There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

Originally posted by melatonin

No, it isn't still increasing.

It has been particularly active in the 20th century, but it hasn't been much higher than it reached in the 1940s. As I said, it has been pretty stable since then.

First of all, the previous claim, or theory since it "was" a theory was that the temperature increase in Earth was not correlated with the Sun's output increase since the 1970s.

According to "some" research work the Sun's output had remained in a constant high since the 1970s, but first of all those same research, nor many of the present ones, do not take in account the increase in sunspots which has continued to increase, nor do they talk about the time that it takes for the oceans to absorb this increase in output from the Sun, and i am not talking about surface warming.

And there is also "other more recent research", than your claim of the Sun's output stopped increasing since 1940s, which show that since the 1970s the Sun's output has actually increased 0.05% per decade..

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

www.nasa.gov...

Again, as the above article states the increase in the output of the Sunduring times of quiet sunspot activity has increased since the 1970s...

Since you did not give any links to back your claim that "it stopped in the 1940s" i would have to say you "made it up"....like some of your other claims which you continously pull magically out of nowhere.

Anyways, unless it is some massive change occurring in the Sun, such as the Sun going nova, any changes in the Sun will take a long while to affect the temperatures of the oceans, which in turn affect the temperatures on Earth. The surface temperature of the oceans will change faster, but to heat up the entire oceans takes decades to occur.

Let's not forget the magnetic intensity of the Sun has also been increasing.



Which in turn has been affecting the magnetic field of Earth which has been weakening since 1845, and yes this also affects the climate on Earth, unless melatonin/regenmacher now wants to claim that changes in the magnetic field of the Earth and the Sun do not affect the Earth's climate?.....

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Muaddib]

However...

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
10:44 11 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
PrintSendFeeds

Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.

The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth's climate to warm.

"If you change the output of the Sun you will undoubtedly change the climate it's just a matter of how much," says Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, part of the Science and Technology Facilities Council in the UK.

....

Looking at data from the past 40 years, the two researchers noticed that solar activity did what Lockwood describes as a "U-turn in every possible way" in the mid-1980s.

"The upshot is that somewhere between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could have affected climate have been going in the wrong direction. If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now," Lockwood told New Scientist. He adds that he wishes he knew why the Sun's activity had changed in this way.

environment.newscientist.com...

So, you are wrong again, heh.

Solar activity has been decreasing since the mid 80s and temperatures just keep on rising according to direct measurements. There is no longer a correlation between solar activity and temperature here on earth, which is exactly what the previous data from Solanki showed.



If the variations in solar activity since it reached a peak in the 1940s were important, we would be seeing a fall in temperatures now. We're not. This suggests that these small variations are having minimal effect on climate. We also know that if solar was the cause, we would be seeing warming throughout the atmosphere, we're not.

One more day till this new paper makes its debut...

ABE: I also see that you have again misinterpreted a scientific article. The NASA articles is not saying that solar activity has increased 0.05%, but that during the lower phase of the 11 year solar cycle, activity has increased 0.05%. There is an important difference between these two claims that I'm sure you fail to understand.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

What about your claim that all CO2 being released is anthropogenic

The yearly increase is predominately due to human activities. Almost all.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

...... Anytime anyone, more so a supposed scientist claims that he/she can...

"We decided to do a simple and direct analysis of the potential role of the Sun in recent climate change without using any model output," says Lockwood.

it tells me that person has no idea what he/she is talking about... There is no "simple way" to find out the effects on changes in the Sun will have on the climate on Earth...

There are several factors from the Sun which affect the climate on Earth, it is not just one.







[edit on 11-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin

The yearly increase is predominately due to human activities. Almost all.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

So you claim, no evidence at all except to give out some numbers but you leave out the fact that we are in a warming cycle, and as the geological record shows everytime the Earth goes through such warming cycles GHGs naturally increase, including CO2....and that's without taking in account the numbers of forest fires which have also been increasing, which also release large amounts of CO2.

Originally posted by Muaddib
it tells me that person has no idea what he/she is talking about... There is no "simple way" to find out the effects on changes in the Sun will have on the climate on Earth...

Oh, OK, I suggest you write a technical comment to the Proceedings of the Royal Society and show them your expansive intellectual capactiites on this issue. I'm sure they will bow to your superior knowledge.

heh.

