Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1470976' date='Feb 28 2008, 09:16 PM']Apparently there are record levels of ice though [/quote]
That's an issue of ozone depletion, which is worst above antarctica. Thanks to the CFCs that were put into the atmosphere, the ozone was depleted. And with that occuring above antarctica, combined with extra greenhouse gases, antarctica ends up colder than it used to be.

I think it would be worth quoting to following in order to help demonstrate the idea of how global warming and stratospheric cooling are related:

[quote]A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere. We need only look as far as our sister planet, Venus, to see the truth of this theory. Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which has triggered a run-away greenhouse effect of truly hellish proportions. The average surface temperature on Venus is a very toasty 894* F! However, Venus's upper atmosphere is a startling 4-5 times colder than Earth's upper atmosphere.
...
One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase. This will make recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer much slower.[/quote]

[quote]Greenhouse gases have also led to the cooling of the atmosphere at levels higher than the stratosphere. Over the past 30 years, the Earth's surface temperature has increased 0.2-0.4 �C, while the temperature in the mesosphere, about 50-80 km above ground, has cooled 5-10 �C (Beig et al., 2006). There is no appreciable cooling due to ozone destruction at these altitudes, so nearly all of this dramatic cooling is due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even greater cooling of 17 �C per decade has been observed high in the ionosphere, at 350 km altitude. This has affected the orbits of orbiting satellites, due to decreased drag, since the upper atmosphere has shrunk and moved closer to the surface (Lastovicka et al., 2006). The density of the air has declined 2-3% per decade the past 30 years at 350 km altitude. So, in a sense, the sky IS falling![/quote]

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1470781' date='Feb 28 2008, 06:17 PM']But it is so fun to harass them. Not to mention easier than most others.[/quote]

Long as we can have the same sense of humor when people make fun of Catholics... all in good fun, of course.

[Fidei Defensor]

[Dismas]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1470850' date='Feb 28 2008, 06:48 PM']Won't the CO[sub]2[/sub] from your torch add to global warming, though?[/quote]
I can only hope, as the alternative means I won't be free of snow until June. Of course, the efficiency of CO[sub]2[/sub] as an [b]effective[/b] greenhouse gas always was risible.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Deb' post='1471308' date='Feb 29 2008, 01:31 PM']As usual, Fox news has to toss in its untrue sensationalism, Here is a quote from Anthony Watts who compiled the four sources (all measured in totally different ways but, he added them together):
[b]I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine:[/b] [i]“–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years” [/i]

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything.



I am personally more concerned about global dimming.[/quote]
FoxNews is no more sensationalist than CNN or MSNBC.

This is why I get my news from the Enquirer.

jk

[Fidei Defensor]

West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80229075228.htm[/url]

[Justin86]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470881' date='Feb 29 2008, 10:50 AM']Interesting data.

It's worth noting, though, that if global warming is in fact happening, it would lead to global climate change which does not necessarily mean everywhere is getting hotter. Changes in the salinity of the oceans due to the melting of the fresh water frozen in the icecaps would lead to changes in currents which can mean changes in climate - i.e. colder winters, weird weather. But if you look at the icecaps, they are the areas that are warming. Scientists are predicting that the Arctic Ocean may become ice-free before 2015.[/quote]


[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1471395' date='Mar 1 2008, 07:39 AM']That's an issue of ozone depletion, which is worst above antarctica. Thanks to the CFCs that were put into the atmosphere, the ozone was depleted. And with that occuring above antarctica, combined with extra greenhouse gases, antarctica ends up colder than it used to be.

I think it would be worth quoting to following in order to help demonstrate the idea of how global warming and stratospheric cooling are related:[/quote]
Global warming causes global cooling? Give me a break! This is why so many people in America view you MMGW guys as nut jobs.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1472788' date='Mar 3 2008, 02:18 AM']Global warming causes global cooling? Give me a break! This is why so many people in America view you MMGW guys as nut jobs.[/quote]
Your lack of scientific knowledge disturbs me.

It is possible to have both warming at the surface and cooling in the upper atmosphere.

