There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere 109 Replies latest jw friends

  • SWALKER
    SWALKER

    ...........

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Wow. This is new data. I read the EPA reports that were awaiting this data (it was supposed to be released at the end of 2005) and the data available up until 2004 was not nearly so dramatic. I imagine NOAA wanted to make sure they got this VERY right before publishing it.

    I'll have to study up on this after I've had 40 winks. Thanks, SWALKER!

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • FreeWilly
    FreeWilly
    Where is the scientific record of the CO2 amount during the last Ice Age? How was that monitored?

    I posted this graph earlier, but for reference you may want to look at it again. Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

    Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

    Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

  • FreeWilly
    FreeWilly

    SWALKER,

    The New Scientist article you cited made an interesting observation. Did you notice it's mention of Ocean as a CO2 adsorber? It's the worlds largest adsorbtion mechanism. It's interesting that the warm El Nino waters seemed to result in an increase of CO2. I find that telling.

    Notice too, on the above graph that Global temperature often precede a rise CO2. This trend has been observed in recent times as well.

    Warming is believed to be the cause of elevated CO2 due to decreased adsorbtion capability. link

    I found the known causes of warming pretty interesting. Still think our 0.2% addition of CO2 (in our already CO2 impoverished atmosphere) is the causative agent?

    From: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

    (1) Astronomical Causes

    • 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
    • 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
    • 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
    • 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

    (2) Atmospheric Causes

    • Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
    • Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps

    (3) Tectonic Causes

    • Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
    • Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
  • The Mayor of Turiwhate
    The Mayor of Turiwhate

    It has often been said "There are lies, blatant lies - and then there are statistics!"

    The question is in this matter - as well as many others - is whose statistics are correct?

    The Mayor of Turiwhate

  • FreeWilly
    FreeWilly

    Which statistics do you find in conflict? In the GW issue, there is not alot of contested data. It is the implications and forcasts made on the existing data that is disputed.

  • The Mayor of Turiwhate
    The Mayor of Turiwhate

    The forecasts, implications and the statistics themselves in this issue are all intertwined - making the statistics as much in dispute as anything else.

  • FreeWilly
    FreeWilly

    I'm sorry, I guess I just don't follow..... maybe you can provide a real example that you have noticed in the GW data.

    Statistics are the collection, analysis and quantification of observed facts. While there is room for error in the collection, the analysis or the quantification of the results, these errors are in no way dependant on predictions that may, or may not, be made sometime later. A peer review process looks closely for these errors before the results are considered accurate.

    With all respect, it sounds like a lazy way to dismiss the facts.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Btw, FreeWilly, I don't have time to revisit this subject right now, but thanks for your earlier response, I'll definitely read it thoroughly soon.

  • serendipity
    serendipity

    HI Mayor of T, welcome to the forum!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit