The real truth about global warming..

[Ed Spacer]

I heard this on radio today and it hit the spot. I am a study of meteorology and climatology and what the scare-tactic pushers and their so-called scientists have been exploiting is BUNK. I apologize for the energy and emphasis behind my thoughts. Please do not ban me,but listen to my point of view and then critisize. Every bit of it,and hearing radio talk about it inspires me to do so here,based on my personal knowledge and study of the subject matter.


I am going to open it up with the statement that the fact of the exploiters saying that what we are exporting into the atmosphere chemically as a means for creating the global warming issue is false. Yes,we can make our lives miserable,and pollute everything we have locally, but there is no way possible that what we are doing is even denting the ozone layer.Why? Because the only chemical molecular radiant that can affect ozone are gamma and ultraviolet rays. It is the high concentration of such release of molecular kinetic energy and the increase of such during coronal cycles that the sun is experiencing with the radioactive electrical component and kinetic solar discharge that is eminating due to the increase of solar storms and susspots that is creating the mild el nino phenomena that we have been experiencing this year.

A scientific review report proved that MT ST HELENS is polluting the atmosphere far greater than carbon process release,which is whta the libs are crying a scam thats causing global warming. Garbage.Every bit of it,and Id debate a liberal scientist any day of the week on this matter.

The sun is a growing body and sphere.Its cycle is from the new stage to the full dtage,it is in the intermediate process of spherical growth right now,and because of the supercharge of electromagnetic energy of the suns core,it is magnetically pulling,little by littel,the satellites of the solar system into it gradually,because of the increase of such energy due to thegrowth of the star itself. There is actual scientific measuements that prove this based on the controlled analysis of measurements of such elements from this radiant energy that have been proved to show that such event activity is indeed occuring.Yes,the ice caps are melting in some ares. But,the sea surface level maean across the planet has actually DROPPED a half an inch over the last five years,and is accelerating somewhat in its cycle. The increased release of gamma and solar molecular eminence is what is causing the erosion of the ozone layer,and it is concentrated,proven by http://www.noaa.gov and other agencies and cscientists,that the holes in the ozone are moving,because the highest gradient of kinetic molecular energy has concentrated its own reactive atomic saturation at a very slightly different position due to the fact that the increase in magnetic energy from the sun is actually TILTED the earths axis about a half an inch and about a tenth of a degree over the last ten years,and it is also proven because iof the extra electomagnetic energy relewased and absorbed into the earth quicker than its relative reatcivty,the climataological events taking place maintaining atmospheric balance of gradiance are much more enhanced because of the greater amount of energy being released from the earths absorbtion based on the extra level based on the increase in solar and gamma energy release from the growing solar activity.Don't belive the scientific evidence? The aurora borealis has only been seen in the northern and far southern hemispherical geographies,but now,it is has been seen GLOBALLY at all latitudes based on the increase of these storms. This is PROVEN scientific measurement.Because of the additional measured electromagnetic enegy from the suns core being released,the MOON is actually being pulled farther away from the set orbit it has around the earth as it is a smaller satellite it is being pulled farther because its tidal influence is much lesser each and every year.


I have found some scary concise scientific evidence with these findings to actually surmise the situation.This is the greatest scam of the last thirty years is not understanding the effects of other grand influences on our climatological situation.

Any thoughts,ladies and gentlemen?


If the theory of global warming is true as it is being presented then the ocean mean level wouldnt keep dropping one half an inch each year....and there would be feweer hurricanes not more......especially that this warming would affect all leyers of the atmosphere,creating a cap that would prohibit any updraft convergance that we need to create such distrubances and cyclical releases of inbalances in the atmosphere...

[PurdueWx80]

Mt. St. Helens is WA state's number one output of carbon dioxide, right now, barely. Compared to the rest of the world (both natural and anthropogenic), this volcano is nothing.

Perhaps the only entity that should be blamed for the misinterpretation of climate science is the media. I'm not saying it's their fault because they're liberal, but because they simply don't understand the complexities of climate system, of which there are MANY (some unknown). Scientists should also hold themselves responsible for communicating their (unbiased) research effectively and concisely to the media - this has always been a problem but it's a goal that can be acheived if both sides work.

There is absolutely no doubt that the carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere is affecting the climate system. There are, however, many other feedbacks that may or may not be more important. Nearly every climate model at the moment is predicting warming in the coming years - now either the models have a good handle on the climate system, or there are missing feedbacks which will act to reverse the effects of the projected warming. What most people don't understand is that the climate, thousands to millions of years ago, has varied much more than it does in our current generation. The climate will always be changing, sometimes abruptly (whether caused by nature or us), and we owe it to ourselves to prepare for this change.

Throwing out that climate scientists or scientists in general are liberal and have an agenda is what's BUNK. That, to me, is just an excuse of conservatives who aren't ready to deal with changing our current economic/big business status. If you've never met a climate scientist or have never read their work and understood it, then you should. Then, I think you'll understand that the only "agenda" they have is to accurately portray past, current and future climate based on everything they, as a scientist, know and learn.

Here is an article by a very famous climate scientist that I posted several months ago. He is clearly not a "liberal scientist" and tells it like it is. Maybe this will prove to you that there is no agenda, and instead hopefully you'll see that the media is to blame for not communicating complex scientific research to the general public effectively.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus


Richard S. Lindzen


Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


 


Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind. The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change. Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level rise would be swamped by other more important factors.


To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.


Summary of Scientific Issues


Before even considering "greenhouse theory,'' it may be helpful to begin with the issue that is almost always taken as a given--that carbon dioxide will inevitably increase to values double and even quadruple present values. Evidence from the analysis of ice cores and after 1958 from direct atmospheric sampling shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing since 1800. Before 1800 the density was about 275 parts per million by volume. Today it is about 355 parts per million by volume. The increase is generally believed to be due to the combination of increased burning of fossil fuels and before 1905 to deforestation. The total source is estimated to have been increasing exponentially at least until 1973. From 1973 until 1990 the rate of increase has been much slower, however. About half the production of carbon dioxide has appeared in the atmosphere.


