Slashdot Mirror

>This is gibberish. You can accurately predict if you accept the extrapolation? Ok so if I say it's true then it's true?

The extrapolation I assume you're talking about (the 2000 year one) was the plotted data from ten different large-scale climate studies from 1998 to 2005 (they're each a different colour on the graph). They were all working independantly. Are you seriously accusing all ten studies of some kind of vast scientific conspiracy?

If you really have a serious urge to plot the graphs yourself, the original data is all available from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html, the US Government National Climate Data Centre. Unless -- is the US Government included in this conspiracy too?

The data from the last 150 years of temperature and CO2 (the one that shows the almost exact correlation) is publically available. Unless -- maybe the measuring instruments are also part of the conspiracy?

>All of these predictions are untestable since we don't know how hot it was. A untestable theory is an unprovable theory.

I'm sorry, but your not making the slightest bit of sense. Of course we don't know exactly how hot it was over 150 years ago, since that's when records began. That's the point of the studies which attempt to work out how hot it was from data such as the formation of ice at the poles.

Your 'argument' about testability is identical to the argument used by Creationists trying to rubbish Evolution; that because something is a long-term, ongoing process (and thus, most of the data is historical), it's impossible to test, and is thus not a scientific theory. Unfortunately, it's as bad an argument applied to Climate change as it is applied to Evolution. It's perfectly testable, you just use historical (sometimes extrapolated) data rather than experimental data. The data that's extrapolated does certainly have a higher error margin than measured data, but as long as the margin is calculable and stated, that doesn't make it somehow 'untestable'. Besides, we still have 150 years of unarguable, measured data, and that data unfortunately is consistant with my (and pretty much all Scientists) position.

>You're talking about things on a geologic scale here. 2000 years is yesterday.

The 2000 year data was as a period in which extrapolations can be made backward to a high degree of absolute accuracy, that shows Man's effect on the environment in the last 150 years at a scale that also shows the previous 1850 for comparison. I believe I gave you the graph of the last 400,000 years or so some five posts ago; however, that was too large a scale to effectively show the sudden difference that has occured in the last 150 years.

>The whole purpose of this thread was to address skeptics but you've provided nothing but pictures from a propoganda site. You point to two bars both rising and claim it's obvious. As you said it is obvious and exact if you accept the premise. Skeptics don't do this. They reject the premise.

The question I asked on the first post, and you still haven't answered, is WHAT PREMISE EXACTLY IS IT YOU ARE REJECTING? As far as I can tell, for the last 7 posts you've questioned one after another, and as soon as I explain the one you've questioned you switch to a different one. And no, there is no unified fundamental concept that all sceptics 'reject' unilaterally. The point of scepticism is to not accept something UNTIL THERE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR IT. Not to look at the scientific evidence and claim it doesn't exist because you 'reject the premise'. What premise, exactly, is it you claim that all these different independant researchers have? Or for that matter, what premise is it you claim measuring instruments have?

>Stop trying to convince people with data from an obviously biased site. Why not grab some of your opposition's data and debunk that?

It takes a small amount of certain key, limiting nutrients to increase productivity of the organisms that cause eutrophication (the technical term for reduction in oxygen due to an excess of biological activity). While it does happen from natural processes too -- even an ordinary river flood can introduce plenty of sediment into the marine environment and cause a nutrient increase -- the linkage with artificial fertilizers and land clearing activities is pretty strong. Fertilizer input makes the problem worse, even if it occasionally happened naturally before. There is a pretty good summary of anoxic zones in Wikipedia. Here are a few other links.

Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes have been a mixed success. While regulations and cleanup helped, some of the polution was also absorbed by the intrusion of a foreign species, the zebra mussel. The native fish didn't eat the mussel so they continued to filter polutants while some fish benefited from cleaner water, others suffered from trying to compete with the zebra mussels in the food chain. Then the intrusion of another foreign species, the goby. At least one of the two types of goby does eat the zebra mussels, and they are eatten by some native fish so the toxins have spread. There's a reason there are suggested limmits on how much Lake Erie fish people should eat. some related reading: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ais/

30s? You call that hot? Over on this side of the pond it's close to 100!!
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/

OK fellas, let's take it easy judging the Japanese on their attempts to model the environment. This stuff is already being done all over the place, especially in the US.

