Skip to comments.National Geographic: Melting Mars Means Man-Made Global Warming a Myth
Posted on 03/01/2007 8:43:13 AM PST by AT7Saluki
click here to read article
Mars is melting, too, ping
Al Gore and other greens try to convince the public that SUV's have increased the greenhouse gases (specifically CO2).
Countering their argument is childishly simple.
Ask them to lock themselves in a garage in a SUV with the engine running. Tell them that after they are dead, we will have an autopsy done and see if they died of CO2 poisoning.
If they did, then they are right.
Since we all know they would actually die of CO poisoning (carbon monoxide), we then know they are wrong to begin with.
A secondary argument can be put forth from the knowledge that CO2 is not one of the primary greenhouse gases and does not have a major influence on the weather.
Just go to a Satellite weather website and see if they have a Sat. image of CO2. They don't. Because it's not valid in interpreting weather.
The most important greenhouse 'gas' is WATER VAPOR.
Now, the more CO2 put in the atmosphere, the better plants and trees grow. The more they grow, the more Oxygen they put in the atmosphere. Which we breathe.
So, to cutdown on CO2 (which we give off by exhaling) we must kill humans, not SUV's.
The less CO2, the less O2. The less O2, the less breathing life forms, less plant life forms. Eventually, no life.
So, the current attempt to curb CO2 emissions is an attempt to eliminate life on Earth.
Al Gore mentioned that he buys CARBON CREDITS.
What he didn't mention is that they are buying them with MONOPOLY MONEY.
Parker Brothers is very happy, though.
Ever since we landed one of these on Mars, the temperatures there have skyrocketed. Coincidence?
As I recall from charts I've seen online, C02 accounts for about 1% of the earth's greenhouse gases while water vapor accounts for about 70% or so. Is that correct?
Global warming IS happening. That is a fact.
What is not a fact is that this phenomenon is caused by man...as posited by Al Gore et al.
Somg devices have drastically reduced CO emissions. My last smog check revealed almost no CO emissions whatsoever.
With todays auto engines it is extremely difficult to get enough CO in a garage to kill yourself anymore. You'd do a lot better by just running your one cylinder lawnmower than a big V-12 SUV.
Somg = SMOG
If he "went over" to the side of the Consensus, then he probably wouldn't have a very long interview with Rush Limbaugh, I hazard. There are currently three basic levels of global warming skepticism:
High: complete denial of significant human influence, importance of atmospheric greenhouse gases, even denial of an actual observed warming and attribution of CO2 increase to human activity. Prefer business-as-usual scenarios but will occasionally admit reasonability of conservation and technology investment.
Medium: admission of observed warming, attribution to natural variability with minimal human influence, questioning of model accuracy and predictions, adherence to low-impact predictions, do not perceive necessity for alteration of activities now until more data is available.
Low: admission of observed warming, human involvement, and potential problems; remain uncertain about model predictions, preference for low-impact scenarios to high-impact or catastrophic scenarios, prefer market force solutions to mandated regulations*
So, I guess, the question is: "Do we really have the ability to correctly gauge what is causing this current warming"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do we know how to react?
Answer to first question: Incontrovertibly. Which is a "yes".
This from National Geographic??? The wheels must be coming off the bandwagon if NG is jumping off.
I would venture that would definitely be a hazard on your part. Mr. Limbaugh puts liberals to the front of the line on telephone calls. He's not afraid, nor unwilling, to discuss issues with anyone who is willing to debate. Perhaps you should call him sometime? BTW, Dr. Spencer phoned Limbaugh the day prior to the interview. After stating some of his opinion, Limbaugh set up the phone interview for the following day. It's not as though Limbaugh set this up himself.
Answer to first question: Incontrovertibly.
So you say (and no, this isn't being sarcastic; just that I'm not going to accept your word for it). I'll continue to reserve judgment until I know I've seen definite proof coming from the scientific community that I deem incontrovertible, based on methodology that has been universally accepted.
