Has everyone missed the point where he said that they need about 2 million to build prototype #7 and #8, and only after reviewing all that data, would they move on? $200 million is the cost for a full 5 year run. $2 million to build a couple of prototypes to prove their system.
$2 million.
The 1600s were smack in the middle of the little ice age.
The study doesn't say it was this warm 400 years ago. It says that with 400 years worth of data, this is the hottest period observed.
Proxy studies and urban heat island effects cloud the results of all such studies.
Another way to look at this: The Earth has fully recovered from the Little Ice Age period. Horray! Warmer is far better than colder. The 1600s will go down in European history as among the worst times. Famine from crop failures. Diseases were epidemic.
The statement that CO2 correlates well with temperature is incorrect. CO2 has been steadily increasing over the last 100 years, while temperatures rose from the 1880's to about 1940, cooled until about the 1970s, and has risen again of late.
The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
Since we are near an alltime CO2 low over the last 250 million years, it is worthwhile to note a few things:
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings and exported surplus crops.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd world to extended time in poverty by crippling the world's economy with a meaningless Kyoto type treaty, that will cost billions, but will have no measureable impact on real world temperature.
Water vapor accounts for the majority of the greenhouse gas effect. CO2 contributes from 1-3%, while water vapor accounts for 96-99%.
The increase in CO2 at ppm levels can not cause a temperature rise that can be distinguished from the large swings in temp that the planet goes through (noise is the much larger signal).
Temperature will change, regardless of anything we try to. There is no stable climate utopia, no 'right' temperature. The best way to minimize harm from climate fluctuation is to have a rich, technologically advanaced society. Crippling the worlds economy with Kyoto will harm the worlds poorest, and put them at more risk.
You need to step back and look at the big picture:
Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, accounting for about 96-99% of the greenhouse effect.
CO2 accounts for most of the other 1-3%, with methane and a few other trace gasses thrown into the mix.
CO2 is not a toxin at ppm levels. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet. (ie, plant food) The world is far 'greener' in the last few decades because of it.
I'm all for clean lakes and rivers, and environmental restrictions on sulfate emmissions among others has helped dramatically. Thank you. But reducing CO2 will not make our air, "dramatically cleaner" as you suggest.
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic radiation reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vejr/over sigt.html
The climate will continue to change as it always has, regardless of human activity. The best defense is a rich society that can use technology to adapt to the changes.
The Earth was much warmer in the past. It was also much cooler. I would submit to you, that a warm period such as 1000 - 1200, when the Vikings colonized greenland, is inherently more conducive to human life, than is a cooler world such as the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when Europe was plagued with crop failure and famine. We are, after all, overdue to exit the Holocene period and return to ice age conditions.
CO2 is not the culprit. The EU is basing policy on a hypothesis that has no basis in science. Water vapor accounts for 96% - 99% of the greenhouse effect. The ice core data you mention, clearly shows CO2 either in phase, or lagging the temperature change. CO2 responds to temperature, but does not drive it. (The major contributor is likely the effect of the oceans outgassing as they warm up, or storing more as they cool.)
I agree with your point that changing climate can devestate regions. I just think that by crippling the worlds economy with a Kyoto style treaty, we are less likely to bring prosperity to the worlds poorest people, who are most likely to need help dealing with inevitable climate change.
This is saying that although the variation in the sun's radiant energy (i.e, W/square meter) isn't enough to account for the last 3 decades temperature increase of ~.2C, the secondary effect of controlling the cosmic ray flux influences cloud formation, which directly effects the Earth's albedo, and the amount of solar energy reflected, might account for the observed increase.
Clouds can either increase warming by trapping IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. Or it can lead to cooling, by raising the Earth's albedo, and reflecting more solar insolance away. Clouds at different elevations will dominate one way or the other.
The theory is based on observable differences in cloud cover corrolating well with temperature variation and the suns magnetic cycle.
As for dispelling the theory of human induced climate change, the bottom line is that water vapor is by far the dominate greenhouse gas contributor, and the observed temperature changes in warming and cooling this century (including the rate of change) are well within the range of past variation. Why blame CO2, a minor, ppm contributor? Look first at the sun, the primary driver of the Earth's climate, before crippling the world economy.
In point #5, I mention this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm to a 2002 BBC report on a study which adds a feedback system into the mix, that was not taken into account. Basically, while the suns measurable energy doesn't vary enough to directly change insolation enough to account for this warming, the solar wind may, by its direct effect on cosmic rays, and thus cloud formation. As I said, this is preliminary work, with much to be quantified, but it is promising, and you must admit, plausable.
As stated, posted twice to correct broken links. Actually, it was posted thrice. ->The first time I forgot to add paragraph formatting, and the it was hard to read.
Arg, all my links were dead in the original post do to my formatting errors. These links actually work:
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/proj
My last post recieved a 0 - flamebait tag, so I cleaned and edited for clarity: I challenge anyone to find a factual error or false statement in my humble attempt to bust the CO2 warming myth.
