engineerdude

We all know the process of sublimation. Sublimation of course increases as temperature increases. But the problem is that most world temperatures are not increasing at all - so sublimation should be less of a factor than before. You folks talk about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. The closest temperature station I can find to there with a decent time-record is at Addis Ababa Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data To sum it up, it has been way, way warmer in recent times than now. The snows of Kilimanjaro are not disappearing due to an increase in temperatures. Probably. This is all based on the very spotty temperature record we have in Africa. There are very few places with a 100-year temperature record. But the limited amount of hard evidence we do have says that it is not particularly warm at Mount Kilimanjaro right now.

Hi, this is not "anecdotal" science. Al Gore claims that Greenland is the warmest it's been on record, and I say it is not. Pro-warming people say that the polar sea ice is rapidly disappearing, I show data that it is not. This post is a direct rebuttal to some of the most basic "evidence" continually sited by warmists. As for your posts, there is one current one (the first one) that discusses some ice core data and related conclusions from a group. Good stuff, but nothing to do with whether the polar ice caps are currently melting. The rest of your articles you have listed use data from 1988 to 2002 - which ignores most of the strong cooling and ice growth seen in over the past decade. Warmists continually say about the crisis we are in NOW, so please post some current info to support that. If you can.

*Global* temperatures are mostly *bullshit*; before the 1970's there was no way to actually obtain global data, and even the satellites require extrapolations and estimations. Extrapolations and estimations of data are open to political and personal biases. The recent email scandal at UEA are a good example of people attempting to move *Global* temperature reconstructions toward a specific political goal. People make comments like "Greenland is getting dangerously warm". That is a comment that can be easily proven or debunked, we have excellent current and historical data. There are no adjustments or extrapolations needed - we can just look at the darn thermometer readings. The hard, temperature station data will not lie, and no one can introduce biases into it. And there is no warming problem in Greenland. Weather is, of course very localized and variable - one day, week, or season at one location does not have much global significance. But if you say it's too warm in Greenland, we can easily look and see if it is, in fact, too warm there. Are there no pro-global warming people who can provide an answer to this?

Hi all, I did a previous post a few days back about a news story I say on T.V. concerning how Peruvian glaciers are disappearing due to climate change. I'd like to expand on that post further, and invite comment from you folks who still support people-caused "climate change". Specifically, my question is this: why does everyone (the media mostly) think the polar ice caps are declining? 1. First off, it is not very warm in Greenland right now, and it hasn't been warm in a while. There exists a good temperature station on Greenland itself, with a nearly-complete records going back to 1895. This station is called Angmagssalik, and it's located at 65.6 N 37.6 W. A link to the temperature data is below. This station shows that, overall, it was generally much warmer in Greenland in the 1930's to the 1950's than now, often more than 1 degree C higher. Link to the temperature data: Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data 2. Satellites show that the North Polar ice caps are just fine. In recent times there was much less ice than now. For instance, in 1974, there was a maximum of 14.08 million square kilometers of ice. The maximum this year was 14.42 million square kilometers of ice. Also, the minimum ice extent has increased every year for the past 5 years, and the min ice is now about where it was in 1990. So what's the friggin emergency? Link to the ice data is here: National/Naval Ice Center I have used non-biased sources for this data. No UEA, no oil companies, just NASA NOAA stuff. Seriously people, tell me what I am missing here. If it is not very warm up north, and the ice cap is not actually decreasing, what the heck are people worried about? -Brian

Working in an 1870's British factory? Huh? I understand it's your opinion that it's *long* past due to give some form of valuation to nature. I myself value nature a great deal. But that is not what this thread is about, this is about the repercussions if anthropogenic global warming proves to be a hoax. Lastly, I would be very happy to tell you why the concept that CO2 influences global climate is ridiculous. But not here. Again, that's not this thread. So, Freeztar, what do you think the harm would be (if any) if Al Gore-ish global warming turns out out to be fake?

Well, I think the entire issue of CO2 is nonsense. And CO2 is what the current "climate change" activists focus on. There is a good possibility we will have some forms of carbon tax and such - when, in time, if CO2 is shown to be irrelevant to global climate, how will normal people feel about being legislated and taxed upon for a non-existent issue?

I think it does matter if global warming is fake. There are genuine environmental problems facing the world today - our water is all polluted, the world's tropical forests are disappearing, and we are pumping soot and other crap into our air. However, the attention span and patience of "normal" people is pretty short. People who believe in AGW are pissing away the support and will of the world's people. Once global warming is shown to be a non-issue, the average Joe will feel so betrayed that it will be generations before we can get support to fix real problems. How many rivers will be lost, how many millions of acres of forest will be destroyed when we have an environmentally-apathetic world population for 20 or 30 years?