Can't waste the time trying to get through. If he would guarantee me 10 minutes, I'd be glad to inform him of the top five environmental things he's wrong about. He has problems in a lot of areas. It'd be nice to tell him so that he stopped misleading the flock so egregiously.
I'll continue to reserve judgment until I know I've seen definite proof coming from the scientific community that I deem incontrovertible, based on methodology that has been universally accepted.
For sake of conversation... such as? (And perhaps you will be doing a complete read-through of the full IPCC science working group report when it is available?)
But is it as much as the "experts" say? I think not, Urban heat Islands skew the readings.
Lots of data on this site
Incidentally, the more areas that take advantage of Green Roofs show a marked difference is temperature reduction and energy consumption.
Such as? Such as definitive proof. You seem totally acceptable to the man-made GW argument. I'm not acceptible to it. Let's leave it at that; okay?
Thanks for your input.
We can leave it where it is, and I'm not trying to pester you. But I am always curious what consitutes "definitive proof" for different people that are skeptical.
When there is even the possibility that science is incapable of developing a model that takes into consideration all the variables that exist in the earth's climate, in order to perform their evaluations, then I am skeptical. And that is one large issue in today's debate.
And when I come upon an individual who is so 'certain' of one side or the other when others of repute remain skeptical, I say 'ya, sure'.
So, as you say, 'let's leave it where it is'.
St Paul, MN: Snowing 29 degrees, 8" on the ground another 12 to 16" expected.....MORE PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING! Thanks AL!
I would say what you recalled is correct, and much more informative than what I said.
Now I know why I haven't heard lately of anyone committing suicide by locking themselves in a garage with the engine running.
I Thank God and Jim Robinson every day, because I learn something new everyday that I log into FR.
Thanks to you too, P-Marlowe.
Your second argument is great, however. Less C02 means less available for not only plant life but human needs. And I like the way it's put.
I guess after looking at various charts and reading some of the more readily accessible papers, I too am no sure yet about the GW phenomena. The amount of manipulation needed to create these time series types of data and the inherent errors in actual raw measurements and statistically combining data from sources of widely varying degrees of precision makes me skeptical.
I just ran a simple test of the sensitivity of the trend line on Arctic Sea Ice from 1979 to 2005 by testing the impact on the trend line by hypothesizing different numbers for 2006 and 2007. (Note: Again I am not sure of the constancy in method of measuring the extent of Arctic Sea Ice. Certainly I hope the data's reliability has been checked by an independent assessment with no reference to the year the data was collected.) If you project the 25 year average, excluding 2005, for 2006 (i.e., treat 2005 as an anomaly or outlier) then the apparent trend weakens significantly. Now I hasten to add that there is no basis for so treating 2005 but it does serve to demonstrate that the pre-existing variability in Arctic Sea Ice is sufficiently great to call into question the stabiity of the model. With this relatively short time series it is kind of tricky to feel very confident in the trend. I would be interested in seeing the data on Antartic Sea Ice added to the same chart. Has anyone seen such a graph?
Well, as I understand it, they're mostly concerned with cows belching and farting :)
IT'S HAPPENING, PEOPLE! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW SWEATY I AM?
The counter by such noted scientists as Mr. Limbaugh is to say, "Not Our Fault, therefore No Global Warming."
Interestingly, these are logically equivalent statements -- and both wrong.
All depends on whether or not you use the UN dictionary or not.
At the core of this debate is raw political power, derivable from treaty requirements which require a crisis rooted in an anthropogenic cause to move forward.
In this Ross McKitrick, Canadian economist, hits the nail on the proverbial head.
An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:
"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
( http://unfccc.int/index.html )
The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."
Thus it is prudent to be very skeptical and very discerning of all that is offered under the banner of Climate Change.
I know. I was trying a little humor and I guess I wasn't up to it. Sorry.
General cooling since when? The 1930s?
Nah, since the latter quarter of the current interglacial period.
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years (GISP2)
Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years (GISP2)
"It's called S P R I N G !"
OH!!! I see. You mean the earths temperature changes naturally?
But environmental whacko's have been declaring a global emergency for the last hundred years that the earth is either too hot or too cold.
