Global warming.

[marduk]

my main interest is early man, before we started slaughtering each other!

you probably would need to go back to early protozoa to find a species that doesnt slaughter each other
we all do it
and even with the protozoa they can be nasty absorbing sons of bitches

[Beagle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... 79,00.html

An international panel of scientists has proposed that all countries cease building on coastal land that is less than a metre above high tide so as to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change.
The recommendation was one of many from experts from 11 countries, working for the UN, who have spent two years devising a blueprint to allow countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change in the next century.

Maybe not a bad idea!

[Minimalist]

They should have thought of that before starting to rebuild New Orleans.

[Bruce]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Pacif ... a_999.html

This image of the Pacific Ocean was produced using sea-surface height measurements taken by the U.S.-French Jason satellite. The image is based on the average of 10 days of data centered on February 12, 2007, compared to the long-term average of observations from 1993 through 2005.

In this image, places where the Pacific sea surface height is higher (warmer) than normal are yellow and red, and places where the sea surface is lower (cooler) than normal are blue and purple. Green shows where conditions are near normal. Sea-surface height is an indicator of the heat content of the upper ocean.

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory manages the U.S. portion of the U.S./French Jason mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.

iDoes sea height mean the same as coastal elevation?

[Digit]

Thursday night on UK TV showed 'The Great Global Warming Swindle.'
It explained how it all got started, showed evidence that tore the conventional views apart, brought out people with impeccable academic qualifications, and called the UN IPCC statement a 'Lie.'
There were people on the programme whose names were used to bolster the UN's argument who bitterly opposed the use of their names, including one man who had threatened legal action to get his name withdrawn.
It showed the original draught document, which included a statement, 'that there was no conclusive proof that global warming was man made' and which the UN had deleted.
The programme challenged the UN on that an other points and were informed that, yes they had deleted them but it did not alter the findings.
Question. Then why delete them?

[Forum Monk]

Bruce
If I'm not mistaken, sea height is a measure of water temperature near the surface. Because warmer water expands and rises slightly. It must be a very delicate intrument.


Digit
Too bad you didn't tape it and send it to a few people. Anyway, I personally am seeing some credible research evolve from the correlation of Milankovich cycles and the 41,000 year cycle of the obliquity of the ecliptic. This in combination with the eccentricity (as small as it might be) of the earth's orbit around the sun, will coincide periodically into a situation were the thermal energy from the sun waxes and wanes. This could well be our best hope at explaining the natural cycle which ultimately leads to ice ages and global warming. The true effect of the variations on the global ecology is unknown but may become self-feeding so to speak.

[Digit]

To be honest Monk I thought more people over here would have watched it.
Apart from people airing their grievances about the IPPC the programme covered other subjects.
EG. the use of the 40yr filter removed completely the 35yr temp downturn from the 40s to the mid 70s, a time when CO2 was rising at a faster rate than ever before in the recovery period after WW2, therebye showing on the IPPC graph as a steady rise in both.
They showed that independent researchers, not climatologists, had shown a VERY accurate correlation bewteen sunspot activity and temp rise and cloud formation.
They explained how warm seas give forth CO2 and absorb it when the sea temp drops, causing the demonstrated delay between temp rise and CO2 rise, the opposite of the G&D scenario.
They showed how the UN had lied on health scares. The UN saying that temp rise would result in increased Malaria in Europe, saying that the Malarial Mosquito could not survive below 16C. Then crashed in flames when it was shown that an out break in the 30s had killed 10000 people in Archangel.
And so it went on, and so far I have seen no attempt by the G&D merchants to rubbish the academics who were on the programme nor their conclusions.

[Forum Monk]

One curious thing about your post, Digit. Why would the UN lie? Being misled by faulty science is one thing, lying another. This would suggest, perhaps, there was some other motivation at work which could be fulfilled by linking malaria to GW. In others words, no doubt, someone was going to get rich. Was this touched on at all?

[Digit]

Sure thing Monk. Apparently the IPPC was kicked off by Mrs Thatcher asking scientists to come up with something to bash the anti nuclear energy do gooders with.
Then the US increased funding for research from $175Mill to $2Bill a year and now something like 10000 jobs are at risk if CO2 is accepted as not the primary cause of GW. That's a lot of vested interest.
One of the problems is that climatologists have not taken into account any external causes, solar, or orbital variations, for example because it tends to be outside their speciality and they tended to discount what they knew little about, and their argument seems now to be 'well if we're wrong it won't do any harm cutting fossil fuel dependency,' and meantime the funding keeps coming.
I doubt the UN itself lied as they simply convened the meeting and then had the finished papers peer reviewed then published, so the deletions were probably done by the peer reviewers, most of whom have the same vested interest.
To make up the 2500 names on the final paper someone included everybody bar the tea lady apparently. Al this does is devalue the work of the serious scientists.

[Leona Conner]

Now that Al Gore has his Oscar, you can bet this subject isn't going anywhere for a long time. He'll be able to bring in money for his side of the battle. IMO, if GW is just part of the cycle of life. we humans are probably helping to move it along just a little faster.

[Forum Monk]

What if the opposite were true?



After all, we know so little about how it all works on a global scale with all the cause and effect of pumping copious amounts of gases into the atmosphere. I go with Digit on this one.

[Digit]

I've joined the GW Skeptics forum Monk and the same old tired arguments are being trotted out there as well.
Apparently some contributers to the Channel 4 programme are up in arms at the way their views were presented. Much the way some contributers are with the UN it seems.
Occam on GW skeptics says he puts his 'faith' the ultimate development of clean energy. I've asked him 'such as?'

[Gary Svindal]

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds


By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 12 March 2007
07:27 am ET

[Forum Monk]

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" a documentary by Martin Durkin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7638&hl=en


1 hour and 16 minutes

[Forum Monk]

The video link, I posted above is the Channel 4 documentary that Digit referenced in an earlier post, I believe. I thought the message was very compelling in that it put the facts into perspective concerning the relationship between, GW and CO2; examined the political history of the current GW 'movement'; and showed better correlations between GW and solar activity. This confirms my own independent research into the subject.

Just looking at a few facts about CO2 and ignoring all other data and extrapolating from my previous research and posts about Co2 sinks and sources:

The average temeperature of the earth rose from 1900 to 1940. The release of man-made Co2 began to climb exponentially in 1940 during the ramp up of war production. Temperatures began to fall and continued to fall for the next 4 decades. Inspite of the ramp up of Co2 production.

The majority of the existing rise in temperature occured prior to exponential rise in man-made Co2.

The earths atmosphere is 0.034% Co2 and Co2 is the most insignificant of all the greenhouse gases. Water vapor being many orders of magnitude more significant.

Of the 0.034% Co2, man-made Co2 is about 3% of the of the total. Hence the earths atmosphere is comprised 0.001 percent man-made Co2.

The ice core borings in the arctic showed that Co2 rises in the atmosphere lagged the temperature rise on average by 800 years (over the many millions of years prior to the industrial age).

The largest producer of Co2, the ocean, releases more gas when it is warmed and sinks more when it is cooled, possibly explaining the lag effect of Co2 from temperature rise.

These are the facts and the science on Co2. Global warming is NOT caused by Co2, it is a consequence of global warming. My advice is to educate yourself about the science (Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist), and considered the enormous amont of money being given for research tied to global warming and ask yourself how unbiased could it possibly be when the research puts bread on the table.

Digit, as far as I'm concerned, the debate is over and we can close this thread.