Misconceptions of Gloabal warming

This is in response to a previos post
Myths / Facts
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over
the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long
term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station
readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years,
which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the
globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and
industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings
than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.



MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a
steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently
began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout
geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000
to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period
known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average
global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above;
although from 1940 - 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global
Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's
Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has
now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It
is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100
years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human
and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the
beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere
has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from
about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth
rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof
that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores
dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the
temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of
warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal
relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down
naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic
influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2
as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They
consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the
remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide
is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the
atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents"
than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by
their sheer volume and - in the end - are thought to be responsible for 60%
of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant
global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver,
and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the
output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is
circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly
match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters
and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also,
computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly
including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a
major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received
radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion.
The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very
closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the
Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the
surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water
expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the
cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control
cloud cover.


MYTH 6: The UN proved that man-made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2
causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We
could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a
pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is
necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of
increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to
grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included
CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the
Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that
supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur.
Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal
areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and
severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing
population density, escalating development value, and ever more media
reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of
global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of
years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very
cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for
centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and
then retreating. It's normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much
on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth's poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and
melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat
warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern
Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of
Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually
cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives)
has shown no sign of any sea level rise.



Peter Pan

In article <>,
"Peter Pan" <> wrote:

> This is in response to a previos post
> Myths / Facts
> COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
>
> MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
>
Where does this article come from?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Peter Pan wrote:

> This is in response to a previos post
> Myths / Facts
> COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
>
> MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
>

Nobody has claimed that. It is, of course, very precedented. The problem
is that humanity will not easily survive global average temperature changes
of even a degree or two Celsius.

> FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over
> the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long
> term rate of increase in global temperatures.

"Change in the rate"? Do you even know what that means? It means climate
is warming, and continuing to do so...

> Average ground station
> readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years,
> which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last
> millennium.

_not_ "well within", but not unreasonable.

> The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution
> across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban
> and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher
> readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

LOL. That line is taken directly from Michael Crichton's book on the
subject. Crichton argues quite convincingly that global warming isn't
happening - except for one small detail. Early in the book, he shows the
(increasing) average temperature curve for the last 100 years, and the CO2
curve that matches it almost exactly. We can go back 6000 years and show
that same relationship.

> There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

Just keep kidding yourself. We had a hurricane in Nova Scotia last week -
it's not supposed to happen in November. Tell the people in Mexico and the
Carribean that there's no catastrophe. Tell the folks in New Orleans, that
there's been no "catastrophe".

> MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a
> steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently
> began a sudden increase.

Another myth you've just made up.

> MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100
> years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
>
> FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons,
> human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the
> beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere
> has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased
> from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which
> growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is
> no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.

Who needs proof - the correlation is astonishing.

> As measured in ice
> cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down
> AFTER the temperature has done so,

Another "fact" you've just made up. That's _not_ evident in the ice cores.
>
> MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

yet another. Water has always been the most significant greenhouse gas.
However, the water vapour in the atmosphere is purely dependent on
temperature (the higher the temperature, the more evaporates from the
oceans), whereas other greenhouse gases - like CO2 and Methane _control_
temperature.

> While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse
> agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the
> effect by their sheer volume and - in the end - are thought to be
> responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

LOL. And you were arguing the reversal of cause and effect for CO2...

> Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important
> fact.

CO2 is merely the most significant of the greenhouse gases we can control.

> MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant
> global warming.
>
> FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver,
> and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use
> the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is
> circular reasoning and is illogical.

Actually, you can. It's not circular, it's iterative, and quite logical.
However, nobody claims "models" prove global warming. "Evidence" is
accomplishing that.

> Computer models can be made to
> roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input
> parameters and using strong positive feedbacks.

LOL. "Strong positive feedbacks" is another way of saying "circular
reasoning". It's _how_ models work.

> The
> sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its
> received radiation changes all the time,

Do you have a clue what "greenhouse gas" means? The _only_ source of
warming due to greenhouse gases is, by definition, solar radiation. The
question is how much heat is retained, and how much is re-radiated into
space.

> This happens largely in cyclical
> fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated
> very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age
> and the Medieval Warm Period.

That is, indeed, true. However, if sunspots were causing the current
warming, we should be getting _cooler_.

> Varying intensity of solar heat radiation
> affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer
> ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2.

Give me a break. If you're going to argue natural sources of CO2 (which,
I'll remind you, you've already told us _isn't_ causing warming), at least
don't argue for the oceans as a source, as they produce a fraction of the
CO2 & methane belched from volcanos.

