Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Terror]

Originally posted by MORAY37
You are posting a blogger site as a reference?  A guy by the name of "masher".  Give me a break.  He gives absolutely no way to backcheck his statistics, no way to cross reference. Even if his dispute is correct and now 1934 is the warmest year on record, also something very improbable...and any scientist will tell you, one plot on a graph is not indicative of anything, just looking at the data set he uses, (of which most are hidden, btw)  you CAN STILL SEE THE UPWARD TREND over the century.  

This individual is attempting to discredit on the basis of singular plot point flaws.  It is cheap, and anyone knowledgeable would laugh.  Unfortunately,  most americans don't think past the story they just read.  Technically speaking, he could be correct, yet there is no way to prove either.  I reserve my right to trash this reference, who obviously is taqking a cheap shot.

From the article:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place.  1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.  Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.  

NASA reworked their numbers, not the blogger.   Here is the Reworked NASA Data

Terror

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by MORAY37
You've spent too much time in your basement surrounded by radon gas bathed in second hand smoke.

Looks like you lose at the internets lol.

-Sik

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Moray37,
what do you think about methane hydrate (solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane)
extremely large deposits of methane hydrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth).
Could this be the reason we had at the end of the Paleocene (55.5 to 54.8 Mya)
it was marked by one of the most significant periods of global change during the Cenozoic Era. A sudden global climate change, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), upset oceanic and atmospheric circulation, leading to the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on land that marked the emergence of mammalian lines recognizable today.

Tracking the ratio of carbon isotopes in marine calcium carbonate sediments, a sharp decrease was found in the amount of heavy carbon in 55-million-year-old marine fossils. A synchronous drop in carbon isotope ratios in many terrestrial environments has also been identified,
indicating that a gas with very low amounts of heavy C-13 appears to have flooded the atmosphere.

Looks like a sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C could be enough to restart PETM soon?

An alternative theory proposes that a comet impact triggered the PETM?

R
Gh0stFT

I think, honestly, it's the one thing we have to fear the most.  It is the single worst "greenhouse gas".  It's heavy, it tends to hold in thermal radiation in concentration, and it binds with very few compounds, which makes it very interesting in the free form.  And, no, we're not talkin about flatulence release, which, I already know, someone will go flailing off on (see laz) saying we now have to hold in our farts.  The methane locked up in hydrate form (bound with ice or permafrost) is of quantity much more than that of all the release of all the animals on the planet.  Also, CH4 is very tough to bind with other compounds.  It is a metabolic inhibitor, unless it used by a chemiosynthetic organism.  Once released it pervades in a gaseous form for a lengthy period...until locked back in hydrate form.  

For a long time, the PETM was a mystery, how it happened and raised the global mean so fast... until someone looked into the methane deposits sitting in permafrost and the seabed.  Suddenly all the traces started making alot of sense.  The most disturbing thing to me, is recent cores seem to indicate the last ice age was ended by a similar event of lesser magnitude, and that that event may have ended the ice age in as little as 20 years.  

Good post.  Nice to see someone thinking past CO2.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Sikboy
Looks like you lose at the internets lol.

-Sik

Can anyone possibly make sense of this?  Is this english?

[moot]

English for pull out the broomstick.

[Angus]

Ay, the methane. That's the scary one. After that dunheap escapes, everything we did untill now is just a joke. And that's why folks like me worry about the great warming in the arctic areas.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by MORAY37
You truly make me laugh.  

Good thing you are not on this side of the screen.
You would bust a gut.

[lazs2]

ocean..  too early to call you beetle...  I have never said that we need to find alternative fuel sources or that we will be using oil in our cars for the next hundred years.   I think it ironic that the greens are now stuck with saying that nukes are good tho after all the efforts their "scientists" have spent in the past making sure that we have none.

Alternative fuels take time because the time is not right.   It will be but the market has to drive it not government.   You can't force biofuels... it may not even be a good idea... something better may come along mid stride... coal is abundant.. we can convert or use it till the tech catches up...  much better than forcing one idea or another with a government mandate.

I think that it is you and not me tho that is coming to the wrong conclusions about science and weather... you claim that if they can get short term.. like a day of a flight, weather right a lot of the time then that means that they have climate down.

