Statistical Analysis Debunks Climate Change Naysayers

Newswise — Despite the fact that the hundreds of scientists and reviewers on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced February 2nd in Paris that global warming is "very likely" caused by human activity, governments and other policy-makers may still justify inaction because of naysayers like Danish weather scientist Henrik Svensmark, who maintains that global climate change can be attributed to the proportion of cosmic rays in our atmosphere, and atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, who asserts that “The whole question of anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming is central to setting any policy of climate mitigation and therefore warrants closer examination

www.newswise.com...

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 29/3/2007 by Umbrax]

What are the average yearly temperatures of the earth for over the last 100 years or so?

If you can find the actual numbers, how exactly were they obtained?

You can't debunk naysayers"...you can only debunk arguments, if they are false....

CO2 levels increased 260 years after temperatures had been increasing on Earth. That alone proves that mankind did not cause the recent warming, and if you follow the research done in temperatures in the northern hemisphere, you will find that temperatures were much warmer during the MWP and the RWM than they are today.

So, if anything has been debunked is the original poster's claim...

My claim or the "original articles claim"? I am merely a conveyance of news and discussion. Just because I posted it doesnt make me a firm believer in it. I just found that its relevance to this area would make for some exciting discussion.

CO2 levels increased 260 years after temperatures had been increasing on Earth. That alone proves that mankind did not cause the recent warming, and if you follow the research done in temperatures in the northern hemisphere, you will find that temperatures were much warmer during the MWP and the RWM than they are today.

LOL Muaddib i answered this point you raised in another post but feel the need to post my reply again... sorry

This lag has been known about for a long time...

CO2 is a known effect of warming... The planet has warming periods naturally due to various reasons (Milankovitch cycles etc...) that are not due to CO2 output. But this natural warming does cause a CO2 spike. It is well known... Anybody who trys to deny that the planet has natural temperature fluctuations is an idiot...

But it is also known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And the release of this gas in massive amounts will also cause warming... and in turn this warming will release more CO2. This does not disprove man made global warming!

Its almost like saying... "i know someone who got cancer before they started smoking so smoking cant cause cancer"

Originally posted by undercoverchef


LOL Muaddib i answered this point you raised in another post but feel the need to post my reply again... sorry

And i responded in that post, that water vapor which is more abundant and traps twice the amount of heat than CO2 is being dismissed by the "it's all mankind's fault crowd".

We are still undergoing rapid warming which has been related to the Holocene sea level rise since we came out of the last Ice Age.

When oceans warm, more water vapor and CO2 is released from the oceans, which warms more the Earth. Yes, mankind is also releasing CO2, but it is a small amount.

The current warming we are seeing can be very easily debunked as having been caused by mankind due to the fact that I mentioned several times and shown the graphs that temperatures increased, then 260 years later CO2 levels began increasing at the same rate that the warming was increasing.

There are many other natural factors which i have been talking about in other posts, which have not happened for thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years, and which incluence and bring Climate Change.

The fact that Earth's magnetic field has weakened since 1845 by 10% in most places, and up to 30% in other places on Earth, and this weakening has been the largest in more than 770,000 years, which allows for more solar flux during solar max to reach EArth, and during solar minimums more cosmic rays bombard Earth, both of which also affect greatly the climate.

The fact that the sun's output has increased during the last 60 years more than during the past 8,000 years +

The fact that the Solar System is absorbing more charged particles from the interstellar medium it is currently traveling through, a cloudlet in the Local Fluff, and we are seeing Climate Changes in most planets with an atmosphere on the solar system.

The fact that we know that during deglaciation, and when ice mass is lost either on the northern or southern hemisphere it increases the magmatic and seismic activity on Earth, which is part of the reason the oceans are warming more.

All of the above, and I am sure i am missing something, point to the fact that "natural factors" are the main causes for Climatic Changes on Earth, and mankind, nomatter how many people wish otherwise, has no control over these natural factors, hence we have no control over Climate Change.


