There is a new study:



http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/



Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.



Abstract

The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.



Some comments here:



http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-human s-involved-in-global-warming/



Now, what would the general reaction be? Either,



"Oh well, that's the tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact (Thomas Huxley)"



or:



"Red alert, we're under attack, let the mud throwing begin, where is the tar and feathers?"



Tom Bethell knows the answer:



http://wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6826



"What evolutionists, environmentalists, and global warming Chicken Littles hope you never learn about science



The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

by Tom Bethell



In science, dispassionate, objective inquiry reigns supreme, and researchers will readily give up their most cherished views if the evidence proves them wrong -- right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Science, like virtually everything else these days, has become a highly politicized field in which the Left has worked energetically to present its pet theories and schemes -- all of which just happen to advance their case for the necessity for ever more government control over our lives. But in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, who has for several years been making the case for real science as opposed to its politically correct counterfeit in the pages of The American Spectator, sets the record straight about some of the most controversial and politicized issues of our time."



So forget Thomas Huxley, It will be the tar & feathers.

Once again you appear to be confused between global warming and the politics.



Global warming = The *fact* that at the current time the average surface temperature of the Earth (and the average Sea Surface Temperature) is increasing.



Global Warming != The Earth is warming up because of humans.



It is an important distinction to make. What you really mean is 'The end of human induced gloabl warming'.



Personally I am not too sure how accurate teh article is, but I have access to this journal at university, so I will read the article on monday. I will also read the rebuttal - always remember, bad science goes both ways. ;)

andre wrote:

hers.

This is what I mean by "there is to many unknown". I' surprice that the author are still alive but don't worry the media will make sure that no one learn that this paper exist.



It will also won't take long for CL to mention how World report is written be Patrick J. Michaels from CATO institute and how he is an agent of the evil exxon empire. Of course he will not realise that this paper isn't written by him, that this paper his peer-reviewed, and that this paper is published in a respected scientific journal.



here is another study that we don't hear much of:



Scafetta Nicola, Bruce J. West (2006), Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539



it can be found here:



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml

Jules wrote:

Direct observation beginning in 1958 reveal an exponential increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂.



1.

Oceans have two layers, surface waters and deep waters. thermocline prevents mixing of the deep and surface waters.



The rise in atmospheric concentrtions is producing an increased uptake of CO₂ into the surface waters but limts the short-term uptake of CO₂ by the oceans.



Plants respond to increased atmospheric CO₂ with higher rates of photosynthesis and partial closure of stomata, increasing water use efficiency.



2.

[plants] long-term exposure vary, increase production of roots, reduce production of leaves and reduction in stomatal density.



Some studies examine the whole ecosystem to elevated CO₂ show an increase in CO₂ uptake by the canopy and increase in net primary productivity (NPP).



Ecosystems inhabiting colder environments show the least response, while those in seasonally dry environments exhibit the largest increase.



3.

CO₂ traps long-wave radiation warming the atmosphere (atm).



Rising CO₂ and other greenhouse gases COULD raise the global mean temp by 1.5^oC to 3.5^oC by the year 2100.



Warming will not be uniform over Earth.



The input of sulfates and other aerosols from human sorces acts to reduce the input of solar radiation to Earth's surface, Reducing warming.



4.

Distribution and abundance of species will change as temperature and precipitation change.



Ecosystem processes such as decomposition, nutrient cycling, and NPP are SENSITIVE to temperature and moisture, and changing climate will affect them.



5.

Changes in climate change the distribution and abundance of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.



These changes in exosystem distribution influence global patterns of plant and animal diversity.



6.

Sea level is currently rising globally.



It is estimated that global warming will cause sea level to rise by 0.15 m to 1.0 m by 2100, as the polar ice caps melt and warmer ocean waters expand.



Major impacts on human populations in coastal areas.



Will affect coastal ecosystems such as beaches, estuaries, mangroves.



7.

Climate changes will affect global agricultural production.



Decrease in crop production from drier conditions will be partly offset by increased rated of photosynthesis under elevated atm CO₂ levels; projected a 5% decline in global production of cereal crop.



This decline is not distributed evenly.



Developed countries in the mid-latitudes will realize a slight increase, while production in the developing countries in the tropics will decline.



The result will be increased hunger.



8.

Climate change will have both direct and indirect impacts on human health.



Mortality rates are expected to rise as a result of heat-related deaths associated with respiratory and cardiovascular ailments.



Indirect health effects include greater mortality and injury from increased climate-related NATURAL DISASTERS, as well as changes in diet and nutrition resulting from altered agricultural production.



