Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We aren't changing climate (N.C. Sen. Robert Pittenger gets it)
The Charlotte Observer ^ | Sunday, February 5, 2006 | Senator Robert Pittenger

Posted on 02/07/2006 8:58:03 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: Sacajaweau

I'm more thinking of the GW argument as put forth by "scientists" performing non-blind "research" that perpetuate the manmade GW myth, in part, to get more funding to do more research to perpetuate the myth to get more funding.....

...but you're spot on per the aspects of the economic impacts.


21 posted on 02/07/2006 10:41:32 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment...cut in half during the Clinton years....Nec Aspera Terrent!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Not a convincing article.

From the article cited: "Unfortunately, because it has proved difficult to merge the data from consecutive satellites in the series that have watched the sun for the past 20 or so years, it is not certain whether the sun's output has increased over that period. One study found that there had been no increase over that time period. A second found that that there had been a small increase (around 0.1%)."

Sorry, but 0.1% is not a small increase. Thats the difference between the solar maximus and solar minimus.

The article then goes on to try and compare various solar measurements with what appears to be ground-based measurements. Ground-based measurements have been largely discredited because of urban heating effects.

The article then references another article that states: "Willson (Columbia University solar physicist) says his work with ACRIM and a handful of other sensors shows not only that the total solar irradiance varies over the 11-year solar cycle, but that it has crept upward between the last two solar minimums."


22 posted on 02/07/2006 10:50:02 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The current warming trend over the past 150 years -- acclerating since the mid-1980s -- is too fast to be caused by astronomical cycles. Those factors operate on time-scales of 1-10,000 years.

You cannot accurately predict a trend based on a time scale using only 20 years of data with regards to climate change.

23 posted on 02/07/2006 11:20:56 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
You cannot accurately predict a trend based on a time scale using only 20 years of data with regards to climate change.

I didn't state a prediction, I stated an observation. The Earth has been warming since the mid-1800s, with a slight cooling trend in the mid-1900s, and the warming trend has reasserted itself in the 1980s and subsequently. The currently observed warming trend is about 4x faster than the warming observed over the entire 20th century.

The factors that force climate change on various time-scales are known. Milankovitch cyclic changes won't have a measurable effect over 100-200 years; the changes are too slow. However, there are situations when the changes are cumulative and reach an apparent tipping point, which appears to be what causes Heinrich events.

The current state of the climate is well-defined, as are the forcing factors. Predictions of what will happen in the future vary because of uncertainty regarding feedbacks.

24 posted on 02/07/2006 1:47:23 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Ground-based measurements have been largely discredited because of urban heating effects.

Wrong on two counts. One, the surface record is corrected for possible urban influence; two, the lower troposphere is warming at a rate similar to the surface rate, and the lower troposphere warming would not be appreciably affected by urban heat islands.

You might want to track down this reference:

Peterson, T.C., Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found, Journal of Climate, 16, 2941-2959, 2003.

Now, this URL would provide more information (this is where I got the reference from), but the site is down at the moment. Try it later.

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

25 posted on 02/07/2006 1:56:53 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
One, the surface record is corrected for possible urban influence...Peterson, T.C., Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found

Why correct for urban influence if there is no urban influence?

The author of the article you cited attributes the higher temperatures in urban areas to heat venting and claims a reduced urban effect from improved efficiency. However the urban heat island effect is commonly attributed to blackbody radiation, a lack of evaporative cooling, reduced convection and others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island). Your article is suspect on that issue alone. Next your article attributes 0.5C due to UHI, while the article I cite notes that it is 2C-6C

The wikipedia article notes " Some advocates charge that temperature data from heat islands has been mistakenly used as evidence for the global warming theory."

I maintain that surface temperature measurements have been largely discredited.

26 posted on 02/07/2006 2:35:46 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Can you be more specific about the MLS data set?

I'm not a climatologist, but I'm looking at several different data sets that don't quite agree with you.

I don't deny that some warming may be going on. There are so many other extraneous factors that make me doubt the environmentalists who say we're killing our mother earth, etc. Plus, the issue is so politicized.
27 posted on 02/08/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (I'm currently debating a big-time peace activist. I'll post it, so ping/mail me to read it when I do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief; Alia; 100%FEDUP; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; ~Vor~; A2J; a4drvr; Adder; Aegedius; ...

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day, TaxRelief OR Alia if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.
28 posted on 02/08/2006 10:30:35 AM PST by Constitution Day (Anger is an energy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Can you be more specific about the MLS data set?