Originally posted by melatonin

Oh, OK, I suggest you write a technical comment to the Proceedings of the Royal Society and show them your expansive intellectual capactiites on this issue. I'm sure they will bow to your superior knowledge.

heh.

I suggest you learn from the mess up which the IPCC made by immediately accepting Mann's claim, without doing any investigations to such claims, which were later found to be erroneous and which have been discredited by most scientists except Mann and associates....

Heh.....

There is a camp/group of people, which unfortunately involves some so called scientists, a, di say this in disdain because these so called scientists are a disgrace for not following the scientific method, which wants to immediately accept anything and everything which brings doubts to the changes the Sun is going through which have been recorded in dozens of research work, and a couple of scientists doing "a simple research" are not going to bury the dozens of other research which proves they are wrong....



[edit on 11-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
So you claim, no evidence at all except to give out some numbers but you leave out the fact that we are in a warming cycle, and as the geological record shows everytime the Earth goes through such warming cycles GHGs naturally increase, including CO2....and that's without taking in account the numbers of forest fires which have also been increasing, which also release large amounts of CO2.

Aye, it's hard to differentiate between the forest/scrub fires that are directly human caused, and those of a natural source. Which is why I say, almost all.

However, you can rant on about how warming causes a release of CO2, which is true for a substantial shift, but we have good evidence that for 650,000 years, CO2 never really made it above 300ppm.

Now, as I'm sure you know, temperatures in that 650,000 year period, have been higher than currently, however, it was not associated with a 20-30% increase in atmospheric CO2 that reached current levels. Even in the last 2000 years, we know that atmospheric CO2 has been fairly stable, until recently:



If you want to claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP, which you do quite fervently, then you need to explain why it was not associated with a similar 20-30% increase in atmospheric CO2.

Of course, you'll likely play the denialist data is wrong BS. If we accept the GHG data, and the data from several high resolution multi-proxy reconstructions, then all is readily explained:



Small varations in temperature have little effect on levels of atmospheric CO2. Larger changes like those for glacial variations likely do, and if we keep increasing temperatures through our numerous influences (not just CO2), then maybe another release will occur. It's a worrying possibility

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is a camp/group of people, which unfortunately involves some so called scientists, a, di say this in disdain because these so called scientists are a disgrace for not following the scientific method, which wants to immediately accept anything and everything which brings doubts to the changes the Sun is going through which have been recorded in dozens of research work, and a couple of scientists doing "a simple research" are not going to bury the dozens of other research which proves they are wrong....

Does that apply to Usoskin & Solanki? You attempted to use their data earlier to support your claims.

But now such people are a disgrace?

I think your denialist rhetoric forces you into what many would see as a disgraceful, but which I actually find laughable and interesting, position. It must be difficult to do the logical and rational gymnastics you have to perform to maintain an illusion of cognitive consistency.

For the Mann diatribe, check the numerous multi-proxy reconstructions above. His data is supported by several other reconstructions.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
However, you can rant on about how warming causes a release of CO2, which is true for a substantial shift, but we have good evidence that for 650,000 years, CO2 never really made it above 300ppm.

And we have good evidence that in the past for hundreds of thousands of years CO2 also didn't change much and then suddenly changed, without affecting the climate until hundreds or thousands of years later.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you want to claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP, which you do quite fervently, then you need to explain why it was not associated with a similar 20-30% increase in atmospheric CO2.

I don't claim anything...research from all over the globe shows so, despite your claims and those of Mann and associates that these events were not global...

The fact is that in the geological record it has been found that even though several times temperatures have increased, many times CO2 levels did not increase much, so there must be other factors which affect the natural increase of CO2.

Still there are tons of research which disprove the claims from these two scientists, who apparently wanted to come up with some quick research to get their 5 minutes of fame...

A graph showing the increase in sunspots



Not to mention the magnetic intensity of the Earth which has increased, and the Sun has been acting strangely.

