Hotter than ever? Yeah, right....

I have posted on this subject before, but just felt like I needed to dispell this even further since people are making such a big stink over it.

I have mentioned before that the idea of global warming is complete crap (and it is, as far as I can ascertain from the information available). This "researcher" (I note that he is NOT a geologist or a paleontologist, who would have a much more intimate knowledge of past climatological conditions) states that our current climate is the hottest in 2000 years.

I have pointed out numerous times that we are actually in an ICE AGE, IE, Ice House Conditions, as we have solid ice on the planet year round... we have recorded, numerous times, Hot House conditions, where there is NO solid ice ANYWHERE on the planet year round... and these cycles tend to work in 10-20,000 year intervals, so a 2000 year background just doesnt give the proper perspective...



The Earth has been warmer since 1980 than it was at any time in the last 2,000 years. Scientists have reconstructed past climates from ice cores and tree rings, and say this is proof that human activities are changing our weather. U.K. researcher Philip Jones says, "It just shows how dramatic the warming has been in recent years. You can't explain it in any other way�it's a response to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
He worked with U.S. researcher Michael Mann to reconstruct the global climate over the last two thousand years. They examined the trunks of ancient trees from different regions of the world to check local conditions and studied cores drilled from the icecaps in Greenland and Antarctica. They also looked at historical records, especially from the Netherlands, Switzerland and China. They say that while some parts of the world may have been warmer in the past, average temperatures were cooler.

www.unknowncountry.com...

Perhaps.

But I would not use such global warming "research" in isolation, nor would I submit any fear-and-paranoia allaying material to promote the idiot Bush administrations's pollution policies, or the actions of any nation involved in clearing rainforests or old unrenewable tree stock, at all.

Well, as I mentioned, I do NOT consider CO2 to be a pollutant, for the same reason that I stated here... I dont believe it to be a significant "greenhouse gas", and I dont believe there to be a significant risk from the "greenhouse effect".

Now, I DO have a problem with a lot of what the Bush and EPA are trying to do with this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also dont advocate complete slash and burn balding on the natural biosphere, but I also dont believe that we are in significant threat of loosing enough biosphere to wipe us out or make a huge impact on the climate.

dr

Yes, but if you can stop being species-centric for a moment, the damage caused by our species through cutting down rainforests and ancient trees is not immediately to us - it is to the rainforests and ancient trees themselves, and the biospheres contained therein, and the hundreds of species to be added to the tally of species destroyed by idiot homo sapiens last century already.

I have no doubt that the loss of species daily is a very real thing. And, I do indeed support protection of any and all endangered species...

However, endangered species was NOT the purpose of this thread, but the investigation of whether or not global warming was manmade or not... I continue to point out that it is a natural phenomena.

dragonrider, I respect you very much. I just don't agree with your comments here.

Ice Ages happen because variations in the tilt of the Earth to its orbit of the sun. Just look at what our climate should be at this current tilt, then look at what it is and you will see how global warming(the work of man) has affected this planet.

You also pay no attention to the hard evidence and sciences behind why a hole in the ozone and more CO2 in the air will make the climate hotter. CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. Ozone depletion absorbs UV light from the sun. With a hole in the Ozone, That UV light hits the surface and causes more warming of the surface.

Look at how Venus is! It has sulfuric clouds that only allow *20 percent** of the light from the sun to reach the surface, yet it still has an average surface temperature of 464 DEGREES CELSIUS! The 96% CO2 atmosphere traps/absorbs infrared energy like no other. Infrared energy is the only way that energy coming from particles of less then thousands of degrees celsius can be effectively radiated out into space. If the atmosphere absorbs the most effiecient way of radiating energy into space, not much energy will get thrown off into space.

Imagine what Earth would be like without the sulfuric clouds and with an atmosphere of CO2. My estimation is that 1/3(33%) as much light energy hits the Earth compared to Venus. Add in some absorbtion of the atmosphere, You get around, say, 20%. Thats the same rate of energy hitting the Earths surface when compared to Venus. Add in some of the same green house affects and we are toast.

[Edited on 4-9-2003 by TheManWithThePlan]

You also pay no attention to the hard evidence and sciences behind why a hole in the ozone and more CO2 in the air will make the climate hotter. It is a significant greenhouse gas. l Posted by Manwiththeplan

I do pay attention to it, but I discount it. I dont like to put forth a lot of trust on scientific evidence, (which by the way has NOT been supported by other studies... every bit of evidence to support the greenhouse effect has an equal and opposing piece of evidence) that has so much political baggage attached to it.

This is the main problem I have with the global warming issue: there is just not enough hard evidence to back it up, yet certain political forces like to seize on it, simply because it fits thier political focus, and run with it.

I have mentioned before that I have gone well against the grain in the municipality for whom I work simply because certain politicos wanted me to sign off on the greenhouse crap in order to pass a political agenda of theirs, and I simply wouldnt do it because I didnt feel there was sufficient scientific basis for it to be legitimate.

Now, you mention Venus as an example of global warming gone awry due to its high amount of CO2 int he atmosphere... but in the next paragraph, you explain it perfectly... the Earth only receives 1/3 (approx) of the solar radiation that Venus does. In addition, the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is several thousands of times what it is on earth, the equivalent of about 20,000 feet under the ocean. There is such a thing as compressional heating, and I dont know if this has ever been investigated as a potential impact to the surface temperatures recorded there.

yeah um, we have been having abnormal weather patterns, well there not really abnormal there just rareitys, sure some tempratures are getting higher but some are also getting lower, a lot of the sceintific reports spout record highs to go along with there green house argument, but they dont report the record lows as well. in the end this year may only be 1 degree hotter then 1980 whitch to say the least is nothing Have you considered that we as humans adapt, i just moved to florida whitch has humidty up the WAZOO and after 2 months i have adapted it doesnt hit me like a brick anymore. So i think that everything living will adapt to the slight rise. In anycase i think we should be more worried about the increase in humidy then the increase in temprature, humidy kills it chokes you , where as heat with out humiditly just makes you hot.

On a side note, DR we arnt in our current ice age the glaciers of NZ are reminents of the last ice age and we are actually 10000+ years over due for the next one.

Also, if all the ice of the world was to melt as you say would happen in a Hot Age, then most of the current land mass would be swallowed by the growing tides, and species of ground dwelling animals that live on remote islands would not be alive today beacause the increased tisde would of killed them.

On a side note, DR we arnt in our current ice age the glaciers of NZ are reminents of the last ice age and we are actually 10000+ years over due for the next one. Posted by Seedy Sid

In geological terms, any conditions where ice is solid for a year round period anywhere on the surface of the planet under natural conditions is termed Ice House. We currently have a "permanent" ice cap at both poles, therefore, we are in Ice House conditions now.

Indeed, when we are in Hot House conditions, all water on the planet is liquid, and sea levels would rise dramatically. The geological evidence we have for this is that due to biological processes, whenever we have a high stand of sea level, micro organisms (reef builders and others) build carbonate rock right up to the current sea level. Now consider how all the limestone showed up in say, the mountains of Kentucky? THAT was sea level at one time...

Also, we can determine the climatological conditions through the minerology of the limestone... for a reason we still dont completely understand, during Hot House conditions, limestone is usually the Dolomite variety, having a very high concentration of magnesium. During Ice House conditions, the limestone formed is normal Calcite, or low magnesium limestone.

As far as the normal cycles that control our climate over these wide ranges, it is a system called the Milakonvich Cycle:

In the last fifty years, global warming has become an issue of concern for scientists, industrialists, and virtually everyone who has some stake in the future of the Earth. Most of the attention of the public has been focused upon how greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere and how consumers can help the environment. In addition to these factors, however, global warming includes some external causes which scientists continue to research with hopes that the global warming process is more naturally occurring than was previously determined. The two main sources of external control of the Earth's climate are the Milankovitch cycle and the output of radiation by the sun.

The Milankovitch theory involves three aspects of the Earth's rotation around the sun--the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, the obliquity of the Earth's axis, and the precession of the Earth's axis. The shape of the Earth's orbit varies from a circular path to a more elliptical path, while the orbital axis about which the Earth rotates precesses with a frequency of 21,000 years. The inclination of the axis can also change by up to three degrees. The distribution of incoming solar radiation, therefore, is greatly affected by these variances, and certainly these factors may drive cyclic climatic changes on Earth. The Milankovitch theory has been justified by the extraction of sediment layers that vary in carbonate material, indicating a cycle of warming and cooling trends.

In addition to orbital variations, the total solar radiation output of the sun may be an external control of the Earth's climate. Beginning in 1980, researchers have been studying sunspots to measure the total solar output. Between 1980 and 1985, solar output decreased by 0.1 percent, but in 1987 it increased again. Such measurements did not relate to the warming trend of the Earth's climate during those years, however, some correlations have been made between sunspot frequency and climate. Because research on sunspots is fairly recent, assessment of long-term climate changes due to these factors is difficult.

The external controls of the Earth's climate can be summed up in the list below:


External Factor How Climate is Affected

Milankovitch Cycle The amount of solar radiation
*Eccentricity of orbit entering atmosphere varies
*Obliquity of axis with change of Earth's position
*Precession of axis

Total Solar Output The amount of solar radiation
leaving the sun varies
(sunspots?)

www.gly.fsu.edu...