I'm a PhD student in Statistics, and I do a lot of work with the Environmental Sciences. While I am no expert on their Climate Models, I do use their results frequently with my statistical models. There are essentially two kinds of models

1. Global Climate Models (GCMs) which are numerical models trying to predict the effects of any potential environmental changes. They're quite useful for going far into the future, but there is no guarantee that they truly reflect what has happened in the past. CCSM is a model I am currently working with right now.

2. Reanalysis Models which are similar to GCMs, but they take the time to compare its results with actual data observed from the past, making sure that it reflects the trends we have already seen. Bonus is accuracy, but I believe the drawback is how far in the future you can go. NCEP and NARCAAP for some examples I've been working with as well.

Again, I am no expert of the actual details of the models, but you're free to read their sites to learn more.

According to this website on paleoclimatology, there are some long period weather oscillations such as:

the El Niño -Southern Oscillation (ENSO) - 6 to 18 months,

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - 20 to 30 years

the Pacific-North American Oscillation (PNA) - 3 to 10 years

the The North Atlantic Oscillation NAO - 5 to 10 years

the Artic Oscillation (AO)- 5 to 10 years

the Antartic Oscillation (AAO) - 5 to 10 years

Paleoclimatologists have the records of weather condifions going back thousands of years using information such as tree rings, snow, lava, and seed deposits.

If the researchers could develop a long timescale atmospheric simulator that could replicate this data, then maybe they could predict general trends 30 years into the
future. Although unpredictable events such as earthquakes and volcanos) make things
bit harder, although they will probably run a large number of possible scenarios
before making any conclusions.

According to this website on paleoclimatology, there are some long period weather oscillations such as:

the El Niño -Southern Oscillation (ENSO) - 6 to 18 months,

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - 20 to 30 years

the Pacific-North American Oscillation (PNA) - 3 to 10 years

the The North Atlantic Oscillation NAO - 5 to 10 years

the Artic Oscillation (AO)- 5 to 10 years

the Antartic Oscillation (AAO) - 5 to 10 years

Paleoclimatologists have the records of weather condifions going back thousands of years using information such as tree rings, snow, lava, and seed deposits.

If the researchers could develop a long timescale atmospheric simulator that could replicate this data, then maybe they could predict general trends 30 years into the
future. Although unpredictable events such as earthquakes and volcanos) make things
bit harder, although they will probably run a large number of possible scenarios
before making any conclusions.

I would think that a sizeable nuclear detonation (at the right time and place) would cause a pressure wave powerful enough to disrupt the dynamo that is the low pressure center of a hurricane, and dissipate it. I dunno, any meteorologists in the crowd? Just how sensitive is a hurricane to disruptions of that magnitude? Do we even have a vaguest notion?

The NOAA might.

On top of not working, it'd just spew nuclear fallout everywhere. That's silly.

I would think that a sizeable nuclear detonation (at the right time and place) would cause a pressure wave powerful enough to disrupt the dynamo that is the low pressure center of a hurricane, and dissipate it.

Researchers from San Diego are using supercomputers to accurately predict the shape of the Sun's corona.

In other news researchers are using supercomputers to accurately predict the weather, earthquakes and the stockmarket.

We already have a perfectly good satellite based early warning system for predicting Space Weather. Trouble is the damn thing keeps knocking them out. I think we should skip this trivial phase of technology and move directly to space weather control. I reckon all we need is to turn up the volume in HAARP or hire these guys.

you found my message unsupportable - yet I assume you found his completely justified?

Which do you want more? To be proven right or to be correct, even if that means admitting you are wrong?

What disconfirming evidence have you looked at, and why did you discount it?

Lighting information week...
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/week.htm

Safety.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/outdoors.htm

Check out the line of dead cows near the metal fence.... I didn't see a single cow with a mobile phone in it's non-opposable-thumb hoof.

GrpA

Lighting information week...
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/week.htm

Safety.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/outdoors.htm

Check out the line of dead cows near the metal fence.... I didn't see a single cow with a mobile phone in it's non-opposable-thumb hoof.

