global warming.....not our fault not a problem, page 3

Hello All,

For those who have never run across me, let me introduce myself..AlphaBetaOne or Tom, whichever you prefer..some really great posts in here!

I would like to add to this discussion, as well as pose to some of you who have already commented in this thread/discussion that, perhaps, we can
develop an active research thread dedicated to only this subject
with active participants focusing on independent facets of Global Warming (ie Oceanic Current, Volcanism, Vegetation, Solar Cycles, Geomagnetism, Orbital Pole and its potential shift and consequences)..in an attempt to tie them all together to make sense of part of this threads title.

While I am open to evidence supporting all theories, my goal is to support as conclusively as is possible that the current trend is cyclic in nature and has happened many times in the past when there clearly was no human influence and, in fact, GHG (Green House Gasses) were many times higher than at current levels.

Albeit I dont believe it is our 'fault' persay, I do believe it is assuredly our problem.

Any who would like to join me in this effort I ask that you might leave me a U2U, and depending on feedback, we can determine who might concentrate on what facet of research.

More on topic here, I would like to point out some research by a prominent atmospheric scientist and mountaineer, Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.
In his 50 year career, he has excavated Ice Core samples from 17 different glaciers, on 6 continents.

Some of my research and quotes will directly relate to his publication in 21st Century Science. His publication can be found Here.

1) The Kyoto Protocol's Myth: What does it really buy us?

Governments of many countries (but not the United States,Australia, or Russia) signed the infamous Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at the mandatory reduction of oil, coal, and gas combustion. Should this convention be universally implemented, the drop in world temperature would be hardly perceptible, but there would be a drastic and very noticeable regression in the economy.
In 2100, under the mandatory emission restrictions of the Kyoto Protocol, the temperature would be diminished by 0.2°C, or, to use the figures of the global warmers, with Kyoto, the temperature increase that we would experience in the year 2094, would be postponed until the year 2100. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol buys the world six years.7

2) What are GHG's anyway? The answer is mostly water, water, water!

This nuclear heat, however, plays a minor role among the terrestrial factors, in comparison with the “greenhouse effects” caused by absorption by some atmospheric gases of the solar radiation reflected from the surface of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the average near-surface air temperature would be –18°C, and not +15°C, as it is now. The most important among these “greenhouse gases” is water vapor, which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs,N2O, and O3), the most important is CO2, which contributes only 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect.11, 12 The manmade CO2 contribution to this effect may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent.13

All things being equal, and this being 100% accurate, leads one to believe anomalous heat source lies elsewhere, but where?
Undersea volcanism? I would like to find out!

3) Galactic Cosmic Radiation, are we experiencing a higher degree than usual?
If so, could stories of the past open a window to the future?

During the Phanerozoic (the past 545 million years), the Earth passed through eight great climate cycles, each lasting 50 to 90 million years. Four of them (“Icehouses”) were about 4°C colder than the four warmer ones (“Greenhouses”).18
These long cycles were likely caused by passages of our Solar System through the spiral arms of the Milky Way. On its way, the Solar System passed through areas of intensive star creation, with frequent explosions of novas and supernovas. In these regions, the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation reaching the Earth is up to 100 times higher than average. The higher level of cosmic radiation in the Earth’s troposphere causes greater formation of clouds, which reflect the incoming solar radiation back into space. This results in a cooler climate. Then the Solar System travels to quieter areas where cosmic radiation is fainter, fewer clouds are formed in our troposphere, and the climate warms.18

4) The "Hockey Stick" Temperature Curve and it's correction. Just something
to sink your teeth into as to the flaws of Mann, Bradley, et al. data.

In their meticulous study, Soonand Baliunas19, 20 criticized, in passing, the Mann et al. publications for improper calibration of the proxy data, and for statistical and other methodical errors. More in-depth and crushing criticisms of the work of Mann et al. were presented recently by McIntyre and McKitrick22 who demonstrated that the conclusions of Mann et al. are based on flawed calculations, incorrect data, and biased selection of the climatic record. Using the original data sets supplied to them by author Michael Mann, McIntyre and McKitrick discovered many mistakes in the Mann et al. papers—for example, allocating measurements to wrong years, filling tables with identical numbers for different proxies in different years, using obsolete data that have been revised by the original researchers, and so on. Typical of these “errors” was, for example, their stopping the central England temperature series, without explanation, at 1730, even though data are available back to 1659, thus hiding a major 17th Century cold period. McIntyre and McKitrick not only criticized the work done by Mann et al., but also, after correcting all errors, analyzed their data set using Mann’s own methodology. The result of this superseding study demonstrates that the 20th Century temperature has not been exceptional during the past 600 years.

Further, it demonstrates the falsity of the IPCC’s statement in its 2001 report, based on Mann et al., that the 1990s was “likely the warmest decade,” and 1998 the “warmest year of the millennium”

5) Is where mean temperature being recorded not factored into the equation?
Maybe its warmer where the thermometers are than it used to be!

Since the exceptionally hot 1940s, until 1975, the Earth’s climate cooled down by about 0.3°C, despite a more than three-fold increase of annual industrial CO2 emission during this period. After 1975, eteorological station measurements indicated that the average global temperature started to rise again, despite the decline in “human” CO2 emissions. However, it turns out that it was probably a measuring artifact, brought about by the growth of the cities and resulting “urban heat island” effect. Meteorological stations, which used to be sited outside of urban centers, have been absorbed by the cities, where the temperature is higher than in the countryside.
Outside the cities of the United States and Europe, the observed temperature is lower, rather than higher, as demonstrated by the data of NASA’s Goddard Institute, reviewed recently by J. Daly

Summary: All of this coupled with other unforseen (Galactic or otherwise ie., the influence of the Sun being in the Galactic Center) events that we have no record of, may support that this is nothing new to Mother Earth at all. She may have been and probably HAS been here many times before, and will continue to do so.

AB1