The distrubution and transmission rates of a variety of insect-borne infectious diseases that are directly related to climate, such as malaria, will also be affected.



9.

To understand the impacts of rising atm concentrations of greenhouse gases and global climate change, we have to study the whole Earth as a single, complex system.

Have you even took the time to read what the study is about. While alarmist concentrate all their attention on the output of computer model which are bias toward the effect of co2.



How are they acheiving that by simply putting more weight on Co2 forcings than any other. What this study means is that proves that to much weight is put on Co2 and not enough on other forcing.



The result of that is that people like you suggest that we should invest all our money to fix the roof, there is one problem though fixing the roof won't solve the broken pipe, which is where the water comes in.



You are right at 9, we have to study the whole earth and all its complex system. Something that alarmist refuse to do.

andre wrote:

There is a new study:



http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/



Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.



Abstract

The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.



Some comments here:



http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-human s-involved-in-global-warming/



Now, what would the general reaction be? Either,



"Oh well, that's the tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact (Thomas Huxley)"



or:



"Red alert, we're under attack, let the mud throwing begin, where is the tar and feathers?"



Tom Bethell knows the answer:



http://wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6826



"What evolutionists, environmentalists, and global warming Chicken Littles hope you never learn about science



The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

by Tom Bethell



In science, dispassionate, objective inquiry reigns supreme, and researchers will readily give up their most cherished views if the evidence proves them wrong -- right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Science, like virtually everything else these days, has become a highly politicized field in which the Left has worked energetically to present its pet theories and schemes -- all of which just happen to advance their case for the necessity for ever more government control over our lives. But in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, who has for several years been making the case for real science as opposed to its politically correct counterfeit in the pages of The American Spectator, sets the record straight about some of the most controversial and politicized issues of our time."



So forget Thomas Huxley, It will be the tar & feathers.

Hi Andre,



The article sounds interesting. I wish I could access the entire article, but Springer Link will not allow me to do that. I would be interested in reading their data concerning current (geologically speaking) trends in outgassing and how it has affected the composition of atmospheric gasses. I am not aware of any recent changes in the production of outgassing, nor have I seen any articles describing outgassing as a cause for the current climate change. Have you? Clearly over geologic time, volcanism and outgassing from the mantle have been a major source of change in the composition of the earth’s atmosphere ( Ocean Climate Change Institute). But in the time scale we are talking about, this would be unprecedented.



As for microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere, it is clear that human activities have had an impact on this through significant reorganization of the biosphere through land use practices. In addition, global warming creates changes in microbial communities thus suggesting that much of the current changes in microbial communities are in essence a feedback mechanism to anthropogenically induced terrestrial and climate changes. Microbial communities react to environmental change, thus creating an amplifier of the change.



From what I have read, solar radiation of the earth's surface has decreased since the 1950s due to the addition of atmospheric aerosols from industrial activity. Solar radiation has been discussed extensively in the long running (but lately inactive) thread "Is global warming really happening?" Here is a quote from me in that thread:



Stanhill and Cohen (2001) placed the figure of 2.7% decrease in solar irradiance per decade, or approximately 20W/M2 from 1958 to 1992. Gilgen et al. (1998) state that there has been a 2% per decade decline from 1964 to 1993. Another analysis by climatologist Beate Liepert of Columbia University and her colleagues found a 1.3 percent per decade decrease in solar radiation over the period from 1961 to 1990, with especially strong declines in North America. That's a total decline of up to 18 watts per square meter, out of the 200 watts per square meter or so that reaches the earth's surface.



In the recent publication, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences, at the beginning of chapter three, the authors review satellite data of global temperature changes in the last few decades. According to models for global warming due to solar radiation, there should be temperature increases from near the earth’s surface up through the stratosphere. In the anthropogenic global warming model, there should be warming up to the lower to mid troposphere, but cooling in the stratosphere (Table 1, page 5). At the beginning of Chapter 3, the authors state that "Globally, temperature increased a t a rate of about 0.12°C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16°C per decade since 1979." In the troposphere, "Globally, temperature increased a t rate of about 0.14°C per decade since 1958 according to the two balloon-based data sets. Since 1979, estimates of the increase from the two balloon and three satellite data sets range from about 0.10 to 0.20°C per decade." However, in the lower stratosphere we have "Globally, the rate of cooling since 1958 is about 0.37°C per decade based on the two balloon data sets. Since 1979, estimates of this decrease are about 0.65°C per decade fro the two balloon data sets, and from about 0.33 to 0.45°C per decade for the two satellite data sets." Clearly the data favor the anthropogenic global warming model over the solar radiation model.



