several countries had their worst winter in 50 years, didn’t it just snow in Nova Scotia? Geologically speaking, we are in a warm period, going back 10,000 years or so. Geologically speaking, the warm periods are the good times for life, and they comprise 10% of the recent geological time frame. Check out Prof. Bob Carter’s link above, if you are at all curious on this issue.

For B) Does CO2 cause global warming? The geological ice core record shows that CO2 follows Earth temperature variations by anywhere from 400 to 1,600 years. So the question then becomes, if humans cause an additional real time increase in CO2 levels over what would be increasing anyway, does that cause man made ‘AGW’? It’s an interesting question, and the focus of this debate, but it is a theory. It would depend a lot on how strong an effect CO2 has in the atmosphere. And all research at this point shows that CO2 has a minimal (and stable) effect on atmospheric warming. It is not the major Greenhouse Gas, as Trevor asserted in this thread. Water vapour is, there’s no dispute about that.

Getting to Sven’s question about what we can do to minimize our CO2 contribution. We could all die off as maybe some Malthusians at the UN are dreaming of, but CO2 levels would still go up or down on their own without us, reflecting prior Earth temperatures. Need I restate the point that humans and industry emit roughly 3% of current Earth CO2 emissions? If we reduce our emissions by 2/3rds, we have a 2 percent global effect. If we reduce our emissions by 80% we have a 2.4% global reduction. Geologically speaking, it is accepted that CO2 follows temperature changes. It is a theory that minute variations in CO2 push global temperatures in any noticeable way to us humans.

On to C) Isn’t it true that signs of Global Warming are all around us, isn’t it obvious we are doomed? Ice caps. The northern one is different from the southern one from what I’ve read. The Arctic ice is relatively thin, and floats on an ocean. Back in 1903 when the expedition to navigate the North West Passage began, Roald Amundsen took a fishing boat, with a small gas engine. There was lots of ice, he got stuck, it took him 3 years, but he made it through the ‘ocean’. The Antarctic is a huge landmass with ice on top. The ice there is getting thicker this century, the old Byrd station at the south pole is now buried under 50 feet of ice.

But what about all those melting icebergs, and melting ice sheets etc.? There are normal summer melts, which unfortunately are covered in the news as evidence of global warming, but the bigger story is of the warming oceans, which at this point is a theory. How do you melt an iceberg that is 90% submerged beneath the water? With a warmer ocean. Oceans cover 70% of the planet. Do you know how hot our atmosphere would have to get to melt an iceberg 90% beneath the water? I think we’d notice, and I think it would be pretty hot. Much more research needs to be done studying our oceans, especially since warming oceans, likely from underwater volcanism, perfectly accounts for rising CO2 levels. There are scientific reports of increasing ocean temperatures, and wildly more underwater volcanoes than previously thought. I could take the time to footnote them (they're from scientific journals not online links), but I'll see if anyone is curious enough first.

Transplant, I'll get a helmet but you might want to get a parka.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: This ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by This:
I could take the time to footnote them but this so far has not been a respectful or scientific forum.

---

Then maybe you should try posting something scientific rather than pure opinion and horribly illogical pseudoscience bable lifted from moonbat crazy junckscience websites.

As I pointed out, trolls don't footnote.

And I have zero respect or time for willfully ignorant trolls spouting utter nonsense like

quote:

---

"Do you know how hot our atmosphere would have to get to melt an iceberg 90% beneath the water?"

---

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Moreover, it happens twice a year, every year.

quote:

---

underwater volcanism, perfectly accounts for rising CO2 levels

---

Not only is this shit not right, it isn't even wrong.

Gord, what rock do these people crawl out from under?

Trevormkidd, you know you're arguing with either a deliberately baiting troll or an imbecile, right?

quote:

---

Is global warming happening? We should take note of the fact that it is normal for climate to vary, and in recent historical memory it has been roughly 2 degrees warmer in Europe than at present. It also seems to be cooling or leveling off currently, the Arctic developed more ice last year than in the last 20 years.