Predicting what will happen to carbon dioxide over the next century is a rather uncertain matter. By assuming a shift toward the increased use of coal, rapid advances in the third world's standard of living, large population increases, and a reduction in nuclear and other nonfossil fuels, one can generate an emissions scenario that will lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide by 2030--if one uses a particular model for the chemical response to carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I's model referred to that as the "business as usual'' scenario. As it turns out, the chemical model used was inconsistent with the past century's record; it would have predicted that we would already have about 400 parts per million by volume. An improved model developed at the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg shows that even the "business as usual'' scenario does not double carbon dioxide by the year 2100. It seems unlikely moreover that the indefinite future of energy belongs to coal. I also find it difficult to believe that technology will not lead to improved nuclear reactors within fifty years.


Nevertheless, we have already seen a significant increase in carbon dioxide that has been accompanied by increases in other minor greenhouse gases such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons. Indeed, in terms of greenhouse potential, we have had the equivalent of a 50 percent increase in carbon dioxide over the past century. The effects of those increases are certainly worth studying--quite independent of any uncertain future scenarios.


The Greenhouse Effect.


The crude idea in the common popular presentation of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight (apart from the very significant reflectivity of both clouds and the surface), which heats the Earth's surface. The surface offsets that heating by radiating in the infrared. The infrared radiation increases with increasing surface temperature, and the temperature adjusts until balance is achieved. If the atmosphere were also transparent to infrared radiation, the infrared radiation produced by an average surface temperature of minus eighteen degrees centigrade would balance the incoming solar radiation (less that amount reflected back to space by clouds). The atmosphere is not transparent in the infrared, however. So the Earth must heat up somewhat more to deliver the same flux of infrared radiation to space. That is what is called the greenhouse effect.


The fact that the Earth's average surface temperature is fifteen degrees centigrade rather than minus eighteen degrees centigrade is attributed to that effect. The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, it is presumed that increases in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases will lead to significant increases in temperature. As we have seen, carbon dioxide is increasing. So are other minor greenhouse gases. A widely held but questionable contention is that those increases will continue along the path they have followed for the past century.


The simple picture of the greenhouse mechanism is seriously oversimplified. Many of us were taught in elementary school that heat is transported by radiation, convection, and conduction. The above representation only refers to radiative transfer. As it turns out, if there were only radiative heat transfer, the greenhouse effect would warm the Earth to about seventy-seven degrees centigrade rather than to fifteen degrees centigrade. In fact, the greenhouse effect is only about 25 percent of what it would be in a pure radiative situation. The reason for this is the presence of convection (heat transport by air motions), which bypasses much of the radiative absorption.


What is really going on is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. The surface of the Earth is cooled in large measure by air currents (in various forms including deep clouds) that carry heat upward and poleward. One consequence of this picture is that it is the greenhouse gases well above the Earth's surface that are of primary importance in determining the temperature of the Earth. That is especially important for water vapor, whose density decreases by about a factor of 1,000 between the surface and ten kilometers above the surface. Another consequence is that one cannot even calculate the temperature of the Earth without models that accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere. Indeed, present models have large errors here--on the order of 50 percent. Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned'' to get those quantities approximately right.


It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect operates. More important, the climate is a complex system where it is impossible for all other internal factors to remain constant. In present models those other factors amplify the effects of increasing carbon dioxide and lead to predictions of warming in the neighborhood of four to five degrees centigrade. Internal processes within the climate system that change in response to warming in such a manner as to amplify the response are known as positive feedbacks. Internal processes that diminish the response are known as negative feedbacks. The most important positive feedback in current models is due to water vapor. In all current models upper tropospheric (five to twelve kilometers) water vapor--the major greenhouse gas--increases as surface temperatures increase. Without that feedback, no current model would predict warming in excess of 1.7 degrees centigrade--regardless of any other factors. Unfortunately, the way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known. In other instances there are identifiable errors. Even computational errors play a major role. Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative. In that case, we would expect the warming response to carbon dioxide doubling alone to be diminished.


It is commonly suggested that society should not depend on negative feedbacks to spare us from a "greenhouse catastrophe.'' What is omitted from such suggestions is that current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming. The effects of clouds have been receiving the closest scrutiny. That is not unreasonable. Cloud cover in models is poorly treated and inaccurately predicted. Yet clouds reflect about seventy-five watts per square meter. Given that a doubling of carbon dioxide would change the surface heat flux by only two watts per square meter, it is evident that a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to carbon dioxide. The situation is complicated by the fact that clouds at high altitudes can also supplement the greenhouse effect. Indeed, the effects of clouds in reflecting light and in enhancing the greenhouse effect are roughly in balance. Their actual effect on climate depends both on the response of clouds to warming and on the possible imbalance of their cooling and heating effects.


Similarly, factors involving the contribution of snow cover to reflectivity serve, in current models, to amplify warming due to increasing carbon dioxide. What happens seems reasonable enough; warmer climates presumably are associated with less snow cover and less reflectivity--which, in turn, amplify the warming. Snow is associated with winter when incident sunlight is minimal, however. Moreover, clouds shield the Earth's surface from the sun and minimize the response to snow cover. Indeed, there is growing evidence that clouds accompany diminishing snow cover to such an extent as to make that feedback factor negative. If, however, one asks why current models predict that large warming will accompany increasing carbon dioxide, the answer is mostly due to the effect of the water vapor feedback. Current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels. As already noted, such behavior is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor. Recent studies of the physics of how deep clouds moisturize the atmosphere strongly suggest that this largest of the positive feedbacks is not only negative, but very large.


Not only are there major reasons to believe that models are exaggerating the response to increasing carbon dioxide, but, perhaps even more significantly, the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude. The global average temperature record for the past century or so is irregular and not without problems. It does, however, show an average increase in temperature of about .45 degree centigrade plus or minus .15 degree centigrade with most of the increase occurring before 1940, followed by some cooling through the early 1970s and a rapid (but modest) temperature increase in the late 1970s. As noted, we have already seen an increase in "equivalent'' carbon dioxide of 50 percent. Thus, on the basis of models that predict a four degree centigrade warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide we might expect to have seen a warming of two degrees centigrade already. If, however, we include the delay imposed by the oceans' heat capacity, we might expect a warming of about one degree centigrade--which is still twice what has been observed. Moreover, most of that warming occurred before the bulk of the minor greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. Figure 2 shows what might have been expected for models with differing sensitivities to a doubling of carbon dioxide. What we see is that the past record is most consistent with an equilibrium response to a doubling of about 1.3 degrees centigrade--assuming that all the observed warming was due to increasing carbon dioxide. There is nothing in the record that can be distinguished from the natural variability of the climate, however.


If one considers the tropics, that conclusion is even more disturbing. There is ample evidence that the average equatorial sea surface has remained within plus or minus one degree centigrade of its present temperature for billions of years, yet current models predict average warming of from two to four degrees centigrade even at the equator. It should be noted that for much of the Earth's history, the atmosphere had much more carbon dioxide than is currently anticipated for centuries to come. I could, in fact, go on at great length listing the evidence for small responses to a doubling of carbon dioxide; there are space constraints, however.


Consensus and the Current "Popular Vision''


Many studies from the nineteenth century on suggested that industrial and other contributions to increasing carbon dioxide might lead to global warming. Problems with such predictions were also long noted, and the general failure of such predictions to explain the observed record caused the field of climatology as a whole to regard the suggested mechanisms as suspect. Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell--both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well--"explaining'' the problem and promoting international regulation. There was also a book by the prominent science writer Lowell Ponte (The Cooling) that derided the skeptics and noted the importance of acting in the absence of firm, scientific foundation. There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions. But the scientific community never took the issue to heart, governments ignored it, and with rising global temperatures in the late 1970s the issue more or less died. In the meantime, model calculations--especially at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton--continued to predict substantial warming due to increasing carbon dioxide. Those predictions were considered interesting, but largely academic, exercises--even by the scientists involved.


The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.


Despite the fact that those remarks were virtually meaningless, they led the environmental advocacy movement to adopt the issue immediately. The growth of environmental advocacy since the 1970s has been phenomenal. In Europe the movement centered on the formation of Green parties; in the United States the movement centered on the development of large public interest advocacy groups. Those lobbying groups have budgets of several hundred million dollars and employ about 50,000 people; their support is highly valued by many political figures. As with any large groups, self-perpetuation becomes a crucial concern. "Global warming'' has become one of the major battle cries in their fundraising efforts. At the same time, the media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of those groups as objective truth.


Within the large-scale climate modelling community--a small subset of the community interested in climate--however, the immediate response was to criticize Hansen for publicly promoting highly uncertain model results as relevant to public policy. Hansen's motivation was not totally obvious, but despite the criticism of Hansen, the modelling community quickly agreed that large warming was not impossible. That was still enough for both the politicians and advocates who have generally held that any hint of environmental danger is a sufficient basis for regulation unless the hint can be rigorously disproved. That is a particularly pernicious asymmetry, given that rigor is generally impossible in environmental sciences.


Other scientists quickly agreed that with increasing carbon dioxide some warming might be expected and that with large enough concentrations of carbon dioxide the warming might be significant. Nevertheless, there was widespread skepticism. By early 1989, however, the popular media in Europe and the United States were declaring that "all scientists'' agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential.


As most scientists concerned with climate, I was eager to stay out of what seemed like a public circus. But in the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity. In the spring of 1989 I was an invited participant at a global warming symposium at Tufts University. I was the only scientist among a panel of environmentalists. There were strident calls for immediate action and ample expressions of impatience with science. Claudine Schneider, then a congressman from Rhode Island, acknowledged that "scientists may disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying.'' It seemed clear to me that a very dangerous situation was arising, and the danger was not of "global warming'' itself.


In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being of no interest to the readership. I then submitted the paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, where it was accepted after review, rereviewed, and reaccepted--an unusual procedure to say the least. In the meantime, the paper was attacked in Science before it had even been published. The paper circulated for about six months as samizdat. It was delivered at a Humboldt conference at M.I.T. and reprinted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine.


In the meantime, the global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop research and begin acting. I suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it is also indicative of the overall attitude toward science. Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a stable climate.


By the fall of 1989 some media were becoming aware that there was controversy (Forbes and Reader's Digest were notable in that regard). Cries followed from environmentalists that skeptics were receiving excessive exposure. The publication of my paper was followed by a determined effort on the part of the editor of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Richard Hallgren, to solicit rebuttals. Such articles were prepared by Stephen Schneider and Will Kellogg, a minor scientific administrator for the past thirty years, and those articles were followed by an active correspondence mostly supportive of the skeptical spectrum of views. Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). On the whole, the debate within the meteorological community has been relatively healthy and, in this regard, unusual.


Outside the world of meteorology, Greenpeace's Jeremy Legett, a geologist by training, published a book attacking critics of warming---especially me. George Mitchell, Senate majority leader and father of a prominent environmental activist, also published a book urging acceptance of the warming problem (World on Fire: Saving an Endangered Earth). Sen. Gore recently published a book (Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit). Those are just a few examples of the rapidly growing publications on warming. Rarely has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of popularization by individuals who do not understand the subject in the first place.


The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began to actively oppose nuclear power generation. Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical manner. In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed. At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Frank Press, the academy's president, warned the membership against lending their credibility to issues about which they had no special knowledge. Special reference was made to the published petition. In my opinion what the petition did show was that the need to fight "global warming'' has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience--a dogma to which scientists are not immune.


At the same time, political pressures on dissidents from the "popular vision'' increased. Sen. Gore publicly admonished "skeptics'' in a lengthy New York Times op-ed piece. In a perverse example of double-speak he associated the "true believers'' in warming with Galileo. He also referred, in another article, to the summer of 1988 as the Kristallnacht before the warming holocaust.


The notion of "scientific unanimity'' is currently intimately tied to the Working Group I report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued in September 1990. That panel consists largely of scientists posted to it by government agencies. The panel has three working groups. Working Group I nominally deals with climate science. Approximately 150 scientists contributed to the report, but university representation from the United States was relatively small and is likely to remain so, since the funds and time needed for participation are not available to most university scientists. Many governments have agreed to use that report as the authoritative basis for climate policy. The report, as such, has both positive and negative features. Methodologically, the report is deeply committed to reliance on large models, and within the report models are largely verified by comparison with other models. Given that models are known to agree more with each other than with nature (even after "tuning''), that approach does not seem promising. In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. Nonetheless, the body of the report is extremely ambiguous, and the caveats are numerous. The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further. On the basis of the summary, one frequently hears that "hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of countries all agreed that.|.|.|.'' It hardly matters what the agreement refers to, since whoever refers to the summary insists that it agrees with the most extreme scenarios (which, in all fairness, it does not). I should add that the climatology community, until the past few years, was quite small and heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe.