The last one of these Polarity Reversals happened about 770,000 years ago (770 on the above graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! At the prresent time, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. It may be near zero in another few thousand years at this rate. The figure above, however, shows that Earth's field often changes its strength significantly in a short time (measured in thousands of years) and often does not vanish everytime. Scientists have a lot to learn about the exact behavior of Earth's complex field. Until then, making predictions about what it may look like in a few thousands years from now is a matter of guessing, not forecasting.

image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Physics Today, Volume 49, No. 7, July 1996, pp. 30-36


Solar Neutrino Experiments: The Next Generation

John N. Bahcall, Frank Calaprice,
Arthur B. McDonald and Yoji Totsuka

Three big new detectors are addressing the puzzle of the persistent solar-neutrino deficit. Is it the Sun, or the neutrino, that's behaving so strangely? We may soon know for certain.

www.sns.ias.edu...

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing and it hasn't been this way for over 780,000 years as the above link and excerpt from NASA shows...

Even 780,000 years ago the magnetic field of the Earth was not changing the way it is changing now.

so there are several "natural factors" which for some reason "melatonin/regenmacher" Mann et al want to disregard and in turn claim it is mankind the cause of the current warming...

To sum it up these two scientists are part of the "let's blame mankind crowd" for a simple reason...

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 11-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
And we have good evidence that in the past for hundreds of thousands of years CO2 also didn't change much and then suddenly changed, without affecting the climate until hundreds or thousands of years later.

So, now we go back hundreds of millions of years to cast doubt on simple mathematics that shows we release twice the CO2 into the atmosphere every year than is actually accumulating. I suppose you believe all of the human-sourced CO2 just disappears out the biosphere and has no effect on atmospheric concentration...

I posted some of Robert Berner's stuff earlier, as he mentions, they can show relationships between CO2 and climate clearly for over 300 million years. The one period they are unsure of, around 450 million years ago, may also be entirely consistent with this relationship. But the data is sparse and so any claims are highly uncertain.

ABE:

The late Ordovician (~440 Ma) represents the only interval during
which glacial conditions apparently coexisted with a CO2-rich
atmosphere. Critically, though, widespread ice sheets likely
lasted

Originally posted by melatonin

So, now we go back hundreds of millions of years to cast doubt on simple mathematics that shows we release twice the CO2 into the atmosphere every year than is actually accumulating. I suppose you believe all of the human-sourced CO2 just disappears out the biosphere and has no effect on atmospheric concentration...

The main point i am disputing, alongside many other scientists, your claims, as well as those of Mann et al, that CO2 are the main cause of the current warming...

and yes even your claims of the amount of CO2 released by mankind are exagerated by you, not even Mann et all would agree with some of your claims that "95% to 100% of CO2 is anthropogenic" as you have stated in the past...

As shown by more than one experiment even a doubling of CO2 does not show the increase predicted by Mann et al...

Originally posted by melatonin
I posted some of Robert Berner's stuff earlier, as he mentions, they can show relationships between CO2 and climate clearly for over 300 million years. The one period they are unsure of, around 450 million years ago, may also be entirely consistent with this relationship. But the data is sparse and so any claims are highly uncertain.

and i have posted dozens of research from all over the world which shows the RWP, and the MWP were warmer than the current warming cycle and CO2 levels were lower than today, and these were also global events... something which you continuously try to dismiss despite the fact that data from all over the world refutes your claims and those of Mann et al...

BTW, there is only one person who craps all the time from his fingers and posts crap around, and that is not me...

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
i am disputing, alongside many other scientists, your claims, as well as those of Mann et al, that CO2 are the main cause of the current warming...

As shown by more than one experiment even a doubling of CO2 does not show the increase predicted by Mann et al...

Haha. Yeah, yeah. In the central US grasslands for one single regional climate model. Have you managed to read and understand the RCM studies I posted for you? When are we moving the entire population of India to the central US grasslands?

and i have posted dozens of research from all over the world which shows the RWP, and the MWP were warmer than the current warming cycle and CO2 levels were lower than today, and these were also global events... something which you continuously try to dismiss despite the fact that data from all over the world refutes your claims and those of Mann et al...

Weak, weak. From earlier...

and as the geological record shows everytime the Earth goes through such warming cycles GHGs naturally increase, including CO2

If you want to claim that the current warming 'cycle' is causing this increase of CO2, you need to explain why it didn't happen during the MWP.

The earth had almost the exact same characteristics then. We are not talking about comparing a period 450 million years ago when the earth was rather different, life rather different, the sun rather weaker, the continents in different places etc etc, and FSM knows what else.