---

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record]Temperature record[/url]

It was probably a few degrees warmer in Europe last summer than at present. And an awful lot warmer in the summer of 2003. Europe is a small percentage of the Earth's surface though so trends there are not necessarily global. Globally it may well may be leveling off at present, due to both natural and anthropogenic forcings (sulphate aerosols for example), but one or two seasons doesn't make a trend, and I wouldn't count on the warming trend not returning. Here is a non-RealClimate link that might interest you. It's peer-reviewed studies like this that lead to the conclusion that the late 20th century warming was due mostly to anthropogenic causes.

[url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf.]Conbinations of Natural and Anthropocentric Forcings in Late 20th Century Climate[/url]

You note that the Arctic Sea Ice increased significantly this winter, largely because there was so much open water to freeze due to the record loss last summer. However the maximum extent was still well below the long term average, it is first year ice, and there was more sea ice lost this April than last April.

[url=http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html]Arctic Sea Ice News[/url]

While there was a minimum extent record set in 2005, there wasn't one set in 2006, and we shouldn't expect one in 2008, although the downward trend continues.

quote:

---

The geological ice core record shows that CO2 follows Earth temperature variations by anywhere from 400 to 1,600 years. So the question then becomes, if humans cause an additional real time increase in CO2 levels over what would be increasing anyway, does that cause man made ‘AGW’? It’s an interesting question, and the focus of this debate, but it is a theory. It would depend a lot on how strong an effect CO2 has in the atmosphere. And all research at this point shows that CO2 has a minimal (and stable) effect on atmospheric warming. It is not the major Greenhouse Gas, as Trevor asserted in this thread. Water vapour is, there’s no dispute about that.

---

No one disputes that there is a lag between temperature and carbon dioxide in ice cores. All that means is that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were not primary triggers of glacial period onset and recovery into interglacials (enter Milankovitch cycles, which are more robust than you think they are), not that changes in GHG concentration didn't significantly amplify cooling or warming. You are of course ignoring that it can be shown where the extra carbon dioxide comes from currently, and most of it isn't natural. All the research does not show carbon dioxide is a minimal contributor to the greenhouse effect. It is in fact the most important primary greenhouse gas, water vapour acting through a positive feedback mechanism due to its short atmospheric lifetime. The relative contribution of water vapour is 36 to 70 percent, and of carbon dioxide 9 to 26 percent.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas]Greenhouse Gas[/url]

References are at the bottom of the wiki page.

quote:

---

Need I restate the point that humans and industry emit roughly 3% of current Earth CO2 emissions? If we reduce our emissions by 2/3rds, we have a 2 percent global effect. If we reduce our emissions by 80% we have a 2.4% global reduction. Geologically speaking, it is accepted that CO2 follows temperature changes. It is a theory that minute variations in CO2 push global temperatures in any noticeable way to us humans.

---

Sigh. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The human contribution to the greenhouse effect is a function of the human component of concentrations, not emissions.
Humans account for about 3 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. About half of that 3 percent is removed by the oceans and the biosphere (currently; there is some evidence that these sinks are turning into sources, meaning less of the anthropogenic contribution will be removed and carbon dioxide concentrations will increase at a greater rate)
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere]... Dioxide in the Atmosphere[/url]. The rest adds to the atmospheric concentration, which is why it has been increasing. Plus the growth rate of emissions has increased from 1.3 percent annually in the 1990s to 3.3 percent since 2000 and concentrations will likely double long before 2050. The only way to get concentrations (and therefore human impact) to drop is to reduce anthropogenic emissions by well over 50 percent (or more if the sinks don't work as well in future). If we reduce our emissions by two thirds, concentrations will likely drop slowly, but when we make them will a big difference to the total amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere (the earlier and deeper the cuts the better).

quote:

---

People have noted that human contribution to this rise might be anywhere from 10% of that, or maybe as much as 50% depending on the theorizing.

---

For the reasons stated above, it's essentially 100%. Not theory, measurement.

[url=http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-7.1.html]Sources of Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases[/url]

quote:

---

The Antarctic is a huge landmass with ice on top. The ice there is getting thicker this century, the old Byrd station at the south pole is now buried under 50 feet of ice.

---

[url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-028]Antarctic Losing Ice Mass[/url]

It may have gotten thicker but it's losing mass.
The only reason it could have gotten thicker is with increased snowfall at some point (which requires warming). Not that this is evidence of anything, as most of the continent has been getting cooler recently. But mass is getting lost somewhere, and it is consistent with observed sea level rises (taking into account other sources of sea level rise).

Policywonk

quote:

---

It was probably a few degrees warmer in Europe last summer than at present. And an awful lot warmer in the summer of 2003. Europe is a small percentage of the Earth's surface though so trends there are not necessarily global. Globally it may well may be leveling off at present, due to both natural and anthropogenic forcings (sulphate aerosols for example), but one or two seasons doesn't make a trend, and I wouldn't count on the warming trend not returning.

---

The relatively strong La Nina accounts for alot of the variations we're seeing this season.

I guess it's important to remember how insiginificant the heat capacity of our atmosphere is relative to the oceans when we're discussing these temperature variations from year to year (and ya, I know policywonk likely knows this. I'm just throwing it out there for others still reading)

Transplant:

quote:

---

5) burning of fossil fuels and cement production.

---

Really? I wasn't aware cement production was a heavy CO2 contributer. I'll have to look that up.

quote:

---

Fuck, this is getting more and more stupid.

---

To you perhaps. It's been a good refresh course for me

[ 14 May 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
Transplant:
quote: 5) burning of fossil fuels and cement production.

Really? I wasn't aware cement production was a heavy CO2 contributer. I'll have to look that up.

---

Noise, entirely aside from the large quantity of fuel burned to roast limestone, or calcium carbonate, to produce cement, the chemical process of calcining limestone itself emits half a tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement produced.

quote:

---

To you perhaps. It's been a good refresh course for me

---

Yes, I apologise for my outburst. It was late, I was tired, and very, very frustrated by the increasing inanity of the discussion.
No doubt the poster known as This was chuckling to themselves as they led us around by the nose and provoked our frustration.

No doubt the best way to approach deliberate trolling or merely ignorant questions and assertions about climate change is to turn them into a teaching moment for the education of other readers, by bypassing the troll and using them as an example. Something along the lines of:

"This is a common misconception/myth/falsehood [i](which ever is most appropriate)[/i] frequently posed by those confused about/with a poor understanding of/seeking to spread confusion about [i](again, which ever fits best)[/i] global warming/climate change," and then explain exactly why the assertion is wrong, and giving a link to a source to back it up.

It does take patience and discipline to follow that course, however, and it easily wears thin when you've countered the same misconceptions and disinformation over and over and over again.

quote:

---

The relatively strong La Nina accounts for alot of the variations we're seeing this season.

---

A co-worker just returned from a meeting in Copenhagen and it was unusually warm and sunny there for early May.

quote:

---

Originally posted by This:
I honestly think you are all misguided,

---

Thank goodness.

quote:

---

I find myself on the same skeptical camp

---

You are a denier plain and simple. Skepticism is not a situation in which you reject the scientific evidence in favor of deluded conspiracy theories of which there is no evidence to support. Please don't dare sully the name of skepticism with your ridiculousness and lies. As I have posted before - the major skeptical societies of the world have come out strongly in support of the scientific evidence and opposed the methods of deniers (which are the exact same as the methods of creationists and IDers and holocaust deniers - exact same. Exact same.) and both of the world's most known skeptical magazines have come out strongly in favor of the scientific evidence on global warming. That includes both the Skeptical Inquirer which had two issues ON global warming and drafted a statement as strong as the IPCC's position in 2006 which runs 43 pages (printed over 2 issues) and can be found here:
[url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/global-climate-chang... Climate Change Triggered By Global Warming[/url]
Similarly Skeptic Magazine has dedicated 2 issues to global warming (along with a several day conference on global warming and debates with climate change deniers - although the deniers didn't seem to be interested in actually debating the science or providing evidence - which is available on 5 DVDs) including the current issue with the headline piece:
[url=http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induc... We Know Global Warming is Real: The Science Behind Human-induded Climate Change[/url]

I am a skeptic. I have been so for many years. I know what a skeptic is. I know how a skeptic weighs evidence and comes to provisional positions. You are the exact opposite of a skeptic. And the skeptical organizations would quickly point out that your method of research is the exact opposite of skepticism. So don't try to pretend that your bullshit is skepticism.

[b][i]Real[/b][/i] skepticism would do you a lot of good. If I were you I would start out by reading Carol Tavris's recent book: [url=http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986/ref=pd_bb... Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts[/url] (followed by Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," and Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.")

quote:

---

as I was when I was against Free Trade, when Mulroney who hadn't read the treaty assured us it was a good idea.

---

This has nothing to do with global warming and shows that you base your current positions not on evidnece and logic, but on past completely unrelated events. Again denier, not skeptic.

quote:

---

This man made climate crisis actually has it's political roots with the Club of Rome and their 'First Global Revolution' book.

---

First - untrue. Second - I don't give a crap where the political roots come from. I care about the science. Third - you appear to be showing the colors of a brainwashed Alex Jones conspiracy nutcase follower who believes that everything is linked to a new world government. What a surprise.

quote:

---

To me you are saying the Earth is flat, why can't I see it, and of course you see it the opposite way.

---

This is not an argument of equal differing views. This is a situation where you are arguing against science with nonsense. You can hold any position you want. You can claim that the world is carried on the backs of 4 elephants which are in turn carried on the back of a giant turtle for all I care. However, it is wrong when people try to claim that there is scientific evidence for their B.S. position when there is not. Your position on climate change is not supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - period.

quote:

---

What I can't understand is why you are all so angry with someone who dares to think differently than you.

---

People think differently than me on this site all the time. In fact I am probably in disagreement with most babblers half of the time. That doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is your frequent lies, your accusation that good scientists are frauds, while uplifting crappy ones and your belief that your one year of reading a couple "hoax" and "conspiracy" non-published articles qualifies you to charge the that scientific community is wrong.

It reminds of me a television show in which (my memory of it anyways) a church minister claimed that homosexuals were not born homosexual, but choose to be that way and are immoral and sinful. Richard Dawkins replied that her statements were false. She accused his dismissal of her opinion as infringing on her freedom of speech. To which he responded that she has every right to say whatever bigotted, hateful and wrong statement that she wishes. However the freedom to say something doesn't mean that two statements or positions are equal (which for some reason was her view of freedom of speech and is similar to nuts such as climate change deniers, creationists and Holocaust deniers who claim that if they are not given equal time for their ridiculous positions then their freedom of speech is being infringed upon). Dawkins continued that his views are based on the accumulation of scientific evidence and therefore is worth far more than hers which are opinions, not supported by fact or evidence, and based on a bigotted and hateful world view hiding behind a religion and he has every right, and in fact a responsibility, to point that out.

We here on babble have every right point out that your position is baloney.

quote:

---

Almost all significant scientific discoveries were by definition found by people who could see what others in the majority could not.

---

Completely irrelevant. Those discoveries were not found by going against the evidence. Similarly there have been hundreds if not thousands of times more people who believed they could see what the majority could not, and turned out just to be nutcases.

quote:

---

Let me and a few others have the right to point out for instance that yes CO2 is rising, but global temperatures do not seem to be, at least not as they were last decade when the sun's magnetic output was 2.5 higher than today.

---

If you pointed out something true it would be different. But instead you continue to completely warp beyond recognition the work by legitimate scientists. In this case it appears that you are warping (an understatement) Sami Solanki's evidence. Salanki who did chart the historical magnetic output of the sun and sunspot frequency and did find that for a period of time since 1940 it was 2.5 times higher than the historical average. However, Solanki has been clear (something that deniers ALWAYS ignore) that the Sun's activity can not be responsible for any more than a tiny fraction of the warming since 1980 (as solar variance has not increased since then). It is time for deniers to stop lieing.

quote:

---

So far, and I know you guys can't accept it, the sun's solar output seems to be what controls global air temperatures. Which is hardly surprising when you think about it.