GrpA

Looking back over the past 800,000 years you can see a trend towards progressively warmer interglacials. Judging from the chart at the top, we've yet to match the temperature peak around 130,000 years ago.

with the price of hurricanes (which have been increasing in frequency and strength over the last 15 years).

And let me guess, global warming is to blame, right?

Contrary to what alarmists like Gore might have you believe, hurricanes have not been "increasing in frequency and strength over the last 15 years". In fact, the average number of annual US hurricane strikes has actually gone down over the last 250 years.

To weigh in on this issue is to beg to get moderated out of existence. I am trying to discuss real science and not the phoney baloney handed out in American Physics Classes. Please if you disagree, just do it don't try to mod this down. Get a life if you cannot stand scientific discussion.

There is a growing body of evidence that the whole universe does not work the way that we were taught. In fact the "Physics" accepted generally is becoming unable to sustain itself in the face of evidence that it is just wrong. If fails in nearly every point to predict accurately and other models do predict accurately. There is a model which is the Plasma Universe model that works well. It predicts things like we are seeing very well. It says that Gravity is an insigificant force being outweighed by the EM force by 10^39. It even suggests that Gravity is no force at all but is merely a side product of the EM field. This model has predicted accurately every major new observation in the solar system in recent years. The Relativity and Gravity model has flunked the test of matching reality.

This new model arises out of the sciences and tools used by the IEEE types around the world. Their stuff works. They just met to discuss such things at ICOPS

The level of oceans has to do with electrostatic charges associated with cosmic physics and the makeup of the earth. This is related to why comets break up in deep space too far from the sun to have been so. It also makes the earth expand radiacally. By the evidence from NOAA the earth has expanded by 55% gaining mass from the energy of this process creating matter within the earth in the period in which the oceans came into being. The evidence may be seen in detail in cute videos or discussed here

When you realize that the ocean and the earth were made insitu and the process is on going at this time, you will tend to view the results of any report quite differently. I know this will upset a lot of people a whole lot. Just about every apple cart in town is going to get tilted over by this stuff. Wake up. The people who have been teaching you for so long are wrong.

Since 1975 though, the global mean surface temperature has been on a strictly upward trend. Oil production/consumption started spiking in 1960/65... and I don't think it's surprising that one atmospheric effect lags another by 10-15 years.

So far the melt rate of the Antarctic ice cap (measured by the GRACE satellites, mostly in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet) amounts to roughly a 0.4mm rise in sea level per year

Run for your lives! It's worse than the Indian Ocean tsunami!! That's practically 1.6 inches per decade! 16 inches per century! RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!

You know, if you guys tried present a reasoned, REALISTIC analysis of the (potential) problem rather than crying doomsday, you wouldn't look QUITE so foolish.

(note that the linked source DOES accept that global warming is occurring, he's just not screeching hysterically about walls of water inundating Tokyo or suchlike).

Here is a chart of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, going back to 1973.

ftp://140.172.192.211/ccg/figures/co2_mm_obs.png

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html

I consider myself a scientific conservative -- I don't want to find out what happens when CO2 hits the 430 ppm mark. Some people say that nothing bad will happen. They could be cataclysmically wrong.

This science is used by Goddard but was developed by NOAA, and its still under development by NOAA. NOAA owns the patent. More information here

Funny you mention that. I never heard an answer for that very simple question posed in some scientific magazine waay back in the 80s. If CFCs are responsible for that 'hole' and more than 90% of it (and pretty much any industrially used chemical) are used in the northern hemisphere, why then is the hole x times larger at the south pole? IMO, the 'ozone hole' might just be the biggest pile of bullshit in the history of science.

I agree that the logic is lacking. Brewer-Dobson and other circulation patterns don't allow much mixing of atmospheric gases between the northern and southern hemispheres. And the isolation of the polar stratospheric clouds within the polar vortex during the winter (when the hole appears) only makes the argument harder to swallow: it seems that ozone in the antarctic stratosphere is more sensitive to local conditions than to anything in the US and Europe.