[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html


just to back up the poster above, who is 100% correct. global warming is a farce.

Originally posted by Classified Info
What are the average yearly temperatures of the earth for over the last 100 years or so?

If you can find the actual numbers, how exactly were they obtained?

Oh why, oh why, oh why oh why; can I never ever get answers to these very simple questions?

Why???

BTW, here is an announcement from ESA (European Space Agency) which corroborates something I have been saying and some people have claimed is not true.

There is some chance that the Solar System will cross small dense clouds that have diameters up to 100 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun. These encounters may increase the number of interstellar charged particles bombarding Earth, with the risk of altering the climate here. Our interstellar environment may thus be important for the short and long-term prospects for life on Earth.

www.spacetelescope.org...

I have already posted evidence that this is exatctly one of the factors which is happening, we are recieving more charged particles from the denser cloudlets our solar system is going through which is bringing climatic changes not only to Earth but the entire solar system.

Here is another article from ESA.

ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society

Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
...........
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.

Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.

www.spaceref.com...

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Yeah, and note that not one article actually mentions how these phenomena will affect climate...

The solar system's up-and-down motion across our galaxy's disc periodically exposes it to higher doses of dangerous cosmic rays, new calculations suggest. The effect could explain a mysterious dip in the Earth's biodiversity every 62 million years.

The solar system moves through the Milky Way rather like a child on a merry-go-round. It completes a circuit of the galaxy once every 225 million years or so but as it goes it bobs up and down through the dense galactic disc.

Previous research had suggested this motion might affect Earth's climate as the solar system passes through the giant hydrogen clouds concentrated in the galaxy's spiral arms. Some researchers have said these clouds could be dense enough to sprinkle the Earth's atmosphere with dust, blocking out sunlight and cooling the planet.

Others have suggested the gravitational pull of the clouds may dislodge comets from their spherical halo surrounding the solar system and send them crashing into the Earth, causing major extinctions.

Compressed wind
Still other researchers have pointed out that the clouds could compress the solar wind, which shields the solar system from energetic cosmic rays from the galaxy. These cosmic rays - charged particles accelerated to high energies by supernova explosions - could then leak into the Earth's atmosphere. There they could spur the formation of clouds - cooling the planet - and destroy the ozone layer, killing off species by allowing harmful ultraviolet light to reach the Earth's surface.

www.newscientist.com...

Maybe this phenomena will ameliorate the human effects currently driving climate change, what they can't do is account for the idea of warming in the solar system.



[edit on 29-3-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, and note that not one article actually mentions how these phenomena will affect climate...
......................
Maybe this phenomena will ameliorate the human effects currently driving climate change, what they can't do is account for the idea of warming in the solar system.

I would really love to know how anyone knows for certain what will happen when our best vacuum labs are 10,000 times denser than any interstellar cloud...

The very best laboratory vacuum is about 10,000 times denser than a typical interstellar cloud, which in turn is thousands of times less dense than the Local Bubble. The Local Bubble is not only relatively empty (with a density of less than 0.001 atoms per cubic centimeter); it is also quite hot, about one million degrees kelvin. By comparison, the interstellar cloud around the solar system is merely warm, about 7,000 degrees, with a density of about 0.3 atoms per cubic centimeter.

www.americanscientist.org...

That and appart for the fact that "there is warming in other planets not only on Earth"....

Or are you one of those who thinks it is "just coincidence" that we see Climate Change in other planets with an atmopshere in the solar system at the same time that Earth is also going through a warming event?.....

I guess you are one of those who believes in...what was it that you called it not that long ago?... Even if there is an explanation, some people just want to base their conclusion on "faith"....

Yeah...it is the 0.28% anthropogenic CO2 which is causing Climate Change...despite the fact that the Earth has had higher concentrations of CO2 and temperatures were similar to the present.....

Originally posted by Muaddib
I would really love to know how anyone knows for certain what will happen when our best vacuum labs are 10,000 times denser than any interstellar cloud...