The older I get the wiser I realize my grandparents were.
AG, your point is well-taken. In fact, the Holocene Maximum occurred about 5 to 6 thousand years ago, and generally we have been cooling since then. In fact, just by looking at charts, it would seem that we have already begun a downward trend toward the next ice age. I know that timing of ice ages are generally understood to be driven by peak points of Milankovich Cycles. Does anyone know just what the current status is of the 3 Milankovitch cycles are: (Eccentricity, Obliquity, and Precession)? Just from graphs, it would seem we must be very near to the next 100kyr Eccentricity cycle peak.
How dare you introduce facts into this discussion.
No need to apologize. You WERE humorous. I was just adding a little humor of my own.
I know that timing of ice ages are generally understood to be driven by peak points of Milankovich Cycles.
That is the general hypthesis, unfortunately there are severe problems with Milankovich, especially as regards the 100kyr & 41kyr cycles based on eccentricty and lack of 27kyr signal in the data that should be there for precession.
Here's some of articles on the issues, the theory and proposed alternatives to M's hypothesis:
An Orbital Theory for Glacial Cycles
A Causality Problem for Milankovitch
Daniel B. Karner and Richard A. Muller
Colloquium Paper Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity
Richard A. Muller* and Gordon J. MacDonald
Indexed links to Muller's work on the ice ages
And if you are a real glutton for punishment, a totally different route centered on what is going on inside the sun:
Solar Resonant Diffusion Waves as a Driver of Terrestrial Climate Change
Robert Ehrlich (2007)
A theory is described based on resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun that appears to explain many details of the paleotemperature record for the last 5.3 million years. These include the observed periodicities, the relative strengths of each observed cycle, and the sudden emergence in time for the 100 thousand year cycle. Other prior work suggesting a link between terrestrial paleoclimate and solar luminosity variations has not provided any specific mechanism. The particular mechanism described here has been demonstrated empirically, although not previously invoked in the solar context. The theory also lacks most of the problems associated with Milankovitch cycles.
Holocene periodicity in North Atlantic climate and deep-ocean flow south of Iceland, Bianchi and McCave, Nature 397, 515-517.
Centennial-Scale Holocene Climate Variability Revealed by a High-Resolution Speleothem del 18 O Record from SW Ireland, McDermott, Mattey, and Hawkesworth, Science, 294(5545), 1328-1331.
I tried but I can't find a sufficiently high-resolution del 18 0 record from the Southern Hemisphere allowing discernment of the late BC -- early AD era.
Cold climate and glacier expansion during the Little Ice Age are documented from all continents (except Antarctica) and on major islands from New Zealand to Svalbard (Grove 1988). The best historical evidence comes from the Alps, Scandinavia, and Iceland. The Little Ice Age was not a single, uniformly cold climatic episode. Distinct variations in climate and in glacier activity took place on a regional basis. In Europe and North America, at least six phases of glacier expansion occurred and were separated by milder intervals.
These advances during the Little Ice Age resulted in adverse conditions for farms and villages located in mountain valleys below the glaciers. Many farms and some villages were destroyed by a combination of glacier advance, melt-water floods, landslides, and related disasters. Population in the affected mountain regions declined significantly, due to emigration and death, whereas population elsewhere in "lowland" Europe continued to grow in general during the Little Ice Age.
Glacier advances in the vicinity of Mont Blanc, France, destroyed three villages and heavily damaged a fourth between 1600 and 1610. The oldest of these villages had existed since the 1200s. Likewise in Norway, outlet glaciers of Jostedalsbreen ice cap advanced markedly in the 1700s and destroyed many farms--see Figs. 19-9, 19-10 and 19-11. The local population was reduced to eating bread made with a mixture of ground wheat chaff, straw, and pine bark. Taxes were reduced on farms that suffered physical damage--see Fig. 19-12, and many people were forced to migrate out of the region or become beggars.