You chide me for not putting them on an altar..  I say that I have the logical way of looking at it... I say that they have made great strides...  I praise them that they can often get it right for the next few hours.. they can see systems developing... I think it is amazing when they get 90% of a weekly forecast mostly right...

I am pragmatic tho... I know they don't do well past that... a month... a year... better to just look at entrails at that point... now.. you want me to believe that they suddenly aquired the ability to forecast years... decades.. even centuries into the future?   It is you, not I that is not looking at reality.   It is you and not I who's agenda is showing.

lazs

[lazs2]

moray... I am very glad that you are at least looking into other things than co2 as causing climate change.   I think that one is about to go out the window in any case.. very little talk of it these days.

But... not when I started these conversations... at that point..  it was a given that co2 was the reason a la algore.. hell...  he got an oscar and probly a nobel prize... it was a forgone conclusion that "IT'S THE C02 STUPID"  

anyone who disagreed was vilified and there were calls to have em removed from the scientific community... loss of licenses and such...

Of course I am glad that some scientists had the courage to start looking at it objectively... to point out that the math didn't add up.   I am glad that other causes are being looked at...  I am even glad that they admit that at least.. at the very least.. the sun does 25% of it.

When they stop spinning their wheels on the political agenda co2 boogeyman.. maybe some real research can be done but...  ya got to admit.. the fact that so many of em were willing to go along with it means that they are pretty much worthless potatos and not to be trusted with important conclusions for the most part.  It will always be prudent to believe about half of what they say is absolute proven fact.

lazs

[Ocean27]

Originally posted by lazs2
Alternative fuels take time because the time is not right.    

Yes it is, which is why it's already happening, like i said, in other countries. Sweden has/had the highest per capita energy expenditure in Europe, and decided to do something about it. Brazil has lots of sugar cane...

And... your northern neighbour has an abundance of nuclear fuel which could be used in nuclear generators. I seem to remember hearing about power shortages in California in the last 2-3 years. Do you still maintain the time is not right?

[Angus]

Time is right on high tide.

To sail.

[JimBear]

Time for a post that will not be read (page 20 no less)
This article is by a Scientist that I am sure is known as a whacko with no credentials at all.
Best of all it is really an enjoyable read

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

[AKIron]

Originally posted by JimBear
Time for a post that will not be read (page 20 no less)
This article is by a Scientist that I am sure is known as a whacko with no credentials at all.
Best of all it is really an enjoyable read

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

Interesting read JimBear, thanks.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
moray... I am very glad that you are at least looking into other things than co2 as causing climate change.   I think that one is about to go out the window in any case.. very little talk of it these days.

But... not when I started these conversations... at that point..  it was a given that co2 was the reason a la algore.. hell...  he got an oscar and probly a nobel prize... it was a forgone conclusion that "IT'S THE C02 STUPID"  

anyone who disagreed was vilified and there were calls to have em removed from the scientific community... loss of licenses and such...

Of course I am glad that some scientists had the courage to start looking at it objectively... to point out that the math didn't add up.   I am glad that other causes are being looked at...  I am even glad that they admit that at least.. at the very least.. the sun does 25% of it.

When they stop spinning their wheels on the political agenda co2 boogeyman.. maybe some real research can be done but...  ya got to admit.. the fact that so many of em were willing to go along with it means that they are pretty much worthless potatos and not to be trusted with important conclusions for the most part.  It will always be prudent to believe about half of what they say is absolute proven fact.

lazs

Laz,

You've never seen me espouse CO2 as the real problem, other than in the acidification process in the ocean.  CO2, in my opinion, is the gateway to starting a positive feedback loop, that continues on to the eventual release of many cubic miles of methane into our atmosphere.  CO2 is not a particularly good greenhouse gas, definately not on the order of water vapor and CH4.  

My fundamental issue lies with the minor consequences that CO2 will transcribe into the end game.  CO2 might take us up 3 degrees, 5 degrees, whatever...it's the methane release that will be a serious issue.

CO2 by itself.... not a major concern, well, at least to those of us living higher that 15 feet above sea level...  It only accounts for 4% of warming.  CO2 as a stepstool to an even worse outcome... very plausible.

[Angus]

The force of the finger of a trigger,,,,,of a cannon.