While the International Panel on Climate Change's reports were in preparation, the National Research Council in the United States was commissioned to prepare a synthesis of the current state of the global change situation. The panel chosen was hardly promising. It had no members of the academy expert in climate. Indeed, it had only one scientist directly involved in climate, Stephen Schneider, who is an ardent environmental advocate. It also included three professional environmental advocates, and it was headed by a former senator, Dan Evans. The panel did include distinguished scientists and economists outside the area of climate, and, perhaps because of this, the report issued by the panel was by and large fair. The report concluded that the scientific basis for costly action was absent, although prudence might indicate that actions that were cheap or worth doing anyway should be considered. A subcommittee of the panel issued a report on adaptation that argued that even with the more severe warming scenarios, the United States would have little difficulty adapting. Not surprisingly, the environmentalists on the panel not only strongly influenced the reports, but failing to completely have their way, attempted to distance themselves from the reports by either resigning or by issuing minority dissents. Equally unsurprising is the fact that the New York Times typically carried reports on that panel on page 46. The findings were never subsequently discussed in the popular media--except for claims that the reports supported the catastrophic vision. Nevertheless, the reports of that panel were indicative of the growing skepticism concerning the warming issue.


Indeed, the growing skepticism is in many ways remarkable. One of the earliest protagonists of global warming, Roger Revelle, the late professor of ocean sciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who initiated the direct monitoring of carbon dioxide during the International Geophysical Year (1958), coauthored with S. Fred Singer and Chauncy Starr a paper recommending that action concerning global warming be delayed insofar as current knowledge was totally inadequate. Another active advocate of global warming, Michael McElroy, head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard, has recently written a paper acknowledging that existing models cannot be used to forecast climate.


One might think that such growing skepticism would have some influence on public debate, but the insistence on "scientific unanimity'' continues unabated. At times, that insistence takes some very strange forms. Over a year ago, Robert White, former head of the U.S. Weather Bureau and currently president of the National Academy of Engineering, wrote an article for Scientific American that pointed out that the questionable scientific basis for global warming predictions was totally inadequate to justify any costly actions. He did state that if one were to insist on doing something, one should only do things that one would do even if there were no warming threat. Immediately after that article appeared, Tom Wicker, a New York Times columnist and a confidant of Sen. Gore, wrote a piece in which he stated that White had called for immediate action on "global warming.'' My own experiences have been similar. In an article in Audubon Stephen Schneider states that I have "conceded that some warming now appears inevitable.'' Differences between expectations of unmeasurable changes of a few tenths of a degree and warming of several degrees are conveniently ignored. Karen White in a lengthy and laudatory article on James Hansen that appeared in the New York Times Sunday Magazine reported that even I agreed that there would be warming, having "reluctantly offered an estimate of 1.2 degrees.'' That was, of course, untrue.


Most recently, I testified at a Senate hearing conducted by Sen. Gore. There was a rather arcane discussion of the water vapor in the upper troposphere. Two years ago, I had pointed out that if the source of water vapor in that region in the tropics was from deep clouds, then surface warming would be accompanied by reduced upper level water vapor. Subsequent research has established that there must be an additional source--widely believed to be ice crystals thrown off by those deep clouds. I noted that that source too probably acts to produce less moisture in a warmer atmosphere. Both processes cause the major feedback process to become negative rather than positive. Sen. Gore asked whether I now rejected my suggestion of two years ago as a major factor. I answered that I did. Gore then called for the recording secretary to note that I had retracted my objections to "global warming.'' In the ensuing argument, involving mostly other participants in the hearing, Gore was told that he was confusing matters. Shortly thereafter, however, Tom Wicker published an article in the New York Times that claimed that I had retracted my opposition to warming and that that warranted immediate action to curb the purported menace. I wrote a letter to the Times indicating that my position had been severely misrepresented, and, after a delay of over a month, my letter was published. Sen. Gore nonetheless claims in his book that I have indeed retracted my scientific objections to the catastrophic warming scenario and also warns others who doubt the scenario that they are hurting humanity.


Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do.


The answer almost certainly lies in politics. For example, at the Earth Summit in Rio, attempts were made to negotiate international carbon emission agreements. The potential costs and implications of such agreements are likely to be profound for both industrial and developing countries. Under the circumstances, it would be very risky for politicians to undertake such agreements unless scientists "insisted.'' Nevertheless, the situation is probably a good deal more complicated than that example suggests.


The Temptation and Problems of "Global Warming''


As Aaron Wildavsky, professor of political science at Berkeley, has quipped, "global warming'' is the mother of all environmental scares. Wildavsky's view is worth quoting. "Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.'' In many ways Wildavsky's observation does not go far enough. The point is that carbon dioxide is vitally central to industry, transportation, modern life, and life in general. It has been joked that carbon dioxide controls would permit us to inhale as much as we wish; only exhaling would be controlled. The remarkable centrality of carbon dioxide means that dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas--some legitimate, some less so: energy efficiency, reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil, dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), international competition, governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power.


The very scale of the problem as popularly portrayed and the massive scale of the suggested responses have their own appeal. The Working Group I report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested, for example, that a 60 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions might be needed. Such a reduction would call for measures that would be greater than those that have been devoted to war and defense. And just as defense has dealt with saving one's nation, curbing "global warming'' is identified with saving the whole planet! It may not be fortuitous that this issue is being promoted at just the moment in history when the cold war is ending.


Major agencies in the United States, hitherto closely involved with traditional approaches to national security, have appropriated the issue of climate change to support existing efforts. Notable among those agencies are NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. The cold war helped spawn a large body of policy experts and diplomats specializing in issues such as disarmament and alliance negotiations. In addition, since the Yom Kippur War, energy has become a major component of national security with the concomitant creation of a large cadre of energy experts. Many of those individuals see in the global change issue an area in which to continue applying their skills. Many scientists also feel that national security concerns formed the foundation for the U.S. government's generous support of science. As the urgency of national security, traditionally defined, diminishes, there is a common feeling that a substitute foundation must be established. "Saving the planet'' has the right sort of sound to it. Fundraising has become central to environmental advocates' activities, and the message underlying some of their fundraising seems to be "pay us or you'll fry.''