---

We will not accept your assumption, because the scientific community including the top experts in the field like Solanki (who incidently was among the scientists who Solomon featured in his series "Deniers" for the National Post - by completely twisting Solanki's work and position on global warming) dismiss it and there is no real evidence to support your position.

quote:

---

Here's one footnote pointing out that the ocean warms from the bottom up:

"It is important to note that the increase in ocean heat content preceded the observed warming of sea surface temperature"

(Excerpted from WARMING OF THE WORLD OCEAN, Science, Vol 287, 24 Mar 2000, p.2225-29)

Which I see is online, or at least the synopsis is: [url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5461/2225]http://www....

---

Haven't read the article, however the synopsis says the exact opposite of your claim. It states that: "The global volume mean temperature increase for the 0- to 300-meter layer was 0.31°C, corresponding to an increase in heat content for this layer of ~10(to the)23 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s." That is more than five times as much warming as the surface through 3000 meter depth. Furthermore neither of your articles appear to have anything in support of your "oceans are warming due to increased under water volcanic activity" hypothesis.

[ 14 May 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

So far, and I know you guys can't accept it, the sun's solar output seems to be what controls global air temperatures.

---

Not galactic cosmic rays too? What we do not accept is that solar output is the only influence over global temperatures, nor do we accept that solar output caused the late 20th century warming. Obviously there are other natural influences, in addition to anthropocentric influences, that are significant on various time scales, otherwise there would be no ice ages (volcanic activity for example). The evidence is overwhelming that other natural and anthropocentric drivers are significant and sometimes dominant.

quote:

---

"Sea floor hydrothermal activity accounts for about 29 percent of the total ocean contribution to atmospheric CO2. It is a significant factor in the present day CO2 budget"

---

See earlier comments on the carbon cycle. If this were to cause increased concentrations carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it would have to be increasing too.

As for undersea volcanoes causing ocean warming:

[url=http://timlambert.org/2005/06/pearson-claims-that-undersea-volcanoes-cau... that undersea volcanoes causing warming[/url]

Here is the discussion on ocean warming from Real Climate:

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/why-looking-for-gl... for global warming in the oceans is a good idea[/url]

They didn't comment on the oceanographer who commented on the Levitus et. al. paper in this discussion. Stevenson was a signatory to the Leipzig declaration, another one of these dubious petitions of which the number and authenticity of the signatures was difficult to verify, although there are some familiar names on the list. Ocean-atmosphere coupling and ocean circulation remain complex subjects where no-one had (Stevenson died in 2001) or has all the answers. I did notice one or two dubious statements in his comments. For example:

"Evaporation is constantly taking place at the surface of the seas." Not when the overlying atmosphere is saturated or the surface is frozen.

Most Oceanographers are not denialists:

[url=http://coastaltraining.org/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10146]The Ocean's Role in Climate[/url]

Little thanks to all the links on cement production... Given the materials used, I can see the large amount of CO2 released.

Although you would think the ability to capture the CO2 from cement production is an easier process than in other situations.

quote:

---

To me you are saying the Earth is flat, why can't I see it, and of course you see it the opposite way. What I can't understand is why you are all so angry with someone who dares to think differently than you. Almost all significant scientific discoveries were by definition found by people who could see what others in the majority could not.

---

Wow, does that ever sound familiar... Anyone remember[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001896&p=] AlaneJackson[/url] and his magnetrition thread? They both hold their psuedo-sceince along with this 'all scientific discoveries like the earth is round were by people like me'... It strikes me as really similiar. When they have nothing left but conjuncture, they move to this 'why does every get mad at me for thinking differently' defence.

Have you become familiar with the Scientific Method yet, or do you still think sceince is a democratic vote off "let the best theory win"?

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]