New Data Validates Global Warming Projections

[cygonaut]

New Data Validates Global Warming Projections

 

Climate scientists, with the aid of diving robots probing the world's warming seas, have found the heat exchange between Earth and space is seriously out of balance -- what the researchers called a "smoking gun" discovery that validates forecasts of global warming.

 

Full story at:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/28/global.warming.ap/index.html

[Tormod]

Thanks for your post - but it is against our rules (and the laws of most countries) to post copyrighted material. Post the title, a summary, and a link.

 

Or better yet: Go directly to the source and get the full, non-copyrighted press release, which we CAN use:

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/teia-sce042505.php

[cygonaut]

Thank you for pointing that out to me.

 

Sorry all.

[UncleAl]

Global warming is the ficative desiccation and immolation of the entire Earth for political convenience and the Carbon Tax on Everything.

 

1) We know exactly how much fossil fuel is burned each year.

2) Uncertainty in natural CO2 emissions is greater than total anthropogenic CO2.

3) California has had the wettest year in 120 years. Average temps have sustained at ten dgrees F below normal for more than three months. Michigan got snow in April as well as a number of other states...

5) Both Arctic and Antarctic winter temps are the lowest on record, rationalizing the Ozone Hole. Get your lies organized.

4) We are in an interglacial. The planet is supposed to be warm. Earth cycles between snowball and tropical forest. The Carboniferous Period was 64 million years of warm humid global Garden of Eden. What is wrong with that?

 

That which supports Global Warming supports it.

That ignores supports Global Warming supports it.

That which contradicts Global Warming supports it - more studies needed.

Anybody who questions Global Warming is thereby proven unfit to judge.

 

The Emperor is naked.

[cygonaut]

Global warming is the ficative desiccation and immolation of the entire Earth for political convenience and the Carbon Tax on Everything.

 

1) We know exactly how much fossil fuel is burned each year.

2) Uncertainty in natural CO2 emissions is greater than total anthropogenic CO2.

3) California has had the wettest year in 120 years. Average temps have sustained at ten dgrees F below normal for more than three months. Michigan got snow in April as well as a number of other states...

5) Both Arctic and Antarctic winter temps are the lowest on record, rationalizing the Ozone Hole. Get your lies organized.

4) We are in an interglacial. The planet is supposed to be warm. Earth cycles between snowball and tropical forest. The Carboniferous Period was 64 million years of warm humid global Garden of Eden. What is wrong with that?

 

That which supports Global Warming supports it.

That ignores supports Global Warming supports it.

That which contradicts Global Warming supports it - more studies needed.

Anybody who questions Global Warming is thereby proven unfit to judge.

 

The Emperor is naked.

 

 

Thanks for your response.

 

I'm a skeptic and myth-buster myself as well as a space development block-buster.

 

There is indeed political spin involved and I propose that the bulk of it is coming from the right who are abundantly cost-conscious but, sadly, as benefit blind as it gets.

 

Anyway, just above the title on that CNN page is a link to a "Timeline" which is interesting I think.

[cygonaut]

The National Climatic Data Center has long served the Nation as a national resource for climate information. NCDC develops national and global data sets used by government and the private sector. NCDC's climate data has been used in agriculture, air quality, construction, education, energy, engineering, forestry, health, insurance, landscape design, livestock management, manufacturing, recreation and tourism, retailing, transportation, and water resources management. The center's data fulfills needs ranging from building codes to power plant and space shuttle design.

 

Here's NCDC's FAQ's on Global Warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

 

If you have questions about where you can find or obtain data, you can write to

 

[email protected]

[cygonaut]

To further complicate things (and so I don't have to start another thread -lol), the earth has become brighter.

 

But nobody knows why.

 

The brightening could partly explain the record-high global temperatures reported in the late 1990's, and it could accelerate the planet's warming trend.

 

Source

[Fishteacher73]

This could be a combination of albedo of both of the surface as well as atmosphere. That is if you are implying by bright meaning light is at a higher intensity.

This could also be a result of solar variations.

[cygonaut]

This could be a combination of albedo of both of the surface as well as atmosphere. That is if you are implying by bright meaning light is at a higher intensity.

This could also be a result of solar variations.

 

The earth, overall, was getting dimmer for decades, then, overall, the earth began getting brighter starting around 1990. Some places stayed about the same dimness, others, such as in India, got dimmer.

 

The dimming helps reduce the greenhouse effect though the earth was still getting hotter.

 

The growing overall brightness since 1990 might explain the unusual heat in the late 1990's.

[Biochemist]

...There is indeed political spin involved and I propose that the bulk of it is coming from the right....

Huh? Global warming is a cleanly leftist issue. How did it become a political element of the right???

[Biochemist]

Here's NCDC's FAQ's on Global Warming

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

This appears to be a reasonably biased report. It seems to discount (and, in fact,barely reference) the discontinuity between surface/troposhpere measurements and the physics of greenhouse gas warming. It also asserts that artic ice is decreasing, in spite of recent evidence to the reverse. This does not appear to be an even handed review.