Why is that an issue?

We would be assessing how these particles, molecules, and ions affect an atmosphere, not a vacuum. Scientists have been assessing such effects and generally conclude it would have a cooling effect on the earth's climate.

The rest is, as you kindly pointed out, your faith-based misinformation.

Originally posted by melatonin

Why is that an issue?

Oh it is an issue, if we can't reproduce the conditions of the solar system how can we sucessfully do any tests on any lab of what sort of changes these "intergallactic clouds", which are not made up only of dust like you have tried so many times to claim..., will bring to the solar system?....

Originally posted by melatonin
We would be assessing how these particles, molecules, and ions affect an atmosphere, not a vacuum. Scientists have been assessing such effects and generally conclude it would have a cooling effect on the earth's climate.

And yet you failed to tell people that the "scientific conclusion on the effects of such clouds is not only that they could cause cooling, but that they could also cause warming"....

Giant space clouds of gas may have changed the climate or atmosphere on Earth and fueled mass extinctions millions of years ago, scientists said Thursday.

In one scenario, the solar system passed through a dense cloud of interstellar material, causing Earth to ice over. In the other, the solar system passed through less dense clouds that destroyed the planet's protective ozone layer, raising levels of harmful ultraviolet radiation.

www.space.com...

So once again I can show that your "claims" are not only disengenious but are "lies"....

All that scientists have are "scenarios" but the observed changes in the solar system tell a different story...

Originally posted by melatonin
The rest is, as you kindly pointed out, your faith-based misinformation.

Are you still mad at the fact that I keep showing you don't know what you are talking about, and many times have shown your lack of understanding of the sciences when you even tried to claim that Dr. Akasofu doesn't have any relevant experience on Climate Change among your other "misinformation claims"?....

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh it is an issue, if we can't reproduce the conditions of the solar system how can we sucessfully do any tests on any lab of what sort of changes these "intergallactic clouds", which are not made up only of dust like you have tried so many times to claim..., will bring to the solar system?....

We don't want to reproduce the conditions of the outer solar system but how these phenomena act on the earth's atmosphere.

Thus, for example, Svensmark can assess how cosmic rays (charged particles) aid the formation of cloud condensation nuclei using a reaction chamber that simulates the earth's atmosphere. He will soon be spending 10m euros doing further experiments.

Svensmark's findings suggest that increased cosmic rays will increase reflective cloud cover, causing cooling.

And yet you failed to tell people that the "scientific conclusion on the effects of such clouds is not only that they could cause cooling, but that they could also cause warming"....

In one scenario, the solar system passed through a dense cloud of interstellar material, causing Earth to ice over. In the other, the solar system passed through less dense clouds that destroyed the planet's protective ozone layer, raising levels of harmful ultraviolet radiation.

www.space.com...

So once again I can show that your "claims" are not only disengenious but are "lies"....

and the missing bit:

Moderately dense space clouds, the sort that might destroy the ozone layer, are huge, Pavlov points out, and the solar system could take up to 500,000 years pass through one. Extra cosmic rays produced during such an event, owing to interactions of the interstellar dust with the Sun, would break up nitrogen molecules in Earth's atmosphere, leading to ozone destruction.

You'll need to show how destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer, by increased cosmic rays that can also alter nitrogen molecules, would cause an overall warming trend. Because the article doesn't actually say any such thing.



[edit on 30-3-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

We don't want to reproduce the conditions of the outer solar system but how these phenomena act on the earth's atmosphere.

Yes we do if we want to know what chemical reactions happen in the solar system. The solar system is not only the planets and their atmospheres

Originally posted by melatonin
Thus, for example, Svensmark can assess how cosmic rays (charged particles) aid the formation of cloud condensation nuclei using a reaction chamber that simulates the earth's atmosphere. He will soon be spending 10m euros doing further experiments.