Clearly, "global warming'' is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. Equally clearly, though far less frequently discussed, are the profound dangers in exploiting that issue. As we shall also see, there are good reasons why there has been so little discussion of the downside of responding to "global warming.''


A parochial issue is the danger to the science of climatology. As far as I can tell, there has actually been reduced funding for existing climate research. That may seem paradoxical, but, at least in the United States, the vastly increased number of scientists and others involving themselves in climate as well as the gigantic programs attaching themselves to climate have substantially outstripped the increases in funding. Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right'' results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming'' in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). Finally, given the momentum that has been building up among so many interest groups to fight "global warming,'' it becomes downright embarrassing to support basic climate research. After all, one would hate to admit that one had mobilized so many resources without the basic science's being in place. Nevertheless, given the large increase in the number of people associating themselves with climatology and the dependence of much of that community on the perceived threat of warming, it seems unlikely that the scientific community will offer much resistance. I should add that as ever greater numbers of individuals attach themselves to the warming problem, the pressures against solving the problem grow proportionally; an inordinate number of individuals and groups depend on the problem's remaining.


In addition to climatologists, are there other groups that are at risk? Here, one might expect that industry could be vulnerable, and, indeed, it may be. At least in the United States, however, industries seem to be primarily concerned with improving their public image, often by supporting environmental activists. Moreover, some industries have become successful at profiting from environmental regulation. The most obvious example is the waste management industry. Even electric utility companies have been able to use environmental measures to increase the base on which their regulated profits are calculated. It is worth noting that about 1.7 trillion dollars have been spent on the environment over the past decade. The environment, itself, qualifies as one of our major industries.


If Wildavsky's scenario is correct, the major losers would be ordinary people. Wealth that could have been used to raise living standards in much of the world would be squandered. Living standards in the developed world would decrease. Regulatory apparatuses would restrict individual freedom on an unprecedented scale. Here too, however, one cannot expect much resistance to proposed actions--at least not initially. Public perceptions, under the influence of extensive, deceptive, and one-sided publicity, can become disconnected from reality. For example, Alabama has had a pronounced cooling trend since 1935. Nevertheless, a poll among professionals in Alabama found that about 95 percent of the participants believed that the climate had been warming over the past fifty years and that the warming was due to the greenhouse effect. Public misperceptions coupled with a sincere desire to "save the planet'' can force political action even when politicians are aware of the reality.


What the above amounts to is a societal instability. At a particular point in history, a relatively minor suggestion or event serves to mobilize massive interests. While the proposed measures may be detrimental, resistance is largely absent or coopted. In the case of climate change, the probability that the proposed regulatory actions would for the most part have little impact on climate, regardless of the scenario chosen, appears to be of no consequence.


Modelling and Societal Instability


So far I have emphasized the political elements in the current climate hysteria. There can be no question, however, that scientists are abetting this situation. Concerns about funding have already been mentioned. There is, however, another perhaps more important element to the scientific support. The existence of modern computing power has led to innumerable modelling efforts in many fields. Supercomputers have allowed us to consider the behavior of systems seemingly too complex for other approaches. One of those systems is climate. Not surprisingly, there are many problems involved in modelling climate. For example, even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. In addition, the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models. In view of those problems, it is generally recognized that models are at present experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable.


While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable--regardless of reality.


Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us.

[PurdueWx80]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

[Aslkahuna]

In actuality, the change in the axial tilt of the Earth is not at all related to the Sun or Solar activity but rather due to Planetary perturbations chiefly those of the Moon. This is one of a number of such cycles involving axial tilt, the phase of the tilt with relation to the Line of the Apsides, degree of tilt, eccentricity of the Earth's orbit all of which undergo cyclic variations- the Milankovitch cycles which are important in the ebb and force of the Glacial periods (Ice Ages). These cycles are, for the most part, stable which is important to us (for example, the Obliquity [tilt] of Mars' rotational axis varies through more than 60 degrees in a chaotic manner without the cyclic precession we see here). For this we have the fact that we have a large moon that orbits relatively close to us. Only Pluto has a moon (Charon) that is larger than ours in relation to its primary and that system is locked in 1:1 resonance as we shall be many years from now-if Solar evolution doesn't cook us out of existence first. My belief in this matter is that current warming is a combination of both natural and anthropogenic processes and it's certainly incumbent upon us to do what we can about that part we CAN do something about before we end up with a result that we are neither prepared for nor expect. The important thing to remember is that atmospheric processes are non linear and non linear processes are by their very nature chaotic which means that small changes in the initial conditions can result in big departures down the time line and that we have thresholds where the changes reach a point where they suddenly force an entirely new system upon us. The latter is the concern of amny in the field. Problem is, we have no way of knowing-a. how close we may be to a threshold and b. which way will the feedback loop take us. Certainly we have seen in the past the Solar activity can tilt us into unusual modes but i the past it hasn't been enough to trigger a chaotic response but with our contribution to the mess maybe it could next time around. The question with Sun concerns which way are we going now-are we headed for a Super Max or are we headed for a Magnetic Minimum like the Spörer and Maunder Minima? The former would add to the warming possibly crossing a threshold-the latter would put the brakes on it or even reverse it giving us a false sense of security.

Insofar as the Ozone Layer is concerned, it has long been known that it is modulated by Solar activity since it's the EUV output from the Sun which varies widely over the cycle that produces high level Ozone. That has not been the issue. The issue has been the enlargement of seasonal regions of depletion that occur over Polar Regions during the Winter seasons there. The Ozone holes as they are called. Their existence was discovered during the IGY in 1957-58 in the Antarctic and they are a natural result of atmospheric compensation for the intense cold at the surface. In the Northern Hemisphere, we saw seasonal depletions but not as intense as over the South Polar Regions. But then is was discovered that the holes were getting bigger and taking longer to recover and that overall Ozone levels were dropping and this is where CFCs came into the picture. It is fairly well established that they did play a role. However, the monster Ozone depletions in the early 1990's came about in large part from another cause-the monster eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which spewed something like 34 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere which formed sulphuric acid aerosols which had two effects-the cooling off caused by the eruption and massive Ozone depletion (as an aside, computer modeling backed up by Solar Radiation measurements show that the 1908 Tunguska impactor caused a 40% reduction of the Ozone layer worldwide and even greater over Russia for a period of months)-I remember being flamed mercilessly in a discussion forum when I brough up this issue about Pinatubo since those I was debating didn't want to hear about natural causes being a factor. Like Climate Change, the Ozone debate has become politicized with the more Liberal side taking the view that it's all our fault and the Conservative side saying we are not to blame at all and those of us in the middle who say it's a matter of both nature and us.