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for
3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly frozen over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm/ shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf/ shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm/ The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://http//web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vej r/oversigt.html/
7. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd
Wrong. We have ice cores from Antarctica with 400,000 years of temperature records *and* CO2 concentration measurements. The data [clearlight.com] is chilling: the CO2 concentration is very well correlated with the temperature of the lower atmosphere over 400 millennia, and the CO2 concentration today (370 ppm) is higher than the maximum value in the last 400 millennia (300 ppm). Mind you, there have been numerous volcanic eruptions and major climate shifts (several ice ages, for instance) in that time period. Even considering those factors, the CO2 concentration is higher now than it has ever been in 400 millennia of recorded data.
You missed a major element of the Vostock ice core data analysis: It shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
CO2 is not a pollutant, It is not toxic at ppm concentrations. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, and the key to the food chain. It also has little to do with global warming, even at it current level.
Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The little ice age around 1600, when the Thames was frozen over and Europe was dieing off from famine and disease), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
Incidentally, the 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf
shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They didn't consider the effects of cosmic radiation on low level cloud formation. Recent studies, an article summing it up can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm
show it goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Increased low level cloud formation increases reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). The difference from active Sun to inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
Finally, and most damningly, the "Global warming from manmade greenhouse gasses" hypothesis, requires that the upper atmosphere must warm up first, and then cause warming at the surface. Satellite data from the 70s to the present shows no significant warming in the troposphere. Since basis for all current computer models predicting warming is invalid, NO VALID CONCLUSIONS can be based on their results.
Please, to all who have bought into the Global Warming hype: Climate change is normal and unavoidable from century to century. Question authority, and do some of your own research before swallowing everything the green lobby feeds you. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technoligically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd world to extended time in poverty by crippling the world's economy.
FYI: Intel just got its first dual core "Smithfield" (a dual core Prescott product) to test last week, reportedly booting up Windows and Linux. No reports as to Fmax.
CO2 is not a pollutant, nor is it toxic at ppm concentrations. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, and the key to the food chain. It also has little to do with global warming, even at it current level.
Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 30C, instead of roughly -30C. This vital 60C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The little ice age around 1600, when the Thames was frozen over and Europe was dieing off from famine and disease), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
Incidentally, the 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
The Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf
shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They didn't consider the effects of cosmic radiation on low level cloud formation. Recent studies, an article summing it up can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm
show it goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Increased low level cloud formation increases reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). The difference from active Sun to inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age.
Finally, and most damningly, the "Global warming from manmade greenhouse gasses" hypothesis, requires that the upper atmosphere must warm up first, and then cause warming at the surface. Satellite data from the 70s to the present shows no significant warming in the troposphere. Since basis for all current computer models predicting warming is invalid, NO VALID CONCLUSIONS can be based on their results.
Please, to all who have bought into the Global Warming hype: Climate change is normal and unavoidable from century to century. Question authority, and do some of your own research before swallowing everything the green lobby feeds you.
Slashdot Mirror
Has everyone missed the point where he said that they need about 2 million to build prototype #7 and #8, and only after reviewing all that data, would they move on? $200 million is the cost for a full 5 year run. $2 million to build a couple of prototypes to prove their system. $2 million.
The 1600s were smack in the middle of the little ice age. The study doesn't say it was this warm 400 years ago. It says that with 400 years worth of data, this is the hottest period observed. Proxy studies and urban heat island effects cloud the results of all such studies. Another way to look at this: The Earth has fully recovered from the Little Ice Age period. Horray! Warmer is far better than colder. The 1600s will go down in European history as among the worst times. Famine from crop failures. Diseases were epidemic.
For your edification, a graph of global mean temperature plotted with CO2 concentration showing the CO2 - temp "correlation" http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom1880. htm
The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools. Since we are near an alltime CO2 low over the last 250 million years, it is worthwhile to note a few things:
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings and exported surplus crops.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd world to extended time in poverty by crippling the world's economy with a meaningless Kyoto type treaty, that will cost billions, but will have no measureable impact on real world temperature.
Water vapor accounts for the majority of the greenhouse gas effect. CO2 contributes from 1-3%, while water vapor accounts for 96-99%.
The increase in CO2 at ppm levels can not cause a temperature rise that can be distinguished from the large swings in temp that the planet goes through (noise is the much larger signal). Temperature will change, regardless of anything we try to. There is no stable climate utopia, no 'right' temperature. The best way to minimize harm from climate fluctuation is to have a rich, technologically advanaced society. Crippling the worlds economy with Kyoto will harm the worlds poorest, and put them at more risk.