Even if Svensmark is right, his research shows that during solar maximums there is less cloud cover, which warms the planet more, and during solar minimums there is more cloud cover hence cooling. Since the solar output has increased during the last 60 years more than during the past 8,000+ years, and it is going to increase according to the prediction on this next solar cycle, it is also obvious to state that therewill be a lot more warming caused by the sun.

Appart from that there are other scientists which have a different opinion on what would happen, and again, observing to what is happening tothe solar system is a clear indication that something is causing Climate Change not only on Earth, but melatonin wants to keep blaming mankind, despite the fact that the evidence poitns to the contrary.

Originally posted by melatonin
You'll need to show how destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer, by increased cosmic rays that can also alter nitrogen molecules, would cause an overall warming trend. Because the article doesn't actually say any such thing.

Actually it is you who has to explain himself why you have been lying time and again, from claiming that "normal changes in CO2 levels in past Climate Changes have only been 20ppm" according to you, to claims that scientists such as Dr. Akasofu don't have any knowledge on Climate Change...

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yes we do if we want to know what chemical reactions happen in the solar system. The solar system is not only the planets and their atmospheres

We are predominately interested in our climate. We don't need to assess experiments in vacuum status to know how cosmic rays/ISD/monoatomic hydrogen affects our atmosphere.

Even if Svensmark is right, his research shows that during solar maximums there is less cloud cover, which warms the planet more, and during solar minimums there is more cloud cover hence cooling. Since the solar output has increased during the last 60 years more than during the past 8,000+ years, and it is going to increase according to the prediction on this next solar cycle, it is also obvious to state that therewill be a lot more warming caused by the sun.

Right, now you're getting with the contrarian program. However, even Svensmark's data shows no trend in cosmic rays for a few decades, therefore no ability to explain current warming.

If cosmic rays were the predominate cause, we would expect to correlation with temperature. We don't.

Actually it is you who has to explain himself why you have been lying time and again, from claiming that "normal changes in CO2 levels in past Climate Changes have only been 20ppm" according to you, to claims that scientists such as Dr. Akasofu don't have any knowledge on Climate Change..

You can try to disown your statments but you clearly stated that article mentioned a possibility of a warming scenario.

It didn't.

Originally posted by melatonin

Right, now you're getting with the contrarian program. However, even Svensmark's data shows no trend in cosmic rays for a few decades, therefore no ability to explain current warming.

If cosmic rays were the predominate cause, we would expect to correlation with temperature. We don't.

And the fact that CO2 lags temperature, shows that CO2 is an effect of Climate Change, not that CO2 causes Climate Change. Since CO2 levels increased only after about 260 years after temperatures were increasing, anthropogenic CO2 does not explain the current warming or the warming in the past Climate Changes....

Also Noctilucent Clouds have been increasing in occurrence frequency, and an increase in brightness at about the same time that CO2 levels have been increasing. The increase in frequency and brightness of Noctilucent Clouds also prove that water vapor levels have been increasing globally, and of course water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 since it exists in larger amounts and it retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does. But there is one more thing, it is also believed that the possible cause of the increase of Noctilucent Clouds is because of the encounter with the intergalactic cloudlet I have been talking about

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not only CO2, also have been found not to be the cause of the current dramatic warming events in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans...

The oceans control and regulate the climate more than the atmosphere, there is a link between the two, but it is the oceans mainly which control and regulate the warming and cooling events. Without the ocean currents right now the northern hemisphere would be frozen, and the Ecuator would be uninhabitable because the heat would be unbearable. Warming/cooling in the oceans take thousands of years, but once there is enough warming or cooling, the changes can be quite abrupt.

As i have given already links to research that shows that both the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans are going through recent dramatic thermal changes, due to Holocene warming, it is obvious that most of the warming is natural.

Originally posted by melatonin

You can try to disown your statments but you clearly stated that article mentioned a possibility of a warming scenario.

It didn't.

