Global warming threatens glaciers, livelihood

It's the sun stupid! Not the people.

Yup, everybody is "stupid" except Ronnie C.

Please Professor Ronnie, tell us how the Sun is doing it and would you mind showing us the data to support your claim.

I don't want to be "stupid", so please show me how you are so confident that 6 1/2 billion people. pouring tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and halogenated hydrocarbons into the atmosphere EACH YEAR has no impact at all (each of these gases absorb electromagnetic energy in the frequency range emitted by the Earth, that in the absence of these gases would be lost to space).

There is some variability in the 22 years solar cycle based on frequencies of sunspots, but recent data indicates that sunspot activity and overall solar irradiance (output) has declined since 1985, not increased.

So again Ronnie, since you have all the knowledge and answers--show us the beef to support your claim.

I wonder how much of the melt is attributable to the massive amount of black carbon emissions from the countries of Southeast Asia and China?

To Jake: I surmise that you are a devout follower of Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth, which could easily have been called an Inconvenient Obfuscation of Facts. Yes, the same Al Gore that invented the Internet.

While I am not an expert, there are more than 400 experts that refute Gore's work. Not in total but with regard to his ommission of data that do not meet his criteria.

As to the Sun, I believe that about 65 percent of global warming is attributed to the sun. Furthermore, it was in the late 50s that we were discussing global cooling. Regardless, this is a strange world in which we live.

The Truth Matters wrote:

I wonder how much of the melt is attributable to the massive amount of black carbon emissions from the countries of Southeast Asia and China?

none at all - those innocent asians and orientals would NEVER hurt Nature! Nor do they ever do anything for money , being spiritual and non -materialistic, unlike us westerners who cruelly force them to accept our money and aid when they have disasters. Only Bush's carbon is evil, unlike the oriental peace-loving carbon in the East.

Jake wrote:

Yup, everybody is "stupid" except Ronnie C.
Please Professor Ronnie, tell us how the Sun is doing it and would you mind showing us the data to support your claim.
I don't want to be "stupid", so please show me how you are so confident that 6 1/2 billion people. pouring tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and halogenated hydrocarbons into the atmosphere EACH YEAR has no impact at all (each of these gases absorb electromagnetic energy in the frequency range emitted by the Earth, that in the absence of these gases would be lost to space).
There is some variability in the 22 years solar cycle based on frequencies of sunspots, but recent data indicates that sunspot activity and overall solar irradiance (output) has declined since 1985, not increased.
So again Ronnie, since you have all the knowledge and answers--show us the beef to support your claim.

why does the CO2 level LAG 800 years BEHIND the temperature rises, as even Al Gore's own film shows? How could that be? looks like some people have a hard job sorting out cause from effect.

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>why does the CO2 level LAG 800 years BEHIND the temperature rises, as even Al Gore's own film shows? How could that be? looks like some people have a hard job sorting out cause from effect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temp...
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
What the science says...
The CO2 record confirms both the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2 and how sensitive climate is to change.

Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.

BAL wrote:

To Jake: I surmise that you are a devout follower of Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth, which could easily have been called an Inconvenient Obfuscation of Facts. Yes, the same Al Gore that invented the Internet.
While I am not an expert, there are more than 400 experts that refute Gore's work.

Including TV weathermen and TV garderning show hosts? Yes we've seen that ridiculous list.

As to the Sun, I believe that about 65 percent of global warming is attributed to the sun.

Of the total 20th century. Of the last 30 years of warming no more than 35% can be attributed to the sun.

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
Including TV weathermen and TV garderning show hosts? Yes we've seen that ridiculous list.
<quoted text>
Of the total 20th century. Of the last 30 years of warming no more than 35% can be attributed to the sun.

A typical liberal response, and from the UK no less. You should check your data a bit better, or rather check the actual data and the actual list of scientific members who refute Al Gore.

The data I've seen says there is a lag of 10,000 to 20,000 years. The time scale was over 170,000 years. Every time the CO2 increased, the temperature followed some 10,000 to 20,000 years later. Our temperatures are on the rise now because of CO2 levels from 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. CO2 levels have actually been higher in the past and the world didn't come to an end. So why don't y'all cool it on the global warming thing. I know in a few years we'll all look back on this and laugh it off, but in the mean time leave your hands off my wallet and quit with your self-righteous holier than thou attitude. Please donate some of that saved gas of yours to me so I can fill er up. Oh and might the snow fall have something to do with the poor glaciers? In my science classes I teach that there is no such thing as a closed system. Even in a tiny test tube there are multiple variables that can influence an outcome. Please tell me how a single variable can cause another single variable to happen on such a massive scale like the Sun-Earth system.