Hi everybody, I was watching the NBC nightly news tonight, and they did a segment on how Global Warming was causing the glaciers to melt in Peru. They showed video footage of the glaciers and they did look pretty meltie. The news report said that the glaciers could be gone completely by 2015. So, I decided to check and see how much warming there actually has been in that area of the world, so I went to the US government's web page for this sort of thing. The closest station to the glaciers I could find with a decent temperature record was at Cuzco (13.6S, 72.0W). The glaciers are higher in elevation, but are pretty close to this Cuzco station. Well, it turns out that there is no global warming in Cuzco. Quite the opposite, in fact - it is about the coldest it has been in the last 70 years. It is currently more than 2 degrees C colder than the 1940's, and one degree colder than the 1970's. Here's a chart, which can be found at Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data This is the closest temperature station to the glaciers I can find with any kind of historical record. It looks pretty clear that global warming is not causing the decline of these glaciers - what else can it be? Decline in precipitation? Soot in the air?

I think you folks are making this way way too complicated. Look at it this way - if every bit of animal life disappeared, and the plants remained, we would still scrub about the same amount of CO2 from the air. With no animal life, the carbon from the dead plants would just sit in the soil once the plant decayed, and become coal or petroleum or whatever. Certainly there is life in Antarctica, and in deserts - but that is irrelevant to this thread. My point is that over 97% of all plant life is in the oceans, not on the land - and that the Amazon forest makes up a small percentage of that even smaller percentage of land plant life. Thus, variances in thickness of the Amazon would have a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Essay, I do not agree that soil microbes have much to do with the composition of our atmosphere. The green plants that live by photosynthesis are what removes CO2 from the air - the rest of the life forms on our planet do the very opposite. And, as I have posted above, 97.2% of the plant life that scrubs the CO2 lives in the oceans. Desertification, intense farming, etc. all are unpleasant, but there just aren't enough land plants to affect CO2 levels much.

I find this collapse of civilizations around 1500 intriguing as well - but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with CO2. Perhaps there is something that both causes large-scale disruptions and also causes a change in CO2 levels, but I do not see how the Amazon can have anything to do with it, at least not directly. To explain, look at this: total biomass of all land plants: 1.25 billion tons total biomass of blue-green algae in oceans: 44 billion tons Far from being a "desert" of life, the oceans contain 97.2% of all the plant life on our planet, by mass. The blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) are what gave us our current atmosphere starting 2.8 billion years ago, and they continue, through sheer volume, to say what happens in our air. Here's a nice article on cyanobacteria: Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't the world's oceans, which cover 70% of our planet, soak up the vast majority of planetary CO2? There's many articles that discuss this, but here's one: Carbon dioxide: where does it all go? | Science News | Find Articles at BNET Don't get me wrong I think the Amazon is cool and all, but as far as being a CO2 sink it isn't very significant.

The data you are linking to is quite different than the data I am referring to. They are both from the same institute, but by different people. The information you present supports your argument - but the NASA Goddard data I am using illustrates potentially severe problems in the GISS climate models. The solar irradiation data I refer to shows that current levels are the highest in 2000 years, and this is not reflected in the models. So, which person at NASA Goddard is correct? Judith Lean (your person) or Drew Shindell (my guy)? P.S. I don't appreciate the nasty tone in your previous post.

Hehe no, that is not what I am attempting to get across at all. Based on data from NASA's Goddard institute, the sun is currently putting out more energy than it has in the past 2000 years. In the year 2000, the last year I can find NASA Goddard data, the earth was receiving daily solar irradiance of 1367.5 W/m2. In 1800, the sun was sending us 1365.5 W/m2, and the amount of energy reaching earth steadily increased over the next 200 years to our current extremely high amounts of sunlight. A link to charts showing this information is here, on page 24 of the document: http://www.yale.edu/yibs/Solar%20Variability%20Program/2008_Yale_solar_Shindell.pdf This is the information that is not reflected in the climate models - the fact that we are simply getting more energy sent to the surface of our planet than ever before. The NASA Goddard climate models talk of "solar forcings" and such. I am not a climate modeler, and I have no way to decipher the code that NASA used for their models, and there seems to be varying opinions of exactly what a "forcing" is. But I can look at their inputs. And I cannot find anywhere that NASA Goddard models are taking into account the fact that the sun is brighter than ever before in recorded history. Can you find anything about this?

