PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming: Global Temperature Is Dropping, Not Rising



FrankRep
07-11-2009, 07:08 PM
Global Temperature Is Dropping, Not Rising (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1404)


Ed Hiserodt | The New American (http://www.oneradionetwork.com/)
11 July 2009


Environmental doomsayers may still be claiming that we must radically reduce carbon-dioxide and other “greenhouse” gas emissions in order to prevent catastrophic global warming, but they cling to that position despite the fact that the warming they’ve been forecasting has not occurred. In fact, the average global temperature has gone down, not up, in recent years.

The graph at this link (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg) from icecap.us shows that the average global temperature has been dropping since at least 2002, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing.

A graph based on satellite temperature readings can be found at the appropriately named “algorelied” website (http://algorelied.com/?p=2429). Here the data is put into a 30-year perspective. Markers indicate that the temperature has decreased by 0.74°F (0.39°C) since January 24, 2006. The significance of that date? That’s when Al Gore’s sci-fi-thriller An Inconvenient Truth was released at the Sundance Film Festival. The data showing this cooling trend was taken from thousands of satellite measurements encompassing the entire lower atmosphere of the Earth with an accuracy of 0.01°C. The satellite data is far more accurate than surface temperature measurements, which are limited to the 28 percent of the planet not covered by oceans. (Even in the United States, where one would expect the surface temperature measurements to be more accurate than elsewhere, a recent survey (http://www.surfacestations.org/) found that only 11 percent of the monitoring stations meet the National Weather Service’s siting requirements.

If we were to extrapolate the change in temperature in the last 42 months since Gore’s movie debut to the year 2100, we would forecast a decrease of 19.9°F (8.8°C) — temperatures not seen since the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago. Is such an extrapolation reliable? Of course not! But that’s the kind of extrapolation game global-warming alarmists like to play.

Still another look at global temperatures and alarmist predictions comes from EPA analyst Alan Carlin, who shows graphically in a March 2009 report (pdf) (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf) how IPCC temperature projections and reality diverge. Carlin’s graph is located on page four of his report. As he explains on the following page, the red, purple, and orange lines on his graph show IPCC temperature predictions assuming different emission scenarios; the yellow line shows what the IPCC claims would happen if the CO2 concentration were to remain the same; and the blue and green lines show the actual temperature records based on ground and satellite readings respectively. The blue and green lines — the lines reflecting the actual temperature records — are the only lines dropping instead of climbing on Carlin’s graph. In fact, the actual global temperature has fallen by 0.3°C in just the last three years according to the satellite data.

The EPA document also notes that the actual data conflict with the theory that CO2 causes temperature to rise:


What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated. According to Canadell et al. (2008), fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there's been no net warming in the 21st century, and more accurately, a decline.

And finally some climate tid-bits from the Climate Depot (http://climatedepot.com/) that keeps up with such things:

• Cape Cod farmers lose crops due to “June that felt more like April”

• NYC has coolest June since 1958

• Another new low temperature at Bryce Canyon: June 6th, 20oF. Record had been 27oF set in 1951

• Every day in June was below normal in Los Angeles since temperature records began in 1944.

Why don’t global-warming alarmists address the issue of the recent decline in global temperatures? It raises questions about their real agenda, does it not?


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1404

VIDEODROME
07-11-2009, 07:58 PM
What if this is because we got the CFC damaging the Ozone layer and trapping heat under control. What if those infamous Ozone layer holes are getting back to normal?

Conservative Christian
07-11-2009, 08:15 PM
Even global warming alarmists (GWA's) know that the earth's temperature hasn't been warming for about a decade now, even though mankind continues to emit Co2 into the atmosphere daily.

That's why GWA's in both the political and scientific establishment, are now using the propaganda term "climate change" instead.

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-12-2009, 07:40 AM
There's no doubt too much Co2 has an effect on the atmosphere, but taxing people to death is not the way to go about it. The atmosphere protects us from harmful solar rays, and when there's holes in the protective layer, that's pretty bad. If the atmosphere gave us no protection at all we would all die from overexposure to these rays. They are the rays that pierce our skin and cause skin cancer.

pcosmar
07-12-2009, 08:02 AM
There's no doubt too much Co2 has an effect on the atmosphere, but taxing people to death is not the way to go about it. The atmosphere protects us from harmful solar rays, and when there's holes in the protective layer, that's pretty bad. If the atmosphere gave us no protection at all we would all die from overexposure to these rays. They are the rays that pierce our skin and cause skin cancer.