We are talking about just yesterday on geological timescales.

You're not even consistent on this issue, you're all over the place.

There is a camp/group of people, which unfortunately involves some so called scientists, a, di say this in disdain because these so called scientists are a disgrace for not following the scientific method, which wants to immediately accept anything and everything which brings doubts to the changes the Sun is going through which have been recorded in dozens of research work, and a couple of scientists doing "a simple research" are not going to bury the dozens of other research which proves they are wrong....

I'd still like an answer as to why Usoskin and Solanki are a disgrace now that you know they do not confirm you denialist rhetoric? That's quite a change, I remember the same thing happening for Lonnie Thompson when I showed you that if we use all his data, not just your cherrypicked ice-core, it was entirely consistent with Mann's proxy data.

It's quite an amazing feat. A scientist can go from a reliable source of information to a disgrace who doesn't use the scientific method in the space of a few posts, just by showing you that their data does not agree with you.

Stunning.

Some might even question your integrity rather than that of the scientists involved.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

and yes even your claims of the amount of CO2 released by mankind are exagerated by you, not even Mann et all would agree with some of your claims that "95% to 100% of CO2 is anthropogenic" as you have stated in the past...

How do you know?

Another of your amazing feats?

My claim is actually not as extreme as many of those in the field:

Contributed by Corinne Le Quéré, University of East Anglia.

This question keeps coming back, although we know the answer very well: all of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human activities, in spite of the fact that both the oceans and the land biosphere respond to global warming. There is a lot of evidence to support this statement which has been explained in a previous posting here and in a letter in Physics Today . However, the most convincing arguments for scientists (based on isotopes and oxygen decreases in the atmosphere) may be hard to understand for the general public because they require a high level of scientific knowledge. I present simpler evidence of the same statement based on ocean observations, and I explain how we know that not only part of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human activities, but all of it.

www.realclimate.org...

200% more CO2 released by human activity than is required to account for the yearly ppm rise. No net loss from the terrestrial and ocean sinks.

To suggest that human activity is not the predominate cause is just...well, stupid.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatoninTo suggest that human activity is not the predominate cause is just...well, stupid.

Only to those who have no reason to follow the political correct crowd, remember these same groups were claiming an ice age was coming less than 30 years ago.

Now some are claiming Pole shift so RUN!

Originally posted by edsinger
Only to those who have no reason to follow the political correct crowd, remember these same groups were claiming an ice age was coming less than 30 years ago.

Now some are claiming Pole shift so RUN!

heh, follow the crowd....I doubt you even realised what I was saying before spouting off then.

Or do you also believe that even though we release 200% more CO2 than is required to account for the yearly CO2 rise, the rise is not predominately human caused?

Very few denialists actually question where the CO2 rise is coming from. That's for the Delta Force crank crew.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by melatonin]

Well somewhere here in this thread is an article by some scientific organization that is not agenda bound discussing the carbon sink in North America. It makes sense for those CO2 crowds to read it.

The US is now technically a Carbon sink, hence we absorb more than we produce, mainly through plant growth etc.

Interesting to think of all the CO2 and how nature deals with it..You still refuse to actually ask yourself what if more CO2 is actually better, unless you own land in Miami or something.

Carbon Sink maybe Edsinger, though the research was very limited and did not include a wide array of specialists in the area.

As to if it is a GREENHOUSE gas sink well there is no and I have checked all published articles that would say this. North America is a green house gas contributor not detarctor, without any shadow of a doubt even to the guys at Exxon, even their PR guys wouldnt try and spin that.
This is denial, though done by intelligent and well presented debate of your view, by yourself and another Mauddib.

Face facts america and the rest of the developed world are causing global warming, I see again graphs displayed here and evidence well supposed to be anyhow, that has been proven in both peer reviewed literature that is totally incorrect has been shown on any occoasions to be just a product of the same PR companies that supported the tabacco industry for many years, "scientists have proven in tests that smokjing is not linked in any way, or contributes to cancer mortality in humans" Sound Familiar? like global warming... just the same cover up.

This was being used in courts of law in america within our own generation, by the same PAID lobby groups and Companies who many here and elsewher get their paradigms and data from today, vis a vis Global Warming.