Still catching Up

Jake wrote:

I don't want to be "stupid", so please show me how you are so confident that 6 1/2 billion people. pouring tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and halogenated hydrocarbons into the atmosphere EACH YEAR has no impact at all (each of these gases absorb electromagnetic energy in the frequency range emitted by the Earth, that in the absence of these gases would be lost to space).

This needs to kept in perspective. The human contribution to CO2 emissions is only 10%. Furthermore, CO2 is only responsible for about 10% of the the greenhouse effect.
So, in perspective, man has little to do with the total greenhouse effect. Cutting worldwide CO2 emissions by 30%, which is virtually unattainable in the near future, will net roughly .3% reduction in the greenhouse effect. China and India emit more CO2 than the US at this point, and they have demonstrated that any reduction efforts on our end will be quickly made up for on theirs. Our only reward will be our dead economy from the weight of government restrictions and regulations, while theirs continues at a 10% growth year over year.

It seems like every day we see reports on this BS! Anecdotal evidence of global warming! Please!
I notice there wasn`t as much reporting on this when we all still were wearing our winter coats and concerned about frost in mid April!
It has been confirmed that temperatures are actually cooling globally:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors...

Yet, we are at the height of man made CO2, unparalleled any time in history. This should tell you, people, that we have little affect on the climate of the earth.

Staying Anon wrote:

It has been confirmed that temperatures are actually cooling globally:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors...

No they're not. The cooling phase of the cycle ended about a month ago.

Staying Anon wrote:

Yet, we are at the height of man made CO2, unparalleled any time in history. This should tell you, people, that we have little affect on the climate of the earth.

You're forgetting something called the flywheel effect. You don't expect an oil tanker to stop the minute you stop the engines. Large systems change slowly, and the Earth's combined atmosphere, water and ice make up a very large system. It has begun to warm.
That should tell you that we are having an effect. It should also tell you that we've initiated some very massive effects to come.

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
You're forgetting something called the flywheel effect. You don't expect an oil tanker to stop the minute you stop the engines. Large systems change slowly, and the Earth's combined atmosphere, water and ice make up a very large system. It has begun to warm.
That should tell you that we are having an effect. It should also tell you that we've initiated some very massive effects to come.

In you post just before this I comment on you said:
"No they're not. The cooling phase of the cycle ended about a month ago."

In this you said:
"You're forgetting something called the flywheel effect. You don't expect an oil tanker to stop the minute you stop the engines. Large systems change slowly, and the Earth's combined atmosphere, water and ice make up a very large system."
That should tell you that we are having an effect. It should also tell you that we've initiated some very massive effects to come"

You put the 2 together and you said we are in for some cold. You know the ship can't be stopped, and "we've initiated some very massive effects to come"

AGW crisis peddlers brains just don't work.

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
In you post just before this I comment on you said:
"No they're not. The cooling phase of the cycle ended about a month ago."
In this you said:
"You're forgetting something called the flywheel effect. You don't expect an oil tanker to stop the minute you stop the engines. Large systems change slowly, and the Earth's combined atmosphere, water and ice make up a very large system."
That should tell you that we are having an effect. It should also tell you that we've initiated some very massive effects to come"
You put the 2 together and you said we are in for some cold. You know the ship can't be stopped, and "we've initiated some very massive effects to come"
AGW crisis peddlers brains just don't work.

Even you can't buy that. You're adding apples and oranges and getting bananas. So to speak.

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
No they're not. The cooling phase of the cycle ended about a month ago.

Any proof? And we are still at about a nil net gain in global temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Staying Anon wrote:

<quoted text>
Any proof? And we are still at about a nil net gain in global temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The globe is warming. Here's your proof. Also proof that these short term cycles are beside the point.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig....
data updated April 09/2008

wait until the real climate data is reviewed and them lets asess th effects. 99% of any weather or climate change is solar or galactic radiation driven. Europe knows this and it's about time America picked on up on it. In the meantime take numbers, names and addresses of these contemptable experts who about to give the whole country away.
IDIOTS!!

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
The globe is warming. Here's your proof. Also proof that these short term cycles are beside the point.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig....
data updated April 09/2008

To keep this in perspective, we still haven`t rebounded from the high point in 2006, according to that graph.
And I agree with you on the latter point. The truth is that we haven`t varied that much within the past 100 years either.