Hmm, interesting article for the naysayers

[curtadams]

That is not the case with the earth first the gas mix is always changing. The main culprit of the Greenhouse Gas Scare was the hydro fluorocarbons they are about gone now.

The earth surface temperature graph posted above of the temperatures for the last 200 years is bogus. The data that is based on has such a small range and domain that even the plot of the data for the last 20 years is eschewed

This is a plot of the plot of the temperature of the front lens of the SOHO satellite it measures heat not light and it is somewhere between hear and the Sun. Please notice the heat is going up there also.

Where are you getting this? This is all wrong:

1) The primary greenhouse gas is CO2. CH4 is the next most important. Clorofluorocarbons are tertiary.

2) The temp data is based on corals, tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments from all over the world. How on earth is this narrow? It was just reaffirmed by a House Committee, not that there's ever been any significant scientific challenge (I note you don't have a link)

3) The SOHO lens has a heater. http://stereo.nrl.navy.mil/orig_stereo/ ... 1-2etc.pdf page 25. Its temperature does not measure insolation.

[MGC]

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gass.....MGC

[gigabite]

...Where are you getting this?...

Please, global warming is the most posted on thread on the internet on the planet. Did you just get on line?

1. The primary greenhouse is water vapor. ghcc

2. GOES 12 provides 4 streaming data points every 14 kilometers. nasa

3. SOHO has several thermostats to regulate temperature. The lens thermometer measures temperature that is why the plot reverses at aphelion and perihelion. nasa

[curtadams]

...Where are you getting this?...

Please, global warming is the most posted on thread on the internet on the planet. Did you just get on line?

1. The primary greenhouse is water vapor. ghcc

2. GOES 12 provides 4 streaming data points every 14 kilometers. nasa

3. SOHO has several thermostats to regulate temperature. The lens thermometer measures temperature that is why the plot reverses at aphelion and perihelion. nasa

1 Sort of. It has the most effect but it's not persistent. No matter how much water you add or remove from the atmosphere it get back to equilibrium in a few weeks. So normally "greenhouse gases" only refers to those which are reasonably persistent over a human lifetime. Of those CO2 is by far the most important.

Out of curiousity, assuming you thought H2O was the dominant greenhouse gas, why did you post a graph of chlorofluorocarbon concentrations to demonstrate greenhouse gases were decreasing?

2 The existence of the GOES satellite is nice. Nonetheless global coverage of multiple proxy data including corals, northern and southern hemisphere ice cores, tree rings, and lake sediments conclusively shows the earth has warmed markedly in the past 150 years.

3 Check the link. SOHO has heaters on its lenses. Yes it probably has thermostats too - to run the heaters. Lens temperature doesn't measure solar activity, it measures heater activity.

[MGC]

Yes, the Earth has warmed markedly in the past 150 years. Long before humans starting burning fossil fuels in large quantities. This warming period is natural in its inception.....MGC

[curtadams]

Yes, the Earth has warmed markedly in the past 150 years. Long before humans starting burning fossil fuels in large quantities. This warming period is natural in its inception.....MGC

Haven't you heard of the Industrial Revolution? Newcombe's steam engine dates to 1732.

[x-y-no]

Like I've posted before, the GW crowd uses scare tactics to attempt to influence people and politicians.

Tell me, do you carry insurance? Why? Isn't insurance predicated on the possibility of a catastrophic event happening to you? Why don't you simply presume that the best possible future is what's in store for you and thus save yourself a ton of money by not bothering with that silly insurance stuff?

Pepole talk about potentially catastrophic effects of AGW because it behooves us to prepare not only for the best possible future, but also for the bad end of the spectrum of possibilities. One cannot prepare for potential future catastrophe if one refuses to think about it.

Is that "alarmism" or "hype"? Well, sure some small fraction of people go off the deep end. But the scientific discussion is in general not hyped at all.

This article by Linden is just further proof. Linden's statement that climate has destroyed past civilizations is false. The Akkadian civilization failed because the Akkadian failed to adapt, as did the Norse and Mayan. What caused the drought that did the Akkadian's in 4,200 years ago? Did the Akkadian's cause the climate to change? No, nature did. Did the Norse force a climate change that quickly occurred that force them to abandon Labador and Greenland because the climate cooled? No, nature did. Nature, not man will determine the climate. Nature has done so in the past and will do so in the future.

Wait a minute - first you state that "Linden's statement that climate has destroyed past civilizations is false." Then you go ahead to acnowledge that these societies were destroyed because they failed to adapt to climatic change. So which is it?

The fact that those particular climatic changes were natural rather than man-made is immaterial to the issue of whether these societies were destroyed by climate change. The issue there is only the fact that they failed due to climate change. The implication is that climate change, whether caused naturally or by human activity is a serious thing which can damage or even destroy societies. Therefore, it makes sense not to blindly blunder ahead with inducing such a change.

The chicken littles of the world are wasting there breath with me. I am and continue to be convinced that the current warming phase that began hundreds of years ago is natural........MGC

Well, if you declare your mind closed, there's not much anyone can do about that. But since others read these threads on occasion, I'll continue to post as factually as I can on this issue.

[x-y-no]

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gass.....MGC

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. The lifetime of water vapor in the atmosphere is on the order of two weeks or less, as opposed to something over a decade for methane and a couple of centuries for CO2. Take your favorite weather model - I don't care which one - and remove all the water vapor from the atmosphere, and in less than two weeks it'll be right back to equilibrium again (you'll have some mighty weird weather in the interim, though).

The physics of water vapor feedback is really very simple. Any scientist who repeats the business about WV being the most important greenhouse gas as an argument against AGW is feeding you a line of bull and you really ought to ask him why.

[gigabite]

1 Sort of. It has the most effect but it's not persistent.

2 ...global coverage of multiple proxy data ...

3 ...SOHO has heaters on its lenses...

1. Water Vapor is 80 percent of the of the greenhouse gas by definition. wikipidea

2. Sea cores measure temperature at 3,000 year intervals. Tree cores measure moisture over time, but lets just say there was some pseudo science that blended all that stuff accurately (into one datum), and there were three complete bands of data in the northern and southern hemisphere (this is a very generous scenario), and lets say GOES 12 is the current scientific standard (it will be until GOES N is launched). That makes the above referenced 200 year temperature plot 99.4 percent below standard and unacceptable as science. Therefore it must be art, and not proof of anything.

3. What is the point of heating the lens to 131.36 degrees Fahrenheit?

Out of curiousity, assuming you thought H2O was the dominant greenhouse gas, why did you post a graph of chlorofluorocarbon concentrations to demonstrate greenhouse gases were decreasing?

Originally the target culprits of the hoax were chlorofluorocarbon and carbon monoxide. The first was taken off the market the other was replaced with sulfur dioxide which converts into that acid fog. That the stuff that burns your skin when you go fishing in the river by the road in the early morning.

[curtadams]

Out of curiousity, assuming you thought H2O was the dominant greenhouse gas, why did you post a graph of chlorofluorocarbon concentrations to demonstrate greenhouse gases were decreasing?

Originally the target culprits of the hoax were chlorofluorocarbon and carbon monoxide. The first was taken off the market the other was replaced with sulfur dioxide which converts into that acid fog. That the stuff that burns your skin when you go fishing in the river by the road in the early morning.

You're evading the question. Why did you post a graph of clorofluorocarbons to make a claim about greenhouse gases in toto when you didn't think it was an important greenhouse gas?

[curtadams]

<double post deleted>

[gigabite]

Sorry, I am a NOT a steady state theorist.

[x-y-no]

1. Water Vapor is 80 percent of the of the greenhouse gas by definition. wikipidea

Once again, WV is a feedback, not a forcing. The lifetime of WV in the atmosphere is on the order of less than two weeks. If you could somehow magically double the WV content of the atmosphere, that extra water would precipitate out within those two weeks and we'd be back to equilibrium.

The same is not true of CO2, methane, CFCs etc. Those chemicals have far longer lifetimes in the atmosphere, which is why they are the GHGs which matter in terms of introducing a climate change forcing.

2. Sea cores measure temperature at 3,000 year intervals.

What on Earth are you talking about? Sea cores don't have the resolution of tree rings as a temperature proxy, but that resolution sure isn't in general as bad as 3000 years.

Tree cores measure moisture over time, but lets just say there was some pseudo science that blended all that stuff accurately (into one datum), ...

No, let's not say that. A lot of people have done a lot of serious scientific work (not pseudo-science) on the use of tree rings as temperature proxies. There are some uncertainties, of course, but that's why one uses multiple independent proxies to, as you say, "[blend] all that stuff" into a paleoclimate record.

... and there were three complete bands of data in the northern and southern hemisphere (this is a very generous scenario), and lets say GOES 12 is the current scientific standard (it will be until GOES N is launched). That makes the above referenced 200 year temperature plot 99.4 percent below standard and unacceptable as science. Therefore it must be art, and not proof of anything.

What do you think this bit of hand-waving and the tossing out of some arbitrary precise number demonstrates?

It demonstrates nothing.

3. What is the point of heating the lens to 131.36 degrees Fahrenheit?

According to the link provided, they heat the lens to prevent condensation.

Originally the target culprits of the hoax were chlorofluorocarbon and carbon monoxide.

HUH?? You're drifting off into total fantasy now.

The first was taken off the market the other was replaced with sulfur dioxide which converts into that acid fog.

CFCs were taken off the market because of their effect on the ozone layer, not because of their role as GHGs.

And what on Earth are you talking about when you claim that carbon monoxide "was replaced with sulfur dioxide?" I spent some time trying to divine what real-world issue you might have interpreted this way but couldn't come up with one.

[curtadams]

2. Sea cores measure temperature at 3,000 year intervals.

What on Earth are you talking about? Sea cores don't have the resolution of tree rings as a temperature proxy, but that resolution sure isn't in general as bad as 3000 years.

He's confusing the issue. I was talking about data including ICEcores, which have a year-by-year resolution over the relevent period. I don't think seacores were used for the last millenium temp estimates, so they're totally irrelevant. Kind of like graphs of Alaskan chlorofluorcarbons are irrelevant to GHG levels.

[gigabite]

...A lot of people have done a lot of serious scientific work...

True it was good science that produced the above-mentioned timeline of global temperatures of the last 65 million years. The GHG Hoax has had its 15 minutes of glory. The results were iffy. We have replaced the potential of extreme sunburn while suffocating in car exhaust with being boiled in sulfuric acid.

The earth is not a Greenhouse. It is not enclosed in glass and it does not have limited circulation. Developments resulting from the following these lines of research have produced only awareness that the planet is heating up. The results of the planet heating up are causing serious damage adapting to the changing climate should take precedence to fighting anthropological sources. The results of anthropological warming are a small fraction of the problem and identifying and funding for all Greenhouse Theory research should be tabled and the funding shifted to extending the TAO array and things that will help populations prepare for disaster weather.

The type of factor water vapor presents in global climate is more important than how things like Sulfuric Acid Gas wafts through the fog. Limited federal funding should not wasted on the generally accepted while depriving other good science.

Subject 3. SOHO front lens temperature.

OK I read the provided link. The lens heater activates a type of light defusing filter that has an operating temperature range it is not related to the front object lens. The front lens temperature is raw sun side operating temperature of the vehicle and it is recorded and posted to insure that the defusing filter is not compromised by an excessive environment. If you look at the graph of the lens temperature it did not reconfigure at the last perihelion it double plotted the graph. That seems to indicate that the satellite may fail before Cycle 24 is over.

[curtadams]

...A lot of people have done a lot of serious scientific work...

True it was good science that produced the above-mentioned timeline of global temperatures of the last 65 million years. The GHG Hoax has had its 15 minutes of glory. The results were iffy. We have replaced the potential of extreme sunburn while suffocating in car exhaust with being boiled in sulfuric acid.

The earth is not a Greenhouse. It is not enclosed in glass and it does not have limited circulation. Developments resulting from the following these lines of research have produced only awareness that the planet is heating up. The results of the planet heating up are causing serious damage adapting to the changing climate should take precedence to fighting anthropological sources. The results of anthropological warming are a small fraction of the problem and identifying and funding for all Greenhouse Theory research should be tabled and the funding shifted to extending the TAO array and things that will help populations prepare for disaster weather.

The type of factor water vapor presents in global climate is more important than how things like Sulfuric Acid Gas wafts through the fog. Limited federal funding should not wasted on the generally accepted while depriving other good science.

You're still evading why you provide an irrelevant and misleading graph to argue against mounting greenhouse gases.

You're still evading why you impugn recent temperature estimates based on exagerated shortcomings of a technique that wasn't even used for it.

You're not addressing x-y-no's points about the scientific validations for tree ring temperature estimates. I looked it up in 10 minutes with Google; you've no excuse.

You're not addressing the importance of taking measures against very harmful actions because they are possible, even if not certain.

What are you doing? You're whining that the "greenhouse effect" metaphor is - well - metaphorical. Gosh, how awful. Does "red tide" not happen because it's not a tide? Oddly, you mix the rant with some very opaque metaphors about several things that have little to do with anthropogenic global warming.

Are you going to discuss the science of climate change? Where are your links and citations? Water vapor is going up in the atmosphere. Care to provide any science on why it is? Hint: it has something to do with certain gases we are releasing into the atmosphere. http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/wat ... apour.html

[gigabite]

The Greenhouse Gas Hoax understates in a very careful, expensive, scientific way that the Earth is warming. When table one of the EPA 1982 paper on sea level rise (the table shows various estimates of sea level rise over one hundred years) is compared to the actual difference between NGVD 1929 and NAVD 1977 the GHG model understates the problem by 90 percent. Reality is 10 times worse than the model.

The GHG model was developed before Windows, Spread Sheets, and the Internet. It is an oversimplification of a problem that is getting worse, but not JUST for the causes stated in the original text. ALL the input factors are not understood, even 30 years after the evidentiary case was proven.

It is clear to me that the industry that has built up around the hypothesis is having troubles coming to grips with the fact that the initial verification of global warming was the tip of the iceberg of the climate change issues that are present today.

There is a substantial amount of discussion that the steady rise of surface temperatures may be indicative of a rapid cool down in the near future. The current warming rate cannot be sustained with out causing a mini ice age, because of the geologic maximum sea level height does not fit in the glaciation cycle. The glaciation cycle is 270,000 years total sea level rise should be in 135,000 years. The current rate is 70 times that. Which means that global warming probably occurs in stages with intermittent cool downs.

You need to archive your GHG under ancient historical proof modules, drop this expensive discussion, and get out there and save some lives.

[curtadams]

The Greenhouse Gas Hoax understates in a very careful, expensive, scientific way that the Earth is warming. When table one of the EPA 1982 paper on sea level rise (the table shows various estimates of sea level rise over one hundred years) is compared to the actual difference between NGVD 1929 and NAVD 1977 the GHG model understates the problem by 90 percent. Reality is 10 times worse than the model.
drop this expensive discussion, and get out there and save some lives.

The only criticism of global warming you can make is one error about the consequences of global warming in a paper 25 years old? Obviously you must accept all the thousands of papers written about global warming since. Why do you call it a hoax when you admit it's true?

[gigabite]

90% not factor
10% factor
75% uncertainty

aunty time line vs. 3 x 3 matrix

see: current imagery

NOTE: Satellites, don’t have good ground truth.

[gigabite]