That article does not describe it, but it shows there are different scenarios, and they are "scenarios, not 100% fact, at leaest not yet...

You can try to claim that you have not been wrong, yet you have been wrong so many times that I don't know who can take you seriously anymore...

Why is it that you keep dismissing the first law of thermodynamics, or the conservation of energy?
You have claimed that higher amounts of charged particles, from cosmic rays, or even the increasing amount of charged particles from interstelar clouds, hitting the atmosphere do not cause more energy to be released in the form of heat, but only causes cooling according to you. What the heck happens to the energy from those particles?... do they dissapear?....

We cannot reproduce in any lab either the conditions of outer space, nor the amounts of energy that exist in cosmic rays. Our particle accelerators can produce energies ranging from 10 to the 12 to 10 to the 13 eV, cosmic rays can produce energies of over 10 to the 20 eV...

Another fact you keep trying to dismiss is that cosmic rays are atomic particles, highly charged particles, and interstelar clouds do have charged particles as well. What happens when an increasing amount of highly charged particles hit other particles in the atmosphere?.... Cooling according to you right?.... It might be possible that as Svensmark's research shows, higher amounts of cosmic rays also increase cloud cover, but the more charged particles that hit Earth, the more energy that is also released in the form of heat.

Svensmark's research is based once again from models which "assume" we know for certain what happens in the atmosphere when we have doubts as to exactly what is happening.

Also do remember that "higher levels of water vapor do cause warming"... So although cloud formation would block the sun's rays from hitting Earth directly, the higher levels of water vapor would absorb the heat from the sun's rays, and the increased amounts of energy in the form of heat released by cosmic rays, or the highly charged particles from intergalactic clouds which in turn warm the Earth.

No two galactic clouds are exactly the same btw...

I have already shown several times that there are different galactic clouds and they are not just composed of "dust" like you once tried to claim...they are also composed of charged particles such as ions and nucleons, and ionized gas such as plasma which is very hot.

Anyways, you have also even tried to claim that the heliosphere was a permanent shield, like a "spaceship", when that is not true in the least. The heliosphere expands and contracts. It moves around and at times it lets in massive amounts of cosmic rays and absorbs more intergalactic clouds when it is contracted into the inner solar system.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Oooh. Change of subject to start...

Originally posted by Muaddib
And the fact that CO2 lags temperature, shows that CO2 is an effect of Climate Change, not that CO2 causes Climate Change. Since CO2 levels increased only after about 260 years after temperatures were increasing, anthropogenic CO2 does not explain the current warming or the warming in the past Climate Changes....

And the 260 is followed by a few thousand years of warming. Lots of time for CO2 to use its physico-chemical properties to act as a GHG.

What you are trying to state is still a logical fallacy - non-sequitur. Chickens cause eggs and eggs cause chickens.

But there is one more thing, it is also believed that the possible cause of the increase of Noctilucent Clouds is because of the encounter with the intergalactic cloudlet I have been talking about

However, nocticlucent clouds are mesospheric clouds. If we are expecting these clouds to have a warming effect, they will warm the mesosphere. Strange that it actually seems to be cooling.

Maybe this is because, just like for volcanoes, the effects of these clouds are cooling.

Now, it could be interaction, dust from space acts as cloud condensating nuclei (CCNs), water vapour from a warming troposphere premeates the mesosphere. Cooler temps in mesosphere allow ice crystals to form on CCNs = noctilucent clouds.

Of course, much speculation for mesopsheric processes. We could fund climatologists/physicists to find out though.

As i have given already links to research that shows that both the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans are going through recent dramatic thermal changes, due to Holocene warming, it is obvious that most of the warming is natural.

No, that was your misreading of an article. What it actually stated was that a warming wave has passed through frozen deep sea sediments since the end of the last glaciation, possibly producing pongo-like structures.

That article does not describe it, but it shows there are different scenarios, and they are "scenarios, not 100% fact, at leaest not yet...