I screwed up. I meant MSU, which is in the page you poster. MSU stands for Microwave Sounding Unit, MLS stands for Microwave Limb Sounder. The MLS measures atmospheric trace gases, notably ozone.

Discussion of the temperature of the lower atmosphere or lower troposphere centers on the MSU data set. For a long time, the only analysis of the MSU data set was the UAH/NASA Huntsville analysis, also referred to as the Spencer and Christy data set. For a long time, their analysis didn't show appreciable warming -- a thorn in the side of the climate scientists and a key point in skeptical arguments. Things changed; first, the massive 1998 El Nino year forced a warming trend into a flat data set; two, several corrections have been made to the UAH/NASA analysis (in one case they had a +/- error). Now they show a warming trend, decadally 0.126 C per decade as shown on the page link you provided. This is the LOWEST of the trends calculated from the data set -- other groups have found trends in the 0.18 - 0.22 C range. Look up Fu et al. and Schnabel and Wentz. Here's a link:

More satellite stuff (follow the link in this article for more)

The key to this lower troposphere (LT) warming trend is that it is in accord with the surface warming trend. For a long time one question was that the surface appeared to be warming, but the LT didn't appear to be. Now -- as the modelers and the climate scientists would expect -- they show the same trends. This validates the surface warming observations (and significantly invalidates appeals to the "urban heat island" effect as the primary cause of the observed surface warming).

So I say that anyone who says, now, that "the satellite data doesn't show warming" is still reading from Fred Singer's stuff dated 1996-1998. Singer was still saying this only a couple of years ago, and was still widely quoted, unfortunately.

The neat thing about your page is that it shows a lot of the data sets that all show warming.

There are so many other extraneous factors that make me doubt the environmentalists who say we're killing our mother earth, etc.

I prefer the viewpoint that we are conducting a global experiment with no controls. My viewpoint is that there is cause for concern. As I indicated also, the way out is not by clamping a sock over the exhaust pipe of civilization; the way out is to change what civilization uses for energy, so that what comes out the exhaust pipe changes. Increased efficiency and new technology are the paths to the future.

29 posted on 02/08/2006 11:13:51 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Next your article attributes 0.5C due to UHI, while the article I cite notes that it is 2C-6C

I can't tell what article you are citing, and I need to read it. I know we have discussed this issue previously; did you provide the article title in an earlier discussion?

I maintain that surface temperature measurements have been largely discredited.

Read the post directly above this one. The current agreement on the lower-troposphere warming trend measured by MSU (and also AMSU, I should note) in one validation of the similar surface warming observations. It's impossible to warm the lower troposphere semi-uniformly simply by heating up isolated urban sites.

30 posted on 02/08/2006 11:18:48 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The new push for moonbats is "Cow farts" as a cause for global warming!


31 posted on 02/08/2006 11:28:54 AM PST by 100%FEDUP (I'm seeing RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Unfortunately, the debate is not about the science, it is about feeeeeeeeeeeeelings.

Or, more accurately, it's about a left wing, anti-capitalist agenda.

32 posted on 02/08/2006 4:35:43 PM PST by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

No he doesn't!!!! How in the He[[ is he going to raise beauceau bucks with a common sense attitude???


33 posted on 02/08/2006 6:18:57 PM PST by rock58seg (It's time for Islam to actually become a religion of peace or a religion of the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

The only thing the French have done correctly in the past 200 years is sink the "Greenpeace".


34 posted on 02/08/2006 6:22:48 PM PST by rock58seg (It's time for Islam to actually become a religion of peace or a religion of the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

STOP MAKING SENSE!


35 posted on 02/08/2006 6:23:21 PM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Wait a minute. How do you explain the global warming on Mars if the sun is not putting out more energy?


36 posted on 02/14/2006 6:12:57 AM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: olezip
How do you explain the global warming on Mars if the sun is not putting out more energy?

I don't have that capability, but others more capable have addressed this:

Global Warming on Mars?

I hope that helps answer your question.

37 posted on 02/14/2006 8:19:49 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Yes, but that explanation seems to discuss why there are variations within normal bounds, but does not really address the consistent trend over six Earth years of warming on Mars (three summers). Furthermore there is no systems analysis (we'll call it the big picture) of the apparent warming trend. Instead there is a lot of dicussion on minute details, thus avoiding the bigger question.


38 posted on 02/17/2006 6:37:30 PM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson