Global Cooling?

so what your saying is we have a layer of smog now?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You bring up many interesting topics in this one post, each of which could lead to a lengthy conversation. From my perspective, it would be much easier to understand what you are saying and respond intelligently if we focus in more detail on a smaller number of topics. For now, why don't I address the topics that most directly connect back to what we've already been talking about. What do you mean? Are you talking about the idea of methane being released in large quantities from the ocean and permafrost due to warming? If so I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened yet in detectable quantities, but it is possible disaster scenario. Again, it isn't clear to me what you're saying. Is this close to your argument?: "The solar power output went up 0.1% in the first half of the 1900s. That led to warming which melted ice which made the earth darker so that it absorbs more heat. After the sun's power output leveled off in the 60's, the earth's temperature continued to rise simply because of its greater heat absorption, which led to more melting, more heat absorption, etc. Thus, there is no need for a greenhouse effect from CO2." Looking at the data from your own source, it looks to me like the sun's power output has been level since about 1960. I really can't follow your argument in the rest of this paragraph. Don't be too concerned about the results of any one year. Yearly anomalies happen all the time. It's the multi-decade trends that are relevant. You're thinking in a lot of directions at once I see. Up until now you've been convinced that we're heating up because the sun is getting hotter. Now you're worried that it's actually getting colder. But really, what we've seen in the last several decades is a flat solar output and an increasing temperature. Lockwood's analysis suggests a *very slight* decline in solar output, but there's no way this is strong enough to have had much of an effect yet. Possibly it can be indicative of a drastic drop in the future that will cause dimming problems, but what is the evidence that that's likely to happen? Man, you really don't like Lockwood. Does he owe you money or something?

When everyone was worried about global cooling in the 1990's the EPA set particulate limits and it appears that more light is now getting to the earth in the northern hemisphere.Hopefully China will continue to pollute the air to help global dimming and some of its pollution will continue to drift over the Pacific Ocean to help stabilize the increase in solar energies being absorbed by the earth and oceans. Its kind of like solar shades. Then if you have pollution gases within the clouds your reducing the absorbtion ability of the clouds which does not mean Co2 can not absorb infared radiation but if an over abundance of water vapor absorbs a particular frequency then Co2 is being shielded from absorbing that particular frequency by water vapor.Thus you find greenhouse gases reduce a clouds absorbtion ability of infared radiation pushing global dimming. You also have aerosol pollution (smog)reflecting light back to space.However with the northern hemisphere losing its ice reflection ability and with the industrial nations like America reducing aerosols (smog) you are finding global warming appears to still be increasing not decreasing.China appears to be helping reduce solar absorbtion but still a whole lot of surface area in the northern hemisphere absorbing solar radiation that not too long ago was reflecting solar radiation back to space.P.S. Its like a tug of war between solar absorbtion and solar reflection. When one takes in the increased earth exposed in the northern hemisphere you have more solar absorbtion and less being reflected simply due to the continental land mass is primarily in the northern hemisphere.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The tug-of-war between warming and dimming, until recently, seems to have raised the overall temperature of the planet only gradually. Now, it appears, warming is getting the upper hand in places like the US that have reduced aerosol pollution.http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-01.htmlEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I was thinking more in the tundra in the northern hemisphere in the summer months due how quickly the earth can warm up think it would take a bit to warm the oceans as heat rises suspect only the upper water layer would warm up much, though it would increase water vapor and increase cloud cover, however would that increase absorbtion more than it would reflect? I just worry that the blame will be placed on Co2 and that means placing the burden on all the peoples of the earth. Politics etc...Lockwood could be right that solar increases have stabilized for the present but be wrong that Co2 is causing global temperatures to be increasing even though the solar increases for the last century may have temporarily stablilized. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

have you read my concerns about the possibilities of a Venus effect?what data do you have concerning that?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

thats one huge "MAY" and a very dangerous gamble.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

If you look at this chart it does look like solar increases have sort of stabilized since 1985 however since 1880 however it shows global warming follows solar increases and not industrial pollution.In the absence of some other agenda, in America Politics are using models that are based on assumptions rather than knowledge about what the professionals call the critical climate processes: water vapor, feedbacks, clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, and solar variability, etc...However worse than McCain and Leiberman proposal would be if Hiliary or Obama would gain the presidency and sign the perverted kyoto treaty either way though appears politics and the media have their candidates positioned to misinterprete the Lockwood premise, that is unless Huckabee by some miracle would gain the republican nomination and the Presidency. Temperature correlates with the Sun "NOT" Hydrocarbon Use . +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Since the United States does not intend to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, McCain and Lieberman advocate a mandatory program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They assert that nothing short of mandates is sufficiently responsive to the envisioned threat. Their scheme is deeply flawed.To begin with, it presumes a conclusion about climate change that is not supported by science. The National Academy of Sciences, along with most serious climate scientists, say it is not possible to distinguish potential human impacts from natural variability, and that a significant portion of warming that has occurred in recent decades could be natural.In addition, the projections of catastrophe these Senators rely on are the result of simulations from computer models that have not been validated scientifically. In the absence of some other agenda, it is difficult to understand why the Senators would put so much faith in models that are based mostly on assumptions rather than knowledge about critical climate processes: water vapor, feedbacks, clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, and solar variability. Knowledge of these processes would seem to be necessary to understand past climate change, to produce realistic models, and to provide a basis for credible projections into the future.Page Not Found - Marshall StreetEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

yes a lot of "maybes" and you as a scientist don't want it to become political agenda unless its a verified fact.but look at this:the extra carbons ARE having an impact, and how deep it will potentially be still has to be explored.if even the "chance" that these carbons could cause an ice age by diluting the oceans salt content and killing the mid Atlantic drift, then precautions should be taken on the political agenda.for many reasons: ie: the chaos of a major climate shift could cause some now "first" world countries to become "third" world countries. the new populace of "first" world countries are rely very very heavily on economy and technology, both which could break down with the absence of money. take money out of the equation, and all technology will collapse. its how the populace has been taught.no one truly understands in full the implications of what the extra carbons are doing. if anyone DID, there would not be a dispute.you should be very cautious politically of course, because of economic complications, but at the same time, when your dealing with the potential collapse of current super powers, the scale of economic destruction when its too late is too big a danger to ignore.lets not look at this data and say absolutely anything, because there is no absolute in tomorrow til tomorrow is here. instead lets review the data, add more data, and make a wise decision concerning it.cause and effect: if cause potential A is 50% are you willing to accept the consequences? if A= good, and b = destruction of global economies, or perhaps the extinction of most life on the planet, is a 50% chance acceptable? what are the vchances? what do the models show as "potentials"? are they acceptable in the event A=B which has the outcome of C with a 20% chance? can we fix the problem if C becomes reality?and in conclusion: have you explored any potentials of a Venus effect, or have any data that can show that the atmosphere that retains water is shrinking in capacity from added carbons?(please see and respond to the VENUS questions in earlier posts)

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I'm not to concerned about it because Venus has much more Co2 96 percent and closer to the sun. I agree the other planets including Venus seem to be showing they too like the earth are being affected by the suns recent rise in solar energies.The EPA has Co2 safe up to 5,000 ppm we got a long way to go before Co2 would be a threat to human health, etc...P.S. They are trying to use Fear to push their agenda through its not about Co2 never has, etc...+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=enviro...Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

you have quoted Venus current atmosphere, but at what concentration did the Venus atmosphere become a full covering?ie:what is the true reason Venus has this atmosphere? is it because of vicinity to the sun, or because of radiation forces with a concentration of CO2? at what levels of CO2 concentration, and the highest known spike of radiation concentrations, and the overlapping bounce of radiation in the atmosphere with the carbons constitute a full covering?we need data. so it IS safe just because they said so? how many times has established and believed organizations set rules only to discover later, they were wrong? if they are wrong, can we deal with the consequences? what part of human health? breathing area? what could atmospheric CO2 do to our climate? an indirect source for human hazard? based on opinions? i don't have much faith in maybes. we need data. and we better make a wise decision. then in what century? whose children? is the extinction of man inevitable at some point? or can what you do today, save tomorrow?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

What you have is climatic scientists disagreeing with bypassing science in favor of Fear.P.S. Faith is a funny thing unless its in Christ would not base it on data that's based on Fear!+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++akjv Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