Add to that the acknowledged lack of an ability to project ozone depletion, and you simply cannot claim that "the ozone hole is the result of CFCs from industrialization":

The rate of decline in stratospheric ozone at midlatitudes has slowed; hence, the projections of ozone loss made in the 1994 Assessment are larger than what has actually occurred.
-- Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/1998/exec utive_summary.html

It sounds more than a little like the global warming fiasco to me.

How about Texas A&M?

NOAA?

Interesting my ass. Ever hear of someting called "Google"?

p.s. http://ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/faqgeom.shtml#q8

You are correct, you do see this in many fields of scientific research. An idea catches on, and just as quickly it fades away. In the 1930's two men invented what is called the "bathysphere", it was eventually made by GE (General Electric), the home appliance company. The two men were Barton and Beebe, they got to a depth of around 1,400 feet.

After that, in 1953, a Swiss explorer, Auguste Piccard, made a record shattering dive to almost 7 miles. This vessel, the Trieste, was sponsored by the U.S. Navy. After that they funding stopped citing it as a waste of money. Man has not since been back to that depth (AFAIK), making it strikingly similar to the space program and the Lunar projects. =/

At any rate, the answer to you unasked question is, No, they have not stopped funding deep ocean research.

There are a number of exemptions to FOIA, of which national security is only one. I have not seen the responses given in this case, but I would speculate that they included the (b)(4) exemption (Trade secrets, commerical or financial info) and (b)(5) (privileged inter- & intra-agency memoranda and letters), which are probably the two most frequently used exemptions. A full list of the exemptions can be easily found through a Google search. E.g., http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/foiaex .html.

That may explain this:

From http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozone.html

"Stratospheric Water Vapor

Utilizing balloon-borne frost-point hygrometers, GMD has detected an approximately 1% per year increase in stratospheric water vapor at Boulder, Colorado, since 1980. Besides implications for climate change, increased water vapor can affect the rate of chemical ozone loss, for example, by increasing the incidence of polar stratospheric clouds. Satellite measurements of water vapor, although not of adequate length for accurate trend determination, suggest that the increase may extend to other latitudes. "

You have a FAR better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a "terrorist". In fact, there are hundreds of forseeable and preventable (at some level) ways you can die in this country that do not involve a terrorist act.

Are you sure? I figured I'd do some investigation.

According to this web page the actual strike rate for lightening, annually, is 1 in 600,000. With a U.S. population of 300 million, that comes to 500 strikes per year.

4,000 people died in September, 2001. As a threat, assuming no further terrorist strikes, the odds will invert sometime in 2009.

So, if you assume one 9/11 sized strike every 8 years, you are as likely to be struck by lightening as by terrorism.

There's a LOT more that goes into the development of a hurricane than warm water. Did you even read my post?

I encourage you to read NOAA's summary of recent research on the topic: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

If you still doubt it, there's a long list of articles published by scientists in reputable peer-reviewed journals in the meteorological community.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/rfcshare/precip_analysis_n ew.php?duration=day&location=GA&product=obs&archiv e=no

Radar rainfall estimates are out there, but I guess if you are lacking in the meteorological radar dept then their idea is something great to be looking into. One thing though...this probably won't help much out where there are no cell users. /me waits for the day someone figures out how to get ultra-sensitive microwave wavelength microwave sensors out on a geostationary satellite.

Wow. I'll make you a deal. Global Warming is real. And Global Warming is going to cause increased hurrican activity. You stop the reactionary rhetoric and I'll not suggest you are not paying attention, insane, myopic to reality outside your worldview, or someother cause of your ignoring clear information. Deal?

Surface Heat on the ocean causes storms to be more intense. Global Warming -- regardless of the cause (anthropogenic or otherwise) will increase surface heat.

To wit "The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ".

From this article at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fludi Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton

And, just for clarity, the page concludes "An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms."

So, deal?

1) China has only just started and has more inhabitants than Europe and the USA put together. Their (mostly poor) citizens are the most likely to suffer from our (western-made) polution.