I hope you don't consider this post as "tar and feathers?"

ssl291 wrote:





...It will also won't take long for CL to mention how World report is written be Patrick J. Michaels from CATO institute and how he is an agent of the evil exxon empire. Of course he will not realise that this paper isn't written by him, that this paper his peer-reviewed, and that this paper is published in a respected scientific journal....

I wasn't even planning on entering this thread until you specifically mentioned me. I've been quite civil in dealing with you up till now, but your pushing it...Oh what the hell....



Don't lie and put words in my mouth, "dimwit" Ironically I was just about to move on from this debate until I saw this crap, so quit referring to, or attacking, me in threads I haven't even posted in (twice now) like a fucking coward, or I'll be verbally bitch slapping your nescient ass on every little issue that I've so far been letting you slide on.



See, I can also make derogatory personal attacks, just like you - Btw, out of respect for the other people in this forum, this post was extremely watered down. The original draft of this post would have melted your screen.



Have a nice day! ; )

CL wrote:

ssl291 wrote:





...It will also won't take long for CL to mention how World report is written be Patrick J. Michaels from CATO institute and how he is an agent of the evil exxon empire. Of course he will not realise that this paper isn't written by him, that this paper his peer-reviewed, and that this paper is published in a respected scientific journal....

I wasn't even planning on entering this thread until you specifically mentioned me. I've been quite civil in dealing with you up till now, but your pushing it...Oh what the hell....



Don't lie and put words in my mouth, "dimwit" Ironically I was just about to move on from this debate until I saw this crap, so quit referring to, or attacking, me in threads I haven't even posted in (twice now) like a fucking coward, or I'll be verbally bitch slapping your nescient ass on every little issue that I've so far been letting you slide on.



See, I can also make derogatory personal attacks, just like you - Btw, out of respect for the other people in this forum, this post was extremely watered down. The original draft of this post would have melted your screen.



Have a nice day! ; )

LMAO

ssl291 wrote:

CL wrote:

ssl291 wrote:





...It will also won't take long for CL to mention how World report is written be Patrick J. Michaels from CATO institute and how he is an agent of the evil exxon empire. Of course he will not realise that this paper isn't written by him, that this paper his peer-reviewed, and that this paper is published in a respected scientific journal....

I wasn't even planning on entering this thread until you specifically mentioned me. I've been quite civil in dealing with you up till now, but your pushing it...Oh what the hell....



Don't lie and put words in my mouth, "dimwit" Ironically I was just about to move on from this debate until I saw this crap, so quit referring to, or attacking, me in threads I haven't even posted in (twice now) like a fucking coward, or I'll be verbally bitch slapping your nescient ass on every little issue that I've so far been letting you slide on.



See, I can also make derogatory personal attacks, just like you - Btw, out of respect for the other people in this forum, this post was extremely watered down. The original draft of this post would have melted your screen.



Have a nice day! ; )

LMAO

: )

Steven wrote:



At the beginning of Chapter 3, the authors state that "Globally, temperature increased a t a rate of about 0.12°C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16°C per decade since 1979." In the troposphere, "Globally, temperature increased a t rate of about 0.14°C per decade since 1958 according to the two balloon-based data sets. Since 1979, estimates of the increase from the two balloon and three satellite data sets range from about 0.10 to 0.20°C per decade." However, in the lower stratosphere we have "Globally, the rate of cooling since 1958 is about 0.37°C per decade based on the two balloon data sets. Since 1979, estimates of this decrease are about 0.65°C per decade fro the two balloon data sets, and from about 0.33 to 0.45°C per decade for the two satellite data sets." Clearly the data favor the anthropogenic global warming model over the solar radiation model.

Would it? Wouldn't that line of thought also be leading to the prediction that the rate of warming of the lower trophosphere would be higher than the surface warming, due to a higher absoorption rate of the IR reradiation. And that's not the case either. Perhaps things are more complicated than that.

coal is mostly made of carbon. we are burning several tons of coal every year. that means that we are releasing several tons of "carbon" into the atmosphere/ecosystem every year.



how many tons of added carbon does it take to shift the planets climate?





its my understanding that carbon takes decades to remove itself from the atmosphere? that it will be having a warming effect for that period?

and that sulfer has a cooling effect, which will wear off long before the carbon wears off?





just grow amaranth everywhere. its an 8 foot tall weed that loves heat and sunlight. it will help soak up some of that nasty carbon, and its cool leafy sahde will prevent evaporation.