[jeffpugh]

I just got hit with Global Warming's best snowstorm. Snowbanks range from 5-7 (possibly 8) feet. I had to shovel about a foot and a half of snow off my driveway.... my brother's doing the 5 feet of snowplow snow off the front of the driveway now...

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1474575' date='Mar 9 2008, 09:33 AM']I just got hit with Global Warming's best snowstorm. Snowbanks range from 5-7 (possibly 8) feet. I had to shovel about a foot and a half of snow off my driveway.... my brother's doing the 5 feet of snowplow snow off the front of the driveway now...[/quote]
You, of all people, being a religious person, know that singluar examples don't disprove the whole.

[jeffpugh]

Heh.... hardly singular... it's widespread across Ontario, and guess what... the states too. It's hardly singular. It's record-breaking.

[Carnanc]

regarding the question of using anecdotal evidence in oppostion to global warming, the liberal media use such evidence all the time attributing every huricane, record warm temperature in one tiny part of the world, and every other envirnmental anamoly to global warming. to me it seems necessary to counter such example, with examples of our own, and thus to use the same tactics they do..

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='slywakka250' post='1474604' date='Mar 9 2008, 02:30 PM']regarding the question of using anecdotal evidence in oppostion to global warming, the liberal media use such evidence all the time attributing every huricane, record warm temperature in one tiny part of the world, and every other envirnmental anamoly to global warming. to me it seems necessary to counter such example, with examples of our own, and thus to use the same tactics they do..[/quote]

i concurr

[Apotheoun]

The speculative theories of doomsayers of whatever variety should be taken with a grain of salt, because the earth has always experienced natural fluctuations in temperature, and these fluctuations have caused mini-ice ages and warming periods in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html"]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html[/url]

it seems many want to go on their "gut" that emissions can't be that much on the big earth. but if you look at that graph, we're at least 33% more than normal with CO2, which means that chunk is from all us.... hardly a drop in the bucket. then, consider the temperature correlation with that.


---------------------------------

detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes.
if you don't know what i'm tlaking about, then don't debate me.


essential facts.
one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred.
the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources.
the other is that they think 1.5 or so degrees is all that can really be attributed to man made gases.

i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
--------------
The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).
---------
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
----------


scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
-------------
QUOTE
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
QUOTE
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.
----------------------




Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
-----------------
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): [url="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.."]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/..[/url].
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): [url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/.."]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/..[/url].
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [url="http://www.grida.no/.."]http://www.grida.no/..[/url].
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): [url="http://books.nap.edu/.."]http://books.nap.edu/..[/url].
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - [url="http://www.socc.ca/.."]http://www.socc.ca/..[/url].
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): [url="http://epa.gov/.."]http://epa.gov/..[/url].
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - [url="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/.."]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/..[/url].
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): [url="http://www.agu.org/.."]http://www.agu.org/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): [url="http://www.aip.org/.."]http://www.aip.org/..[/url].
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): [url="http://eo.ucar.edu/.."]http://eo.ucar.edu/..[/url].
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/.."]http://www.ametsoc.org/..[/url].
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): [url="http://www.cmos.ca/.."]http://www.cmos.ca/..[/url].
-------------------------

so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense.

if the sun only acccounts for a third, that means the other third is coming from us, at least as far as i can tell from sources.
now, that two thirds might now be enough in itself. but, it's still the majority of hte heating, as far as i can see. so, if it's two thirds, i don't see how you could say that's not significant. to quibble on "significant" is just that, too, quibbling, so i hope no one does it, as it's not an argument worth fighting over.

qualifiers
-----------------
now, given that the flares will inevitably go down, the question is what to think of that warming that is occuring by us. when solar goes down, our warming wo't matter as much. in the mean time.... how much are we hurting the planet? this is the msot fundamental. it's hard to pin point specific levels of harm with specific temp increases.

what true is that we picked a very convenient time to be warming the planet any given solar cycle being up at the moment.

to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise.
to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic.

the question is what to do based on the uncertainty.
one thing i'm not sure of is why even if GW is so bad, if that's such a bad thing in the bigger picture. increased crop cycles etc. warmer etc. prob unintended side effects is what we have to worry about. i mean, manhattan would get flooded some, up to the WTC even, but is that so bad overall? pretty expensive an all but i don't know.

Edited March 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c