I have a doubt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/images/50_composition_of_the_earth.gif

Agent CSL
07-12-2009, 08:40 AM
Simple solution: Call it "climate change." That way, whatever happens, they still fall back on that one word. Err... two words.

tmosley
07-12-2009, 09:09 AM
Yes, one must understand that the warming effect from CO2 doesn't even rise above the level of noise of the effect of water, which varies by location and time. Water vapor is about 2 times as powerful of a greenhouse gas as CO2, and is found as a rough average as about 2% of the gas composition of the atmosphere. This means that there is on average 50 times more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere, and thus the water causes 100 times as much warming as CO2!

Indeed, given that increased gas output will actually displace some of that water, CO2 actually has a net COOLING effect, though it is so miniscule that it can hardly be measured (again). Of course, neither of those really compare with Nitrogen and Oxygen, which, though they have a far lesser heat capacity (1/2rd that of CO2), they are present in an abundance that far exceeds that of water.

If we were putting out as much methane as we were CO2, only THEN could one argue that we are contributing to global warming, as methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas.

If you want to know why each of these gasses has different heat capacities, I can tell you. I was only recently thinking back to my classes on quantum chemistry when I realized this. The heat capacity of a gas is determined entirely by the number of bonds in each molecule, and their shape. N2 is an easy example. When N2 absorbs a photon (heat), it has only one way to hold it, to flex it's bond. the two atoms oscillate toward and away from each other. N2 is thus said to have 1 degree of freedom. It's bonds can move in only 1 direction. CO2 is somewhat more complicated. It has two bonds that can oscillate. However, they are a specific type of bond (called a conjugated bond) that means it has to remain straight. Thus, it's heat capacity is double that of N2. Now water has a two single bonds, and is in a bent configuration. It has the ability to oscillate on both of its bonds, but it also has the ability to flex (the two hydrogens get closer and farther apart alternately, while remaining the same distance from the oxygen), and the ability to twist. Thus oxygen is said to have four degrees of freedom (there may be more, I can think of at least one more type of movement, but I think it is really just a combination of other movements--if there are more, it just makes CO2 even less of a problem). Now methane is a bloody mess, since it has four hydrogens, and between them they can produce many different types of movement. If I remember correctly (probably not, it's been a while), it has nine degrees of freedom.

Given that, global warming seems to be nothing but bunk. One could make the case for local warming based on emissions of larger molecules into the lower atmosphere (like incompletely burned fuel), which could have thousands of degrees of freedom, which might account for the "heat island" effect that occurs around cities and major highways. The solution for that is better engines that put out more CO2 through a complete burn.

emazur
07-12-2009, 09:33 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html
Meanwhile a remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the "consensus'' bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade'' scheme, which would devastate Australia's economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.

Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

The written answers produced by the minister's own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding's team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced "Due Diligence'' paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government's reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill.

The wider significance of this episode is that it is the first time a Western government has allowed itself to be drawn into debating the science behind the global warming scare with expert scientists representing the "counter consensus" – and the "consensus" lost hands down.

mediahasyou
07-12-2009, 12:18 PM
what do you do after campaigning nonstop for the last 5 years only to find out your were manipulated by some hippies? suicide?

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-12-2009, 11:09 PM
I have a doubt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/images/50_composition_of_the_earth.gif

congratulations you found a graph of the makeup of our atmosphere

Dr.3D
07-12-2009, 11:30 PM
congratulations you found a graph of the makeup of our atmosphere

Too bad it doesn't include the water vapor.

TortoiseDream
07-12-2009, 11:43 PM
I don't buy into the whole global warming scam at all, but can someone clarify this for me?

Look at the left axis on the graph:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg

It says "Temperature Anomaly C". Does that mean the jagged curve is the change in temperature each year? If so, when the curve is > 0 then the earth is warming, and when it's < 0 the earth is cooling. Assuming this is correct, the trend line indicates that the earth is warming, but the rate of increase is decreasing.