Steve

[Ed Spacer]

Steve,

First,thank you for your professional input. Obviously,you are a study on the complex science of global climatology.However,I will disagree with the premise that we too are included in what impact our efforts make into the global climate and how it changes.

Yes,we can create acid rain based on pollution, but, that is what I call a "local,surface ecological event". What craeted the system that would catch these pollutants was not shaped,influenced,nor created by man-made carbon dispersion.However,I will meet you half the way and say that as a very good example,say ,Love Canal, we can ecologically at a surface level destroy the immediate habitation of a geographical area and render it useless for hundreds of miles in area.However, and this is NO EXCUSE for not wanting to try to do the best we can in protecting our envirnomental standards,because it does help us live better here at the surface,it does not however,immediately or directly impact the atmospheric divergence or the isobarometric balance equations that are sharply more divergent being increased by such solar activity.

Help me out if I am wrong,but I too have done sopme tests in my experience,and I stand behind my result on the matter.I am working on three patents that would love to share with the forum that I feel would bring climataology from a skeptical guess to an exact science.

I am enjoying this forum and the conversation.

[Ed Spacer]

Regarding the planetary axis tilt, I tend to disagree,perhaps,because there are exact measurements shown that prove the the moon,due to the increase in electromagnetic activity and graviaitional pull from the minutia of growth within the suns core,are pulling the smaller satellites closer to the suns orbit, and it is show that in orbital distance,the moon is actually by a slight distance of maybe a couple hundred feet a year, being puklled AWAY from the earths orbit,and this can be proven by the cyclical tidal changes worldwide.

[PurdueWx80]

Thanks for your input, Steve. For the record, liberals can take both sides of the issue and meet in the middle as well (I'm there with ya). I'm sure some conservatives may as well.

[Ed Spacer]

My viewpoints are my viewpoints,but my findings are scientific.

[PurdueWx80]

Shouldn't the science influence your viewpoints though? Also, just so we're clear - most scientific results aren't always correct, or exact - nor will they ever be perfectly so.

[sertorius]

Excellent discussion by all three of you-I wish I had the background to add something to it!!! I am quite fascinated with this topic and you're discussion is flat out incredible-thanks again!!!

[Aslkahuna]

Tidal Friction is indeed causing the Moon to drift outward slowly and at the same time it is also lengthening our day to the tune of a few seconds per Century which is why you hear about the Leap Seconds added to our clocks every now and then. In the far distant future, both the Moon's orbital period and our Day will have the same length. However, by that time the Sun will have evolved to the point where life will no longer be possible on this Planet.

My take on the Climate Change is simply this, the Greenhouse Gasses (chiefly water vapor, CO2 and CH4) trapped outgoing longwave radiation thus making this Planet warmer than it ordinarily would be. Their effectiveness is in inverse proportion to the amount present in the atmosphere with H2O vapor being the least effective and Methane the most-to the point where the Methane atmospheres of the Outer Planets are totall opaque to IR. You increase the amount of either one of these (and most importantly CO2 and CH4) then you increase the ability of the atmosphere to trap outgoing IR which then warms it-hence the term Global Warming. You warm the atmosphere you change the energy levels which then changes how the atmosphere responds to other changes which drive the weather such as the seasonal cycle. A warmer atmosphere also is able to handle more water vapor thus this affects the precipitation cycle. Pollution aerosols from urban pollution is shown to reduce the precipitation of clouds, however. As a result, the patterns we get with the changes in the energy budget can be different and even more extreme in terms of both warm and cold than we would customarily expect.

SO! How does this relate to antropogenic vs natural change? Ice core studies show that the amounts of CO2 and, on occasion, CH4 have varied greatly over the past eons and that the temperature varies directly with those changes. These variations can be due to volcanic activity, methane releases from Methane Hydrate deposits, impacts, etc. and we can, by determining the composition of air trapped in bubbles in the ice cores get some clue as to what happened in the past and, more importantly determine current levels of Greenhouse gasses wiht relation to past levels.
Our CO2 levels are currently at about 0.366 ppm plus or minus which is higher than anything they have been able to determine from the historical record as far back as they can go using various methods. More importantly, the observations show that the strongest increases have occurred in the past 100 years. Although our understanding of the Carbon cycle is incomplete-mainly in knowing how the atmosphere disposes of excess Carbon, we can eleiminate two causes-volcanic activity, which has been relatively stable, and methane releases, which have not been observed, for the increase. This leaves two factors which are important. First off the worldwide deforestation (like that which caused the disastrous floods in the Philippines) reduces the ability of the forests to absorb carbon while the slash and burn methods used to clear them releases Carbon Dioxide. Secondly, the increasing use of fossil fuels over the past 100 years has also released Carbon Dioxide. Thus a goodly portion of the CO2 increase has been due to Human Activity.

Based upon the above, many believe that the current warming is due strictly to the increase in CO2 and is totally anthropogenic in nature.
HOWEVER, this ignores one very important factor-the Sun. The strongest warming we have observed has occurred over the last 50 years. So perhaps it's not totally coincidental that this also is the period of time when we entered the strongest period of Solar activity in 200+ years. Since warming began in earnest before we entered this period of high Solar activity, this means that the Sun is not the only factor. In fact, those who study Solar Terrestrial relationships conclude that the Solar factor is probably about 30% or so of the total warming. This implies that something else is providing the rest and since the other nature sources are stable that leaves only one unstable factor-us. Thus it is that the current uptick in the energy balance of the atmosphere is both natural and anthropogenic.

Steve

[Ed Spacer]

Shouldn't the science influence your viewpoints though? Also, just so we're clear - most scientific results aren't always correct, or exact - nor will they ever be perfectly so.

It does.There are no donkeys or big fat elephants in my research.