The Little Ice Age was a time of exceptional poverty, misery and suffering in Iceland, as a result of severe winters, major volcanic eruptions, and oppressive Danish colonial rule. Famine and pestilence ravaged the country. The human population of Iceland, which had reached about 70,000 around A.D. 1100, had dwindled to only 34,000 by 1708--less than half the Viking peak (Magnusson 1987). Following a huge volcanic eruption in 1783, there was serious discussion of evacuating the remaining inhabitants to live in Denmark, but this did not actually happen.
Climatic and human consequences of the Little Ice Age are best documented in western Europe. Therefore, some climatologists have concluded naively that this climatic episode was a regional anomaly, not of worldwide significance. This point of view is contradicted strongly by evidence from glaciers in tropical mountain locations. The Quelccaya ice cap in the Andes Mountains of southern Peru is one such site. Ice cores provide direct physical evidence for colder climate between AD 1500 and 1900 (Thompson et al. 1986). This record compares favorably with cooler northern hemisphere temperature and expanded glaciers during the same period. The climatic changes recorded in the Quelccaya ice cap correspond closely with prehistoric cultures of Peru. Farther south, Lake Titicaca rose significantly during the 16th-19th centuries as a result of more humid, cooler conditions (pers. comm. J. Argollo, 1996).
The Little Ice Age was in fact a worldwide event with distinct regional variations (Nesje and Dahl 2000). It is documented from the southern hemisphere to Spitsbergen in the far north (Svendsen and Mangerud 1997). Based on many forms of historical, archeological and geological evidence, global average temperature was 1-2°C cooler than today (Grove 1988). This climatic episode was not recognized at the time; its true character has become clear only since the Little Ice Age ended.
A 16sec NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center mpeg of the modeled effect of the Maunder Minimum on Earth's climate:
Hmm wonder which is more regional in extent:
Tough call there ;O/.
Figure 3: Annual average surface temperature change (C) due to solar irradiance change between the Maunder Minimum (late 17th century) and a century later, when solar output had returned to relatively large values, in the climate model (top) and in the historical temperature reconstructions (bottom). Click for larger version.
Nope. Its our fault. we're heating up space.
I just realized the dems are totally against *ANYTHING* with the initials GW!!!! Coincidence?
I think not.
Dang! President Bush sure does get around a lot to cause all those planets' global warmings!!!
Here in Texas for the past several days, the moon has been totally visible throughout the day--does this have something to do with alleged global warming conditions?
Here in Texas for the past several days, the moon has been totally visible throughout the day--does this have something to do with alleged global warming conditions?
The, "alledged" part, very likely with a high statistical significance according to scientific studies of solar sunspot cycles and MSM reporting.
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but cant decide weather we face an ice age or warming
By R. Warren Anderson
It is well know that temperature is tightly correlated with the amout of time a sunspot cycle lasts.
One theory put forward as a consequence of the tight coupling between temperature and the solar cycle is that MSM reporters and Climate Prognosticators may be sensitive to and reacting under a malevolent influence of sunspots reflected off the full moon to follow short term temperature trendlines like lemmings following each other over a seaside cliff ;O)
So basically: Moon big mirror, Sun big fire, Moon reflecting Big sunspots, visible during daylight? :-)
You know, I looked at this chart and hoped to figure out where it's from and only found a mostly defunct web site formally funded by the British government. I couldn't figure out where this temperature was captured, especially based on our previous discussion of "cooling" in Eastern North America over the last 30 years.
Is the chart globally? Is it a norm for some part of the British Isles? Is it for London?
There are no notations to indicate and I couldn't find the links on their web site to help figure it out.
BTW. Just as an aside, do you happen to work in a certain Federal facility in Greenbelt, Md. that most people mistakenly associate with astronauts?
You don't have to answer, but I was just curious --- I had the most wonderful 3 am non-official Bourbon enhanced VIP tour of that place back in the early 1970s when NUMBUS was the hot item on the menu --- you could actually 'see the weather' albeit a few hours after it actually happened and the 35mm film was developed. (If you're curious, I'd give you the sored details off-line --- simply to protect the guilty)
What a difference a few decades can make. ;~))
You omit the third and even more important question -- is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Mmmm, sump'n like that ;OP