Either pollution is a problem, or it isn't. It's not just a problem for some people on earth, and not for others. If you contend that Global Warming is 'catastrophic' doesn't it seem pedantic to then say "But those guys over there should get a chance to pollute since they haven't had their turn yet." WTF?
China and India don't have to make the same mistakes the rest of us made; they don't have to claw their way technologically through some sort of wierd forced-industrial-evolution process. Since all the Greenies INSIST that upgrading our infrastructure will be somehow (insert hand-waving here) beneficial to our economy, why wouldn't it be also beneficial to China or India? Why would one imagine that they aren't somehow clever enough to likewise reap these mysterious benefits of gigantic, government-mandated conformance?
Oh, and I'd love to see a link that provides proof (or even credible SUGGESTION) that their citizens are the "most likely to suffer". A pulled-from-the-ass statistic if I've ever heard one.

2) ...FYI: this story was not about America or capitalism. Oh, and some other economies have done quite well at reducing emissions whilst maintaining growth....
Firstly, you're being pretty disingenuous if you believe that the story was not pointed directly at the darn Americans who aren't buying into Kyoto.
And as far as reducing emissions plus maintaining growth: Really? Who?
Last time I checked, none of the larger advanced economies was actually conforming to their Kyoto targets (excepting countries whose industrial bases essentially collapsed), and none of them that are even close are anywhere near economically healthy.

3) "3C isn't that bad". Right, this is the most clueless one
Really? I understand some climate data was determined from tree-rings in wood frozen in Greenland glaciers...but wait, that means that there were trees in Greenland? 3C would certainly be disastrous, I'm sure...well, unless you visit Central Park in New York city, (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/425725030010 .2.1.gif) where the Mean temps were 2-3 degrees C higher 180 years ago. I mean, we can all recall the tens of thousands of people dead, the icecaps melted, cities were wiped out, human advancement faltered, and the mass human and animal die-offs of 1820, can't we? I mean, 3C...it MUST be a disaster, right?
What EnviroNazis can't seem to grasp is that if you don't come to the situation with preconceptions (say, for example, cherry-picking data from the climatological record to produce a 'hockey stick' graph), it's very hard to draw conclusions - the 'trend' doesn't exceed the 'noise', which statistically means you usually need more data to be confident about the results. To spend $TRILLIONS$ on such flimsy conclusions is irresponsible and frankly stupid. It's like noticing that the weather's been getting cooler the last few days, and promptly bricking up all your windows and doors, and then wrapping your whole house in thermal blankets. Yes, that would be stupid.

4) the last time on record there was a dramatic climate shift was when the dinosaurs went extinct.
Really?
"The approach allows for the identification of thirty extreme wet periods and thirty-five extreme dry periods in the 1,425-year precipitation reconstruction and 30 extreme cool periods and 26 extreme warm periods in 2,262-year temperature reconstruction." (Colorado Plateau) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/re constructions/northamerica/usa/colorado-plateau200 5.txt
"Temperature maxima during the Me

I don't think you can effectively analyse trends without having a much larger set of data. A few thousand over hundreds of millions is nothing.

Ok, so what is your required sampling rate? What analysis would you use?

Oh ya, and where's this data that you've been looking at? I'm dying to see how you're so convinced.

Here is an example

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann 2003b.html

Sure, not a problem. I had this very discussion yesterday. I'll repost with I did then:

According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.

This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.

Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.

As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my assertion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.

Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).

After all that I found another source which says that on a yearly basis volcanoes contribute 100 million tons of CO2 whereas other sources of CO2 produce about 10 billion tons a year. It's under the section marked 'Influence on the Greenhouse Effect' halfway down the page.

As far as my quote about the amount of gases and such from Mt. Tambora, I left out a zero in my posting and didn't catch it during preview. The correct number is 400 million tons (as shown in this posting) of sulfuours gases though various sources differ. One says 200 million tons while another indicates 400 million tons.

Despite my mistake and even using the higher figure of 400 million tons, comparing that figure to the sources I listed in the beginning it still shows that what man produces is substantially more, every year, than what Mt. Tambora produced in a 3-month period. In the case of Tambora after the eruption stopped nature had a chance to recover. In the case of us burning fossil fuels, nature never gets a breather. We are always pumping out more and more gases.

I must state that I am not an uber-treehugger. I do, however, try to minimize to an extent my footprint. That said, there is not reason NOT to try and reduce our CO2 and other emissions if for no other reason than our health. Think LA and how wonderful it must be sucking in that brown atmosphere. For a better example think Mexico City. I don't know about you but I prefer to look through a clear atmospher, not a brown one.

Wrong?

Funny how the editors for that magazine warned you not to jump to that conclusion.

See the note at the end:

*EDITOR'S NOTE: This consensus in this on-line magazine story represents the views of some NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters, but does not necessarily represent the views of all NOAA scientists. It was not the intention of this article to discount the presence of a human-induced global warming element or to attempt to claim that such an element is not present. There is a robust, on-going discussion on hurricanes and climate change within NOAA and the scientific community.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

NOAA ATTRIBUTES RECENT INCREASE IN HURRICANE ACTIVITY
TO NATURALLY OCCURRING MULTI-DECADAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY
http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

"The nation is now wrapping up the 11th year of a new era of heightened Atlantic hurricane activity. This era has been unfolding in the Atlantic since 1995, and is expected to continue for the next decade or perhaps longer. NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called "the tropical multi-decadal signal," typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming ."

According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.

This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.

Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.

As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my asserttion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.

Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).

So my original statement stands. The increase in global temperatures is probably caused by both natural and man-made actions. How much mans contribution to the effect is debatable but it does exist. The issue now is what, if anything, can we do to at least stabilize our contribution.

If you don't want to believe that man contributes to global warming, fine. That's your right. However, rather than sit around and do nothing I prefer to take some measures to reduce my impact. Think of it like getting kids vaccinated. You don't know for sure if they'll get the mumps (like what is now appearing in Iowa) or any other disease. However, you're willing to spend the money now to prevent them from getting something in the future. Same thing with global warming. Take a few preventitive measures now to curtail our influence in the future.

Besides, controlling greenhouse gases is a job creation package. Think of the industries that will need to expand or be created to produce new equipment to reduce gases. What about the people who will have to service that equipment? It's a win-win situation.

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunc limate.html

According to the site, climatologists estimate that the sun is responsible for up to 1/3 of the temperature increase we've seen over the last hundred years.

If anything, this is evidence that we should be more concerned about our effects on the environment. The climate is in for some serious adjustments in an evolutionary instant, and the last thing we should be doing is throwing more fuel on the fire.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.h tml [Paleo Perspective on Global Warming (NOAA)] There's even a little something about peer review for all of us dumbasses, yay!

The article's author seems to be arguing that NASA's main priorities should focus on areas of earth science. While I agree that earth science is important, I have to wonder how much NASA should even care about that stuff -- they are an aeronautics and space administration after all.

If I was head of another government department with a strong mandate for earth sciences (NOAA), I'd only want NASA's help to get some of my earth-pointing satalites up there and keep them flying -- and to stay out of the way beyond that.

A lot of the data, particularly ice cores, is all publicly available. Look it, do your own analysis.

Solar variation data: http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/
Ice core data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/
Detailed Greenland ice core Data: http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/pages/data.html

Jedidiah.

Most operational meteorologists I know feel human induced global warming is a bad theory, based on really bad modeling. The equations are incomplete as is the data set. Maybe we're worried because we use numeric weather prediction models on a daily basis and understand we can't always get the temperature right to within 2-3 degree over 24 hours, much less 24 years!

Academicians and theorists seem to support the idea in great numbers. These are people who haven't had to answer for a bad forecast in the supermarket.

Surely, human induced global warming is a political argument. Ask yourself, why have I never heard even one positive influence from global warming? In science, you should hear the good and the bad. In this argument, it's only the bad that gets publicized. If everyone in the Northern Plains, Northern Europe, New England, Canada and other cold weather climates get a longer growing season with lower winter heating costs, shouldn't that be weighed against tidal rises on Vanuatu?

Recently, after Katrina and the others, there has been a chorus trying to connect more hurricanes with global warming. Here's what Dr. William Gray says (he's the guy you hear quoted every year with seasonal hurricane predictions):

There is absolutely no solid evidence that the recent US hurricane disasters of 2004-05 and of Japan in 2004 are 'directly' attributed to the impact of global warming. Landfalling major hurricanes have occurred in earlier periods when the globe was cooler. The two scientific papers in Nature and Science have been largely discredited by myself and others.

Most of the warming of the last 30 years (1975-2005) cannot possibly be due solely to greenhouse gas increases. Although CO2 amounts have gone up by about 378 ppm/330 ppm = ~15% during this period, the net energy forcing (of about 0.65 w/m2) from this CO2 increase is considerably less than the other energy forcing changes of long wave radiation (LW), evaporation-precipitation, and ocean thermohaline circulation change that have been measured by the reanalysis data over the last 30 and 55 years. For instance, various rainfall measurements indicate there has been a small global average rainfall decrease of 0.5-1.0 mm/d. This is equivalent to global evaporation decreases of 1.5-3.0 w/m2 - 2 to 4 times than that can be attributed to CO2 increase. There are similar energy variations in the last 30 years in OLR and in the global thermohaline circulation. I believe that the global surface warming of the last 30 years is largely due to a small decrease in ocean surface evaporation cooling brought about by ocean deep water circulation changes.

Blaming all the warming of the last 30 years on CO2 requires that one believe that all the other larger energy source-sinks sum to zero. It is naive to think this is the case. Most warming of the last 30 years has to be of natural origin.

You can read more of Dr. Gray's thoughts in this excellent paper "Global Warming and Hurricanes."

I have posted this late. Positive modding to make it more visible would be appreciated.

Are you suggesting that the good Dr. let something as simple as an incorrect base assumption get in the way of a good headline?!

Someone pointed out in another thread this link. Looks like a cyclic pattern with a mean substantially less than 75 years to me.

But then, how would you draw attention and grant funding to your research with a headline like "Warmer oceans follow expected hurricane cyclic trend, increase in severe hurricanes to follow in the coming years without needing to blame global warming." Gah, almost put me to sleep just writing it.

The sun has gotten brighter and in particularly it has also been much more electrically active in the last few years. There were 2 massive solar flares only a few days before Hurricans Katriana and Rita flared up. Wilma has a strong match to several solar flares.

From TFA:

The link between rising ocean temperatures and overall climate change remains murky because of the overlap between natural cycles and any global warming. "But if you buy the argument that global warming is causing the increase in sea surface temperatures--and everybody seems to be buying this--then it's a pretty small leap to say global warming is causing this increase [in hurricane frequency]," Curry says. Her team will now focus on clarifying the mechanisms at work in the North Atlantic by separating out the 75-year natural cycle and climate change. "The last peak was in 1950, the next is in 2025," she adds. "We're only halfway up [the cycle] and we're already 50 percent worse [in terms of storms]. To me, that's a compelling issue that needs to be confronted."

"and everybody seems to be buying this" Really? Did they happen to discuss this with someone at the National Hurricane Center? See FAQ question G4, Are we getting stronger and more frequent hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical cyclones in the last several years? Which states that "We have not observed a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year.".

The science seems good, the assumptions relating to global warming aren't.

Long term statistics suggest that the number of hurrican strikes is at a cyclic low. Kyotoists tend to use sensational single incidents to bolster their hysterical, political claims. Kyoto was rejected because it is an economic Jonestown that will do nothing to affect global warming.

Noaa Attributes Recent Increase In Hurricane Activity To Naturally Occurring Multi-Decadal Climate Variability linky

I think you owe the Navy an apology.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/acoustics/sosus_app s.html

That could explain why men are about 4x more likely to be killed by lightning strikes than women:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/severe_weather/light04. pdf

Sure, they may run out of names, but they can reuse names as they do for hurricane names, with the exception of widespread popular hurricanes/worms/virii, which can be retired, just like some hurricane names.

There's lots of scientist geeks out there who interact with the sun. (and by 'interact with', I mean, sit in basements and look at pictures of it)

• http://www.spaceweather.com/
• http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/
• http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html

But I've actually seen some of them go into the big blue room while the glowy thing is still out.