[Ed Spacer]

2003 1440 1245 1322 1263 1162 1293 1277 1221 1122 1513 1408 1150
2004 1141 1070 1120 1012 998 974 1185 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1950 1507 1433 1378 1643 1571 1287 1341 1209 986 999 1019 1011
1951 1079 1019 1025 1271 1686 1617 1163 1098 1178 1060 1044 1024

1961 1220 1064 1048 1050 993 1099 1165 1062 1127 967 903 948
1962 949 1022 1003 962 979 910 807 773 895 878 849 820

1972 1148 1418 1285 1129 1296 1354 1220 1257 1136 1211 1016 1029
1973 1022 987 1004 1050 970 912 845 829 1056 877 815 842

1983 1423 1226 1186 1189 1371 1386 1250 1244 1090 1124 925 934
1984 1161 1406 1220 1287 1283 1003 893 837 781 735 763 759


1993 1210 1426 1364 1159 1124 1093 990 937 870 1003 959 1048
1994 1150 996 904 791 799 773 805 761 790 877 809 774

This is a history of solar flux readings and analysis.

Posted: Thu 09 Dec, 2004 Post subject:

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

oops some of those crazy solar flux numbers that I talked about.


In July, the solar flux rebounded to 1185 after having fallen to 974 in June.

July saw the most destructive and severe flooding and severe tornadic activity in the northeast region of the US in some cases historically.


Summation of July even here in Middletown,DE:

July 12- One tornado, 11.5 inches of rain,6 consecutive meso-scale supercell thunderstorms from 11 AM until after the following midnight.

*Tabernacle,NJ-19.5 inches of rain in one day.All time record on this date.

Temperature at start of the event-90 degrees. Dewpoint- 77
Need I say more.

July 14- Two tornadoes(one a multiple vortex rhar barely touched the ground) and another 6.3 inches of rain.Four meso-scale consecutive storms in a row,after one previous from a dying duratio from middle PA/MD in the nighttime.

Temperature- 88 degrees.Dewpoint- 76
Repeat of July 12.
So far, through 2004, the flux has been closest to that of 1961:



Year

.........Jan...........Feb..........Mar...........Apr..........May..........Jun...................July
2004........1141.........1070.......1120.........1012........998............974................1185
1961........1220.........1064.......1048.........1050........993..........1099................1165





There are solar RECENT flux numbers. This validates my findings.

In July, the solar flux rebounded to 1185 after having fallen to 974 in June.

July saw the most destructive and severe flooding and severe tornadic activity in the northeast region of the US in some cases historically.


Summation of July even here in Middletown,DE:

July 12- One tornado, 11.5 inches of rain,6 consecutive meso-scale supercell thunderstorms from 11 AM until after the following midnight.

*Tabernacle,NJ-19.5 inches of rain in one day.All time record on this date.

Temperature at start of the event-90 degrees. Dewpoint- 77
Need I say more.

Baromertic pressure-as low as 29.36 inches at 7 PM.

July 14- Two tornadoes(one a multiple vortex rhar barely touched the ground) and another 6.3 inches of rain.Four meso-scale consecutive storms in a row,after one previous from a dying duratio from middle PA/MD in the nighttime.

Temperature- 88 degrees.Dewpoint- 76
Repeat of July 12.

Other meteorologists have posted on this as well,but really do not understand the impact of such data in the realm of the global warming issue.As I have stated,the sun is a young star, and is growing.I predict the earth to be uninhabitable by within about 1 to 2 million years from now,but from the celestial evolution of our solar system.


http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/correlation/solar.data/
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/


So far, through 2004, the flux has been closest to that of 1961:

Average difference: 49.3

Given the latest analysis, it appears that the Winter 2004-05 (December 2004 through March 2005) solar flux will average in the vicinity of 900-1000 vs. last winter's 1125 average. This is somewhat higher than my earlier expectation of 820-920. However, continued fluctuations could change this further. Whether or not the strong rise in July suggests a temporary sustained rise in the solar flux remains to be seen.

Some of these solar flux numbers in this analysis are unbelievable.With this data that I have compiled,it completely blows outof the water the thought that we impact the global climatalogical scenario at all.Read on.I solidify my case further.

This primary ingredient, in combination with other factors that have been here for thousands of years,such as friction,inter-activity result analysis based on the readings of certain entities interacting creating such weather events and in combination with technology to measure such,and these have been here all along,and as I will explain,this wil play and I have proven this formulation of coordinated molecular micro-signature intergration analysis in a uni-functional,but multi-tiered analysis medium that will bring the science of atmospheric and global climatology and meteorology into the 21 st century,and will being it for a dart being thrown into the wind and hope it lands,to an EXACT SCIENCE with pinpoint precisioning event advance notification,rather than "forecast".My study on this complex webbing of intergrated subject has led me to discover several items of great interest,such as,I do know exactly how tornados form,and even how this plays out into understanding the universe and anomalies to factual events in the universe.

This is how it works. A hierachal mosaic model of analysis to ensure pinpoint accuracy formulation of measurement,and result.

At tier one,you have for example,a controlled formulated measured and analysis area self-result producing of a thousand square miles.

That picture is its own picture. independant of and for its own analysis and the resulting event notification that will take place for such an area.


But

That picture is made of supporting smaller sectors that make up that bigger pcture.Say, of regions of 100 sq miles.

It is a new technology I have created called ECHO CLIMATALOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS. That is one of the patents I am working on.

Its like, a picture,inside of another picture,inside of another picture,inside of another picture...but they are all the same picture at all levels, each hierarchal teir supporting the other,but independant in its own right.

And also,it shows exactly what will happen for what region for what event based on a basic and detailed MRI of the distrubance,factors and compannents of what created it, as well as what the reactivity and event will take place based on the inter-coagulation of both the event and the conditions on the ground and what will take place based on the reactivity event that occurs on the basis of all thes formulations,inter-correlating from an area as small as one square mile to a much greater panorama with pinpoint 100% accuracy. This is like getting an MRI done of a weather event and determiningbased on kinetic energy reactivity and the simple factor of tyhe role in relative humidity and the kinetic motional friction and discharge of this energy that will EXACTLY determine what your climate will be at a certain spot for a certain time based on a conglomerative unitive mosaic pinpoint result of this multi-tiered forumlation.

but these also,are independant and cyclical and also complete in its own formulations and analysis for each 100 sq mile sector.Supporting the bigger picture,but also,the same result for each one, each one supporting the entire synopsys of the larger or smaller picture preceding or advancing of it.
_________________


I have also done a molecular study on volcanic ash.