Once again more evidence has been produced PROVING mauddib that NO WE ARE NOT in a Warming CYCLE, that yes the suns output has affected the climate in the past but it is actually cooling the earth at the moment not heating it up. The data is there, its produced by very well respected researchers and is pretty conclusive if you have the ability to understand, source and check it. I have it is right.

Truly now it is time to wake up and realise that indeed the Earth is not Flat, That the Universe does not rotate around the earth (as a central fixed point) smoking does kill and cause cancer, and unfortunately human kind has been killling our mother earth, the planet with alarming rates since the industrialised revolution. Truly no matter how much your head is in the sand EMU's the lion will still bite you see him or not.

Like ive said many times here since I joined

ITS SIMPLE HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE! it truly is. (not climatology or weather models etc, or analysing the change and type of effects, just the basis of adding greenhouse gases to the earth closed climate system., and anyone with this Basic understanding understands too the risks and factors of FEEDBACK within such a system. Yous see it does not matter if we are causing 100% of it or 0.001 % of it in a interrelated closed and interdependant long term system such as the earth and climate)

Now anyone with any understanding of chemistry, the environment or biology or any allied sciences can see plainly that releasing greenhpouse gases will raise the temp of our environment. As a single governing factor or as a small part of a myriad, this is not important though, the risks are huge, and becoming apparent each day ,500,000 people today in CHINA are homeless due to massive flooding, thats the last weeks weather in one region of china, unprecentented one in a 150 year chance, like texas NOW, like Northern England Now, Like Australia NOW, Like India NOW, Like Pakistan 1 month Ago, this very moment world wide huge amounts of once in a lifetime events are happening within the climate. But they happened like 5 years ago, 1 year ago as well etc.

Just Chance Just coincidence??, maybe maybe so,,, maybe I will be struck by lightening this afternoon 3 times before winning the national lottery tommorrow, then a book I gave to a friend in North Africa 20 years ago will be bought by me in My local charity shop whilst a man the next day who has the same name and job as me will knock on my door by accident, this is a normal month for most humans? well if you put the OBSERVABLE weather of the last 5 years into a humans life context we should all be having weeks like this.

The science is pretty universally supported by experts in the field, The evidense as stated above is before our eyes, and apparent.

Wheres the discussion?

Hey there is still people discussing this mind you

Why The Debate Maybe These Guys Can Help???


Kind Regards

Elf.



[edit on 12-7-2007 by MischeviousElf]

Here is one but dated....I will try and find the one that the "I think" UN had, I have it in PDF and its a great read.

"We know that we who reside in the United States emit about 6.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year," said Taro Takahashi, Doherty Senior Research Scientist, associate director of Lamont-Doherty, Columbia's earth sciences campus in Palisades, N.Y., and an author of the report. "As an air mass travels from west to east, it should receive carbon dioxide and the East Coast concentration of CO2 should be higher than on the West Coast.

"But observations tell us otherwise. The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities

www.columbia.edu

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
.............
Face facts america and the rest of the developed world are causing global warming, I see again graphs displayed here and evidence well supposed to be anyhow, that has been proven in both peer reviewed literature that is totally incorrect has been shown on any occoasions to be just a product of the same PR companies that supported the tabacco industry for many years, "scientists have proven in tests that smokjing is not linked in any way, or contributes to cancer mortality in humans" Sound Familiar? like global warming... just the same cover up.

BS...that's just a red herring you and some others keep trying to claim because most of the times you can't even discuss the topic at hand...

There is as much or more "peer-reviewed" data and research which disproves the claims you, melatonin and some others want to believe.

Claiming that presenting evidence to refute the claims of AGW is like "the tobacco company in the old days" is nothing more than a lie, trying to deismiss the evidence because you don't want to accept it, and shows you can't even present your

BTW, as already stated in the past two experiments were conducted to see how high the temperatures would rise with a doubling of CO2. One of the experiments found that a doubling of CO2 in the U.S. Midwest would increase the temperatures by 0.014C, while the other showed that water vapor would increase the temperatures more than CO2, and the temperatures raised by CO2 would be neglegible. That's hard science and no "speculations, disinformation or lies."

[edit on 14-7-2007 by Muaddib]