The link you have referenced above say that they model solar irradiation - not that they take into account real-world changes in it.

This document you link is only for regional stuff - there is nothing I can find in the overall climate models that reflects this. And the overall models are what everyone looks at, talks about.

Oh, my God. The NASA Goddard people are really off base. As a result of the quoted post I decided to actually look at the climate models the NASA Goddard people are using. An extensive description of their models can be found here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf THESE MODELS IGNORE OVERALL CHANGES IN SUNLIGHT These models assume that the amount of energy zooming to us through space never ever changes. For this assumption to be valid Earth's orbit would have to be perfectly symmetrical, and the sun could never be a little brighter or dimmer. In addition, even though the report I linked above was published in July 2008, all the charts shown end in 2000. That was the year all the IPCC and NASA climate models stopped working, even with the IPCC's exaggerated data. How can no one have ever actually looked at these models outside of Goddard, and pointed out the problems which make the results totally invalid?

So why are the IPCC models and projections always off by so much, and nothing is done to correct them? In addition, the information you cited concerned a climate model and the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Obviously, not every climate model are stupidly wrong - just the global warming ones. :)

To expand a bit on what Turtle said above, Component S1 is called a solid state relay. It is similar to a transistor, but it is an on-or-off device only. B1 is a 9v battery, SW1 is a push button switch, and R3 is a resistor that will limit the current that flows from the battery B1. If you didn't have the resistor R3 you'd probably get more current than S1 could handle. If we close switch SW1, a current will flow in the loop, including through the relay S1. These flowing electrons "switches on" the relay, and allows current to flow from 3 to 1 in the relay S1. This current that affects the state of the solid state relay is called a "bias current". When the bias current stops, the relay will shut down. Why have the relay at all you may ask - doesn't the switch SW1 do the same thing as this circuit in the red box? The answer is that you don't want humans to come close to dangerous voltages - it looks like the main part of the circuit runs at 200VDC, which is way dangerous. With the circuit like this the switch SW1, which a person would push to make things happen, never sees more than 9v, so if there was a short or something nobody would get zapped too harshly.

The models that show the planet is warmer due to preindustrial CO2 are the same models that predicted a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the next century - and the real-world data is quickly removing that possibility. Until somebody comes up with a model that works, all we can say for sure is that the effects of CO2 on planetary climate have been overstated.

Sorry I didn't comment on your last point 'cause it sounds fine to me. But doesn't the planet already remove CO2 from the air via biosequestration?

The pro-AGW people will say that because these charts were created by anti-global warming people that we need to disregard them. This is a scientific fallacy called Circumstantial Ad Hominem. I have referenced this data in this thread before, and the pro-AWG people will not acknowledge or bother to critically look at this information.

Here's what's wrong with the data: IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming The chart you reference above was created with the incorrect data. 2008 was the coldest year in a long time, and global temperatures have been in an overall decline since 1996.

I actually very much understand the mechanism which the AGW people say exists. I have done extensive reading of everything I could find, and as far as I know I have reviewed and I fully comprehend what the AGW scientists have put forth. Just because I understand the process put forth does not mean that I say it is logical or correct. By my judgment it is neither. Want proof? The IPCC created sophisticated computer models based on their climate theories. They used these models to project out how changes in our atmosphere will affect global temperatures. Their projections had a max and min range, with uncertainty increasing over time, but basically they showed that if CO2 kept increasing things were going to get a whole lot warmer. Real world climate has in no way done what the IPCC claimed they would do since they first published their projections in 2001. World temperatures have not in fact increased at all despite a substantial increase in CO2 levels. Our current planetary temperature is so far below even the lowest IPCC projection that clearly something in their science or methodology is clearly screwed up. Did they mess up programming their model? Or is the science incorrect that their model was based on? I think both, but you decide for yourself. Here's a link to an article with all kinds of charts and data concerning this, and verifying what I have stated above: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/

This isn't how our world works. There is no energy trapped or "held" in our atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is like a blanket around our planet - it does not trap energy, it just slows the movement of heat, both coming in and going out. Again, there is no significant energy trapped any place in the atmosphere - changes in air composition just make heat move faster or slower. The only part of the sun's energy that is actually held on earth is that from chemical processes or photosynthesis. The rest of the energy is just moved around and eventually radiated back out to space. The greenhouse effect has no ability to hold any energy.