i don't agree. what we have is scientist who figure if it isn't knocking them in the face it isn't important, and other scientist who have data that suggest with ignorance and inaction we may produce the extinction of our species, or at least speed along our own extinction.tell me, is it a wise fear, to fear a tornado?
is it wise, to fear an earthquake?but because a tornado is possible we have counter measures.
also for an earthquake.why then is it not wise to stop CO2 production in a timely fashion, before we cripple the entire ecosystem of the earth from what we know it is today?the earth will evolve, but we are speeding up the process. how many volcanoes would it take to release the amount of carbon man is doing in a consistent fashion?if you think its wise, and say "don't worry nothing to fear". then consider this. you are not the only person who ignored the wisdom of preparation, and when the wars started, them and their families were all killed because they did not believe the danger.were hurting this planet. its changing the seasons and the weather. and it will probably get worse pretty fast. your the scientist that is supposed to collect data, and use science to benefit mankind, and mankind's survival. if you ignore the evidence by looking at only a small portion of the evidence, then you are aiding nothing. and it would be better that you were a flooring installer instead of a scientist. because all you'll do is nothing but say : its all good , have a beer. look over there, cute girl, ill get her number, oh by the way i make 300k a year, and I'm well known for being real smart, so when i say don't worry. don't worry. cause i know. ima scientist. oh hey whats that happening to the sky? seems we have storms all the time now, whoa hey look there, the "global dimming" has gotten so bad that i cant see the moon at night no more. ooo ho ho, look the sun looks like a sackcloth has pulled over it. yup but don't worry, just drink another beer and see the pretty girls dance. after all, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.i find your arguments disturbing, ignorant, foolish to the point of stupidity of all i have ever debated with.i wish you no ill, but if you are a scientist, you should be looking for the truth by collecting more data. not staring at some incomplete data and pronouncing to everyone "the world is flat" like a recording from past ignorance. you silly man, every walk you make and do is faith in the world and yourself. know this: the fear of God is wisdom. if you have observed any truth, then know this: God will be, even if and when this world is not. if your faith is in the world, and the world is gone, then nothing will you have left to have faith in.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Matthew Huber, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue University's College of Science is questioning the mechanisms that feed back onto global warming are poorly understood and not well represented into our current generation of models. He said that this should be of great concern and will continue to be debated and explored in future research.P.S. You have evidence Co2 was once 2000 ppm and tropical life was thriving in the artic circle as well as the tropics. Co2 is only around 380 ppm and everyone is afraid for the world, etc...Why? The media pressed "Fear" in the 1970 about global cooling and they are pressing fear about global warming today. The media disagree'd with the professionals then and the media disagree today, etc.... Its all about FEAR (chicken little the sky is falling) not science, etc... Its like going to the doctor and some accountant at an HMO deciding if what the doctor deems necessary is medically necessary, etc... I believe its faith in Christ and not faith in the world or yourself. I however think Satan wants the fear due God thus you have the world fearing global warming, etc...God has already promised global warming or cooling will not affect the seasons, seedtime and harvest, hot and cold, while the earth remaineth ,etc... akjv genesis 8:22++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++North Pole's ancient past holds clues about future global warmingThe concentration of carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere is about 380 parts per million, whereas the concentration 55 million years ago was about 2,000 parts per million."We now have a pretty good correlation between records of past warmth and higher carbon dioxide concentrations," Huber said.While the climate models had predicted that researchers would discover the Arctic Ocean's freshwater past, the models have consistently underestimated by at least 10 degrees how hot the Earth would have been during that time, Huber said.The models fail to explain another puzzling fact. The temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator today is about 45 degrees C. But the difference appears to have been much smaller during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum time frame. Otherwise, it would have been too hot for vegetation to survive in equatorial latitudes."We still haven't explained why the tropics stayed cool," Huber said. "Somehow, we have to explain how you can warm the poles up to 23 degrees Celsius without having the tropics rise to at least 50 degrees, which is 10 degrees too hot for plants to carry out photosynthesis."He said the implications are troubling because current models may be providing optimistic predictions."Today's models underpredict how warm the poles were back then, which tells you something disturbing - that the models, if anything, aren't sensitive enough to greenhouse gases," Huber said. "At the same time, it is possible that other forces in addition to higher-than-normal greenhouse gas concentrations were involved, otherwise we can't explain how the tropics maintained livable conditions.http://www.physorg.com/news68305951.html++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Sunday, December 30, 2007100 Prominent Scientists Disagree with UN Secretary General on Global WarmingPage not found - The National CenterHere is an article talking about 100 Prominent Scientists that disagrees with the United Nations Secretary General on Global Warming. That global warming is only a natural phenomenom not affected by greenhouse gases. That curbing greenhouse gases will only hurt the populations of the earth and some scientists are concerned we might be moving towards global cooling.The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s... In 1975, cooling went from "one of the most important problems" to a first-place tie for "death and misery." The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warmingWhat were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

that article is making some large stretches.who is to say that what is now at the polar cap, wasn't at one time in the ancient past, near the equator?the data of temperature, does that mean that if the organism lived next to a hot spring, or volcanic activity, that it only would reflect the immediate temperature of its surrounding?your science is tentative. and i leave it to other scientists to debate with you. but i think its ridiculous and naive to believe that the carbons we are drawing from the past and throwing into the atmosphere is no danger.it is not out of fear these changes are being made, its out of wisdom of preparation. the fear is either justified, or not. but there are enough reliable scientists that say it is a legit fear. and what i observe in the weather, life, and seasons is they are right. the question only remains for me, how right, and what is being overlooked?i will make no claim as to its depth, the data isn't available. you can claim and believe in this data you set before me, but its a very very far stretch. tentative science, and i will only work with the absolute science, and then check the potentials based from that.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

John, for a while I hoped that we might have an honest discussion about the science of climate change, but it is starting to really look as though you have decided that humans can't possibly have anything to do with climate change, and you are casting about with blinders on, searching for *anything* that could possibly prove you right and trying to ignore evidence to the contrary. You link site after site and never pause to understand what they say. Then we go through and carefully explain to you why those sites are completely wrong, and you proceed to say "oh, well then human caused climate change isn't wrong for that reason ... it must be wrong for this reason ...". You throw out more sites that you don't understand and the process repeats. If your goal is to honestly debate the facts then I will work with you to understand them, but this is getting tiring.I suppose I will continue to call you on the falsehoods that you're spreading. This for example: I would find this more convincing if it weren't false in just about every respect. Where do you come up with this stuff? Let's look at what the National Academy of Sciences actually says: You know what other scientific organizations have stated that humans are probably the primary cause of climate change? The Joint Science Academies of the G8 Nations, the US National Research Council, The American Geophysical Union, The American Institute of Physics, The American Physical Society, The American Chemical Society, and many others. The list is much more extensive and I'm not going to write them all out.Can you name a single science organization that still officially states global warming is probably a natural phenomenon as you allege?