One scenario was for a really dense cloud, the other for a not so dense cloud. The dense cloud causes a snowball earth scenario, the other destruction of stratospheric ozone (probably cooling). Both are based on physics, not muaddib amateur science.

Why is it that you keep dismissing the first law of thermodynamics, or the conservation of energy?
You have claimed that higher amounts of charged particles, from cosmic rays, or even the increasing amount of charged particles from interstelar clouds, hitting the atmosphere do not cause more energy to be released in the form of heat, but only causes cooling according to you. What the heck happens to the energy from those particles?... do they dissapear?....

If this charged particle warming were an issue, but they are not because cosmic rays are not increasing, they would predominately warm the mesosphere and stratosphere. Again, these areas are cooling.

This would be clearly offset by the production of reflective clouds that would cause cooling in the troposphere. Hence, we would have a cooling effect. This is what Svensmark's studies presume to show.

So, the suggestions are:

1. Increased cosmic rays = more reflective clouds, hence cooling tropopshere.

2. Destruction of stratospheric ozone = small cooling effect.

3. Increased dust = more reflective clouds, therefore cooling

4. Muaddib's charged particle warming = if significant, warming of stratosphere and mesopshere.

5. Increased GHGs = warming tropsphere, cooling stratosphere and mesosphere.

What we observe is warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere/mesosphere. If the predictions are of cooling tropo and/or warming stratosphere (i.e. muaddib amateur physics and solar-induced warming), then they are wrong.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

And the 260 is followed by a few thousand years of warming. Lots of time for CO2 to use its physico-chemical properties to act as a GHG.

What you are trying to state is still a logical fallacy - non-sequitur. Chickens cause eggs and eggs cause chickens.

Except for the fact that the geological record doesn't show that link... CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and temperatures didn't go up for thousands of years...in fact they remained similar to the present....

Originally posted by melatonin
However, nocticlucent clouds are mesospheric clouds. If we are expecting these clouds to have a warming effect, they will warm the mesosphere. Strange that it actually seems to be cooling.

There is research which shows that stratospheric warming begins with wave events in the mesosphere, these wave events flow down into the stratosphere and produce major warming.

The 2002 major stratospheric warming is an unprecedented event in the Southern Hemisphere and has been under intensive investigations since it was observed. These studies, however, have focused mainly on the dynamical and chemical processes in the troposphere and stratosphere. In this study, both the National Center for Environmental Predication (NCEP) data (below the 1 hPa level) and a NCAR thermosphere-ionosphere- mesosphere-electrodynamics general circulation model (TIME-GCM) simulation, with its lower boundary specified by the NCEP data at 10 hPa for 2002, are used to analyze this warming event and to explore the possible role of the mesosphere in the dynamical processes. Our analysis shows that significant changes in the wind and temperature fields first occur in the mesosphere due to a strong wave 1 event about a month before the major warming. Then a series of wave events (about 3 of them) in the following month erode the polar jet and alter the transmission conditions for planetary waves at progressively lower altitudes. This helps to set up the atmospheric conditions favorable for the upward and poleward propagation of the wave energy, not only for wave 1 but also for wave 2 and 3. At the same time, the jet reversal and the planetary wave surf zone also descend from the mesosphere down to the stratosphere. The preconditioning ultimately leads to an extensive breaking of the polar jet and wave 1 in the stratosphere and thus the major warming.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Originally posted by melatonin
Maybe this is because, just like for volcanoes, the effects of these clouds are cooling.

Read above...

Originally posted by melatonin
No, that was your misreading of an article. What it actually stated was that a warming wave has passed through frozen deep sea sediments since the end of the last glaciation, possibly producing pongo-like structures.

Oh right, perhaps on "melatonin's junk science class" " current dramatic thermal changes caused by continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise" doesn't mean that the Arctic is warming due to Holocene sea level rise.... but in the real world and the real science says otherwise....

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost.

www.agu.org...

And that's not happening just in the Arctic ocean...