If I'm wrong, someone clarify please.

Dr.3D
07-12-2009, 11:50 PM
I don't buy into the whole global warming scam at all, but can someone clarify this for me?

Look at the left axis on the graph:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg

It says "Temperature Anomaly C". Does that mean the jagged curve is the change in temperature each year? If so, when the curve is > 0 then the earth is warming, and when it's < 0 the earth is cooling. Assuming this is correct, the trend line indicates that the earth is warming, but the rate of increase is decreasing.

If I'm wrong, someone clarify please.

Look at the dashed trend line.
It shows the temperature to be dropping.

While there was some warming in the past, it is progressively correcting and moving downward.

TortoiseDream
07-12-2009, 11:51 PM
Look at the dashed trend line.
It shows the temperature to be dropping.

While there was some warming in the past, it is progressively correcting and moving downward.

Your response leads me to believe you did not understand my post at all.

Dr.3D
07-12-2009, 11:53 PM
Your response leads me to believe you did not understand my post at all.

Probably not.... guess I'll go hang myself in the barn now. :rolleyes:

TortoiseDream
07-13-2009, 12:02 AM
Probably not.... guess I'll go hang myself in the barn now. :rolleyes:

It seems to me that the trend line is CHANGE in temperature, NOT the temperature itself. IF that is the case, then there is warming when the trend is above the 0 line, and cooling when it is below. The graph above seems to indicate that there is warming, but that it is slowing down. What do you think?

Dr.3D
07-13-2009, 12:21 AM
It seems to me that the trend line is CHANGE in temperature, NOT the temperature itself. IF that is the case, then there is warming when the trend is above the 0 line, and cooling when it is below. The graph above seems to indicate that there is warming, but that it is slowing down. What do you think?

Yes, the trend line is above zero and that indicates we are still in the above normal temperature range.

From the looks of the graph, here is what the trend line would look like if it were to be continued for the next seven years.

The data below would be the year followed by the trend line temperature.
2009.5 0.150
2010.5 0.127
2011.5 0.103
2012.5 0.080
2013.5 0.057
2014.5 0.033
2015.5 0.010
2016.5 -0.013

So if the trend were to continue for the next seven years, there would be cooling below the average normal temperature.

Kludge
07-13-2009, 12:22 AM
YouTube - 20/20 - Is there really a global warming consensus? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZcp_wcDXec)

@ TD: I might be wrong, but I believe that chart is showing how much the collected data of the moment deviates from some type of long-term average, and is not showing a compounding increase/decrease, but it isn't really clear.

Dr.3D
07-13-2009, 12:34 AM
I'm pretty sure there is a consensus that there has been global warming. It also appears there is not a consensus as to man being the cause of it. From the looks of the data, it appears, solar radiation has been responsible for most of the warming we have experienced.

Some would argue that the CO2 content is what has caused the solar radiation to cause the warming. Others would argue that the CO2 content has had little to do with the warming.

If we look at the data collected from other planets, we also notice they have had a warming trend, pretty much like the one we have experienced here on Earth. This should lead most to consider the extra CO2 in the atmosphere on Earth to be of little consequence to the warming being seen in the solar system.

BenIsForRon
07-13-2009, 01:04 AM
I'm pretty sure there is a consensus that there has been global warming. It also appears there is not a consensus as to man being the cause of it.


There is a very large consensus that man has significantly contributed to global warming, and will continue to do so, unless we can burn less carbon fuels.

The IPCC is comprised of thousands of scientists... now I know what you are going to say: "AHHH, but the UN is telling them what to say@@!?!!". Not true, these scientists are from all the around the world, and from what I've seen they do not have a political agenda. I've met one of the IPCC scientists, a climatologist from Rutgers, and he was very much a down to earth guy who is making his best hypothesis from the best information.

Ever since the 1950's, as industry across the world was really getting going, global temperatures started rising in a way they typically haven't in the history of the earth. It is not part of a solar cycle as the current activity has not changed enough to cause what we are seeing. Do you really think that it is a coincidence that all this warming happened at the same time we've burned more fossil fuels than ever before?

Conservative Christian
07-17-2009, 10:26 PM
U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2009

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9


.

Conservative Christian
07-17-2009, 10:30 PM
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8


.