[Buffy]

...There is indeed political spin involved and I propose that the bulk of it is coming from the right....

Huh? Global warming is a cleanly leftist issue. How did it become a political element of the right???

Global warming is a human issue. Its of course interesting that the leftist governments of China and India are completely aligned with the pro-business lobby here. If there's polarization on this issue its those who have significant economic interests in the short-term versus those who are concerned about the long-term consequences for our decendents (I'll hold my tongue about those who think that Armageddon is right around the corner so global warming doesn't matter). My main point here is that I disagree with both of you: I see strong feelings on both sides of this issue that completely span the political spectrum.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

This appears to be a reasonably biased report. It seems to discount (and, in fact,barely reference) the discontinuity between surface/troposhpere measurements and the physics of greenhouse gas warming. It also asserts that artic ice is decreasing, in spite of recent evidence to the reverse. This does not appear to be an even handed review.

Oh my! Curiouser and curiouser! Why is the Bush Administration (which is in full control of the Dept of Commerce and NOAA) producing pro-global warming propaganda????

 

Arctic ice is indeed decreasing, and there are people investigating the business opportunities represented by the opening of the Northwest Passage because of it. The melting of the northern ice cap will not affect sea level. There is great concern about the breakup of several ice shelves in Antartica (rocky might help us there) which are also melting, but there is data showing that a couple of Antartic glaciers are increasing in size, although they represent a minority and do not offset the melting activity completely.

 

With all this conflicting data, it is easy to take the side that you feel most comfortable with, but the balance of the opinions of the experts I've read up on all seem to agree that the trends are more than worrisome. Even if it turns out that we're not necessarily headed into a complete meltdown, the effects of man's contribution to the global climate will undoubtedly disturb the VERY unusual period of low variability in the Earth's climate, and we are headed toward a return of the "normal" climate fluctuations that wildly swing from Ice Age to Swamp Age, that will not be good for civilization.

 

The folks who argue that the "solutions" like Kyoto are "just too expensive" (yes, on the left and the right) just aren't taking into account the long-term consequences. On the other hand, it may indeed be too late so we might as well just sit around and enjoy our Kool-Aid...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Smokinjoe9]

I have to go with buffy on this one.. we are going to get all sweaty and have no place to cool down, heha..I understand or believe it is typical earth cycling, but may be rushed a bit by human's insatiable apetite for burning up natural resources..Oh and Hair Spray. :(

[cygonaut]

Huh? Global warming is a cleanly leftist issue. How did it become a political element of the right???

 

Because it's a leftist issue.

 

(lol)

[Biochemist]

Arctic ice is indeed decreasing...

True. I misspoke. The issue is that polar ice may not be decreaseing since antarctic ice appears to be increasing. Sorry for my inarticulation.

...There is great concern about the breakup of several ice shelves in Antartica (rocky might help us there) which are also melting, but there is data showing that a couple of Antartic glaciers are increasing in size, although they represent a minority and do not offset the melting activity completely.

I think this is not generally accepted.

With all this conflicting data, it is easy to take the side that you feel most comfortable with, but the balance of the opinions of the experts I've read up on all seem to agree that the trends are more than worrisome.

Hmmm. This is significant step forward. "Worrisome" is a much different position than the inevitable "dire" consequences predicted by the core of the media.

...the effects of man's contribution to the global climate will undoubtedly disturb the VERY unusual period of low variability in the Earth's climate, and we are headed toward a return of the "normal" climate fluctuations that wildly swing from Ice Age to Swamp Age, that will not be good for civilization.

The variability argument is valid. The difficulty is establishing ANY causality that is remotely anthrpocentric in it.

The folks who argue that the "solutions" like Kyoto are "just too expensive" (yes, on the left and the right) just aren't taking into account the long-term consequences.

Sorry, I am in that camp. I think we ought to establish reasonable causality before we impose a multi-trillion-per-year cost on the global economy.

[Buffy]

I think this is not generally accepted.

Antarctic shelf breakup is large and measurable, and the data shows that many more Antarctic glaciers are receding that growing, although there clearly are some that are growing. "Acceptance" is the issue:

The difficulty is establishing ANY causality that is remotely anthrpocentric in it.Sorry, I am in that camp. I think we ought to establish reasonable causality before we impose a multi-trillion-per-year cost on the global economy.

Unfortunately in this debate, there is no way to *absolutely* prove that "man is causing global warming". Due to the complexities of the systems being observed, the only thing that can be done is to define percentages and probabilities, thus allowing anyone who does not like the conclusions to say it is "not proven." Because of the huge dollars involved, there are going to be lots of people who have huge incentives to simply say "no" to *any* initiatives. Kyoto is not perfect, but I've argued elsewhere (1648) that its better to work with something than to stick one's head in the sand, and more importantly, there seem to be opportunities (some extremely selfish--see that thread) that people are not considering. Sad that our children will have to live with our lack of foresight (on both sides: sad when the extremists win because the majority sits on its hands).

 

Cheers,

Buffy