Ocean heat blamed for the mysterious disappearance of glaciers
By Steve Connor
Published: 16 March 2007

A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
......................
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...



[edit on 1-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Why are you bringing up the 400million year old CO2 stuff again? That was a time when the earth was rather different than now, to suggest the current situation is in anyway comparable is remiss, that's not to mention the uncertainties with proxies of such periods.

You were talking about the lag during glacial periods. The lag is followed by over 4000 years of further warming.

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is research which shows that stratospheric warming begins with wave events in the mesosphere, these wave events flow down into the stratosphere and produce major warming.

So, you pick one unrelated event over a pole to suggest there is stratospheric warming, or what? We were talking about noctilucent clouds and the current trend in cooling of the stratosphere and mesosphere.

As I said, whatever mechanism you propose, if it produces mesospheric and stratospheric warming (and this means long-term global trends, not local phasic responses), it isn't important at this point because the data shows otherwise.

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost.

www.agu.org...

Which is what I said. The holocene sea-level rise produced a warming wave that is making its way through hundreds of meters of permafrost sediment deep under the ocean. This could be what has caused the production of pingo-like structures.

The researchers suggested that such buried hydrates might be decomposing and releasing large amounts of methane gas. This seemed possible because the seafloor in this area has been gradually warming over the last 10,000 years, after being flooded as sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. Although within a few degrees of freezing, the seawater in this region is at least 10 degrees Centigrade (20 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than permafrost-filled soil. Thus, when the ice sheets from the last ice age melted and the ocean flooded the continental shelves, it caused the seafloor sediment to become warmer.

Over thousands of years, the scientists believe, this "wave" of warming moved downward through the sediment. Eventually it reached the frozen methane hydrates, hundreds of meters down. Even a slight temperature increase could have caused some of the buried methane hydrates to decompose, releasing methane into the surrounding sediments.

www.mbari.org...

Warming wave passing through hundreds of meters of permafrost sediments deep under the sea over thousands of years. It produces pingo-like structures which have been releasing methane.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
......................
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...

Interesting, because in an article published the same day, Wingham gave this information to New Scientist, and another author on the paper gave his opinion...

And this is where uncertainties arise. In Greenland, it is possible that water from melting ice at the surface of the glaciers is boring holes through the ice sheets and lubricating their base. "It is at least possible," says Wingham, that global warming is causing this to happen now more than before.

....
Wingham and Shepherd's review of recent research on Antarctica did find that four Antarctic glaciers that are retreating in unison share a common feature: they are all in direct contact with the sea.

"Our assessment confirms that just one type of glacier in Antarctica is retreating today – those that are seated in deep submarine basins and flow directly into the oceans," says Shepherd. "These glaciers are vulnerable to small changes in ocean temperature, such as those that have occurred over the 20th century and those predicted for the 21st century. A rise of less than 0.5 °C could have triggered the present imbalance."

www.newscientisttech.com...

Maybe we should let Wingham have the last word:

"In Greenland, we know there is melting associated with the ice loss, but in Antarctica we don't really know why it's happening," said Duncan Wingham, an author of the Science magazine review released today."

.

But overall, what you are suggesting is that holocene warming 10,000 years ago, has produced 10,000 years later...



...a massive rapid increase in temperatures, possibly the highest for at least 2000 years.

I would have to be an idiot to believe that. Suppose it is April 1st.

So, you have numerous highly unlikely explanations, it's either an ISD, delayed holocene warming, solar variation, cosmic rays etc etc. Not one is able to adequately explain the current situation.

ISD = likely cooling
Delayed holocene warming = april's fool
Solar variation = stratospheric and mesospheric warming trend (not observed) and no current association.
Cosmic rays = likely cooling

So what does fit the data:

An significant influence of human activity - increasing GHGs and other biosphere effects = warming troposphere, surface & oceans, cooling stratosphere/mesosphere = observations.

Bingo!

[edit on 1-4-2007 by melatonin]