Based on its chemical composition and molecular structure, it takes only a minutia of this ash being dispersed based on its chemical and molecular composition,which is very highly concentrated,obviously,in carbon, to very quickly absorb the molecular and kinetic energy of the solar radiation and based on its molecular properties it does NOT reflect back the solar radiation but absiorbs it entirely,and there fore,it can only take a small eruption based on these chemical and molecular compositional analysis to change the climatology of a certain are or region of concentration within a few short months.

[Ed Spacer]

I know that I am on to something very big based on my research.I have been an ameteur meteorologist for 25 years. My father,designed the mobile staellite broadcast transmission station that trucks have to go mible to events,and a patent for electroplating procedures,so this stuff runs in my family.

I want to work the professional mets to get this technology off the ground. Not only will it be able to save lives,but BILLIONS of dollars in sent out government aid and insurance and property losses due to having an ADVANCED EVENT NOTIFICATION system.

What advances the technology to define the accuracy of my system is not based on new gizmos and machines,but rather using measured elements that have been here all along since the dawn of the planet itself.Old fashioned weather observation.Like in the old days.The only advancement we have made is we have technology that sees whats going on in a greater perspective in geology,not better analysis.

We have,until now,not advanced,but regressed on how much we rely on our own knowledge of weather and climate and become far more dependant on the tools/machines doing the workj for us,rather than disposing of them for their original purpose,and that is to help us grow in our ability and knowlegde of the specific of what subject it is that we are actually analysing.


BOTTOM LINE-Our current weather tells us exactly what the future climate and weather will be with based on these exact formulations that exist right now real time.

Before satellites and the like,this is how weather was forcasted ages go....and was more accurate than what we hhave now,as we allowed our laziness to let the machines do our jobs for us.

Rather,this next generation of technology brings weather from forecasting to actual real time event notification.Yeah.No BS. Know EXACTLY what is going to happen on the basis of this interactive,multi-tiered inter-coordinating analysis result.Period.

Such as.

How dry is the ground?

How much friction will take place and reactive molecular kinetic release will take place based on the land moisture?

plus how high is the relative humidity in the air at 5000 ft,the ground,10,000 ft..

PLUS

what the porperties are of an event based on the charactoristics of the particular disturbance or climatological isobaric atmospheric change and its own inertia and its own properties...

EQUALS


what kind of molecular reactivity will take place for an event based on this reactivity and impact of the measured kinetic friction generated by such inter-molecular activity...

PLUS


Well,I am certainly not going to give awy all of my secrets on this yet.
But,lets just say,that is one of nine interactive independantly resulting micro-sigmnatures that are just the first teir of detail result in the hierarchal analysis that will take place with this.

Stay tuned,y'all.

I have a thrity seven page thesis on this and how it will work and its design and implementation.

I would be happy to share with any professional mets.

[kevin]

Do I hear a duck quacking?

Quack. Quack. Quack.

Maybe my duck senses are drifting.

You related to methane mike? When you have published in a peer reviewed journal I'll read an article that long.

Anyone think this is legit?

[Ed Spacer]

I have been a climatological study and an ameteur meteorologist for twenty five years. I would be happy to post it in any perr-review paper,it is thirty-seven pages long,and I am about to file three patent applications on it.I understand your skepticism,but if you are going to critisize another posters thread,please be able to substantiate yourself and your dialogue by a criticism of the substance of the subject matter,as opposed to making a blanket statement.That way,you criticism perhaps may have more creednace and validity than otherwise just blindly throw darts at the wall and miss.

[NorthGaWeather]

I find it pretty interesting that temps were warmer in Roman and Viking times than today. Back when Greenland was Green. Global warming has not and probably will not be proven to exist. Its simply a theory, like bigfoot or Mars having life. Global warming has been blown up by politics and Europe. The famous computer in Eurpoe that shows the Earth will be 6 degrees warmer in 100 years when we can't predict 5 day temps with confidence. The fact is the Earth has warmed very little in the past 100 years and we have had very little to do with it. The temp patterns go in cycles and thats been proven.

[NorthGaWeather]

Another good article with points I agree and disagree with but hey they are atleast using facts. More than some so called scientist have used.

Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.

To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."


Nature still rules

Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Soon and colleagues believe their findings will contribute to computer models that simulate natural and human influences on climate more accurately. That should lead to better climate forecasts, including those on local and regional levels. Such forecasts, in turn, could help make it easier to reach international agreements on treaties to control emissions of industrial gases that contribute to global warming. One reason the administration of President Bush gives for not signing the international 1997 Kyoto Protocol to limit carbon dioxide emissions is that sufficient scientific information about the cause of global warming is lacking.


Vikings enjoy Greenland beaches

Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for warmer times and decades of more frigid and extreme weather than we are now experiencing.

Extended television and government forecasts didn't exist during the 16th to 18th centuries, but many Flemish and Dutch artists, like Pieter Brueghel and Hendrick Avercamp, depicted severe Little Ice Age winters in their paintings.

CfA's Sallie Baliunas, a co-author of the study, refers to the medieval Viking sagas as examples of unusual warming around 1003 A.D. "The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium, but they died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder," she notes. "And good evidence exists that vineyards flourished in Scotland and England during the medieval warmth."

The evidence also shows that the warmer and colder times occurred not just in Europe, but in places all over the world. Entered into computer simulations that can send us backward and forward hundreds of years in a matter of days, the new information should make forecasts and hindcasts of climate much more accurate.

[Aslkahuna]

Solar activity was very high during the Medevial period which was a major factor for the warming then as were the Spörer and Maunder minima factors in the Little Ice Age. The problem now is that the current levels of Solar activity though the highest since 1780 are believed to account for only about 30% of currently observed warming. That leaves 70% to explain.

Steve

[Ed Spacer]

Solar activity was very high during the Medevial period which was a major factor for the warming then as were the Spörer and Maunder minima factors in the Little Ice Age. The problem now is that the current levels of Solar activity though the highest since 1780 are believed to account for only about 30% of currently observed warming. That leaves 70% to explain.

Steve

Steve,do you have any links or substantative facts on this?I very,respectfully,STRONGLY disagree with that figure.With the solar flux readins I posted and the fact of the natural reactivity to the photosynthesis on living and inert matter here,that alone would account for at least 75% of the solar influence on the global climatology.