You need to step back and look at the big picture: Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, accounting for about 96-99% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for most of the other 1-3%, with methane and a few other trace gasses thrown into the mix. CO2 is not a toxin at ppm levels. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet. (ie, plant food) The world is far 'greener' in the last few decades because of it. I'm all for clean lakes and rivers, and environmental restrictions on sulfate emmissions among others has helped dramatically. Thank you. But reducing CO2 will not make our air, "dramatically cleaner" as you suggest.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic radiation reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vejr/over sigt.html
7. The best protection against climate chan
This guy is more coocoo than coco puffs.
The Earth was much warmer in the past. It was also much cooler. I would submit to you, that a warm period such as 1000 - 1200, when the Vikings colonized greenland, is inherently more conducive to human life, than is a cooler world such as the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when Europe was plagued with crop failure and famine. We are, after all, overdue to exit the Holocene period and return to ice age conditions.
CO2 is not the culprit. The EU is basing policy on a hypothesis that has no basis in science. Water vapor accounts for 96% - 99% of the greenhouse effect. The ice core data you mention, clearly shows CO2 either in phase, or lagging the temperature change. CO2 responds to temperature, but does not drive it. (The major contributor is likely the effect of the oceans outgassing as they warm up, or storing more as they cool.)
I agree with your point that changing climate can devestate regions. I just think that by crippling the worlds economy with a Kyoto style treaty, we are less likely to bring prosperity to the worlds poorest people, who are most likely to need help dealing with inevitable climate change.
Clouds can either increase warming by trapping IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. Or it can lead to cooling, by raising the Earth's albedo, and reflecting more solar insolance away. Clouds at different elevations will dominate one way or the other.
The theory is based on observable differences in cloud cover corrolating well with temperature variation and the suns magnetic cycle.
As for dispelling the theory of human induced climate change, the bottom line is that water vapor is by far the dominate greenhouse gas contributor, and the observed temperature changes in warming and cooling this century (including the rate of change) are well within the range of past variation. Why blame CO2, a minor, ppm contributor? Look first at the sun, the primary driver of the Earth's climate, before crippling the world economy.
In point #5, I mention this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm to a 2002 BBC report on a study which adds a feedback system into the mix, that was not taken into account. Basically, while the suns measurable energy doesn't vary enough to directly change insolation enough to account for this warming, the solar wind may, by its direct effect on cosmic rays, and thus cloud formation. As I said, this is preliminary work, with much to be quantified, but it is promising, and you must admit, plausable.
As stated, posted twice to correct broken links. Actually, it was posted thrice. ->The first time I forgot to add paragraph formatting, and the it was hard to read.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.
3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/proj
-I should know better than trying to use the "less than" symbol in an html format. -Sorry
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for 3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly frozen over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm/ shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf/ shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm/ The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://http//web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vej r/oversigt.html/
7. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd
You missed a major element of the Vostock ice core data analysis: It shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
CO2 is not a pollutant, It is not toxic at ppm concentrations. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, and the key to the food chain. It also has little to do with global warming, even at it current level. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The little ice age around 1600, when the Thames was frozen over and Europe was dieing off from famine and disease), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2. Incidentally, the 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They didn't consider the effects of cosmic radiation on low level cloud formation. Recent studies, an article summing it up can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm
show it goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Increased low level cloud formation increases reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). The difference from active Sun to inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
Finally, and most damningly, the "Global warming from manmade greenhouse gasses" hypothesis, requires that the upper atmosphere must warm up first, and then cause warming at the surface. Satellite data from the 70s to the present shows no significant warming in the troposphere. Since basis for all current computer models predicting warming is invalid, NO VALID CONCLUSIONS can be based on their results.
Please, to all who have bought into the Global Warming hype: Climate change is normal and unavoidable from century to century. Question authority, and do some of your own research before swallowing everything the green lobby feeds you. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technoligically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd world to extended time in poverty by crippling the world's economy.
FYI: Intel just got its first dual core "Smithfield" (a dual core Prescott product) to test last week, reportedly booting up Windows and Linux. No reports as to Fmax.
CO2 is not a pollutant, nor is it toxic at ppm concentrations. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, and the key to the food chain. It also has little to do with global warming, even at it current level. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 30C, instead of roughly -30C. This vital 60C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The little ice age around 1600, when the Thames was frozen over and Europe was dieing off from famine and disease), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2. Incidentally, the 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools. The Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They didn't consider the effects of cosmic radiation on low level cloud formation. Recent studies, an article summing it up can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm
show it goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Increased low level cloud formation increases reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). The difference from active Sun to inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age.
Finally, and most damningly, the "Global warming from manmade greenhouse gasses" hypothesis, requires that the upper atmosphere must warm up first, and then cause warming at the surface. Satellite data from the 70s to the present shows no significant warming in the troposphere. Since basis for all current computer models predicting warming is invalid, NO VALID CONCLUSIONS can be based on their results.
Please, to all who have bought into the Global Warming hype: Climate change is normal and unavoidable from century to century. Question authority, and do some of your own research before swallowing everything the green lobby feeds you.