> Solar radiation
> interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized
> nuclei which control cloud cover.

"control"? Dust & ice crystals create far more clouds than ionized nuclei.

> MYTH 6: The UN proved that man-made CO2 causes global warming.

Why do you keep making up these myths?

> FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
> deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

The two statements were _inserted_ by politicians _against_ the wishes of
the scientists who wrote the draft. And I think that you'll find that
while they _were_ removed from the final "draft", they're still in the
published report.

> To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2
> causes significant global warming.

And there's no "proof" that we evolved from a pre-hominid ape or that
smoking kills. The preponderance of evidence, though, is clear.

> MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
>
> FACT: This is absolutely not true.

Of _course_ it's true. Anything that we put into the environment that
wasn't there before is a pollutant. If we act responsibly, we can prevent
those pollutants from fouling our nest so badly as to cause complete
climate collapse.

> MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
>
> FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that
> supports such claims on a global scale.

Yeah, you'll keep arguing that until it kills you.

> MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of
> global warming.
>
> FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of
> years.

Of course. Clearly, it's evidence that the climate is warming.

> Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very
> cool period of the Little Ice Age.

I.e., we're warming...

> Besides, glacier's health is dependent as
> much on precipitation as on temperature.

??? Do you have a clue how this affects your argument?

> FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat
> warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the
> Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.

Huh? Now you're making up even the basics of your argument. Please try to
convince somebody in our Eastern Arctic that they're getting colder. Our
permafrost is melting, and our Polar Bears are starving.

> Ice thicknesses are increasing both on
> Greenland and in Antarctica.

Figures please? That's not what I hear about Greenland.

> Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives)
> has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

LOL. "Sea level monitoring" in the Maldives, at least, would be a little
awkward - the Maldives are _sinking_. Whether there's more water in the
Indian Ocean is irrelevant, because the plate the Maldives sit on is
subductive and the whole archipelago will be flooded eventually, regardless
of overall sea levels.
--
derek

In article <>,
Derek Broughton <> wrote:

> Peter Pan wrote:
>
> > This is in response to a previos post
> > Myths / Facts
> > COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
> >
> > MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
> >
>
> Nobody has claimed that. It is, of course, very precedented. The problem
> is that humanity will not easily survive global average temperature changes
> of even a degree or two Celsius.

I was waiting to see the source for that article.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Whether or not global warming is a problem or not I still see no reason
not to clean up our act and stop polluting the planet. But I digress
from what I wanted to say on the topic.

In recent years the plants, fruit and crops in the UK have changed.
Previously tender plants can now survive the British winter. The British
wine industry is on the up as growing conditions have changed and our
climate becomes better suited. What I've been wondering is how the
changes in our weather will impact what can be kept in ponds and
waterways over the world. As some areas, such as here, see changes in
what we can grow in our gardens, I wonder if likewise we can expect to
see changes in the plants, fish and creatures that we can keep in our
ponds. Or indeed whether the pond season will increase and the fish will
be more active for longer. And also how this might impact indigenous
species in our rivers and lakes. And whether accidental releases of non
native species into our waterways will become even more of an issue as
the winters become warmer (on average) and I would guess therefore the
potential survival rates of non-indigenous species increase....

Just some musings

Gill

"Gill Passman" <> wrote in message
news:473988b1$0$511$...

(Brevity snips)

Or indeed whether the pond season will increase and the fish will
> be more active for longer.
===========================
This sure seems to be the case with my ponds. Here it is almost mid November
and the fish are still active and most are still eating. Our first frost
was 2 weeks later than expected this year.
--
RM....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
Zone 6. Middle TN USA
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

Submitted for your consideration:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

My opinion, we're all gonna freeze to death! Global cooling is
inevitable.

The last 4 cooling cycles have been progressivley colder while the
warming cycles alternate in amplitude.

Mike
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

"Mike Patterson" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Submitted for your consideration:
> http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
>
> My opinion, we're all gonna freeze to death! Global cooling is
> inevitable.
>
> The last 4 cooling cycles have been progressivley colder while the
> warming cycles alternate in amplitude.
====================================
I don't think anyone on this NG will still be around when that happens. Even
our great-grandchildren will be gone by then. Here it is mid November and
I'm running around in shorts and a T-shirt. It's 74F here today.
--

RM....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
Zone 6. Middle TN USA
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

Mike Patterson wrote:

>
> Submitted for your consideration:
> http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
>
> My opinion, we're all gonna freeze to death! Global cooling is
> inevitable.
>
> The last 4 cooling cycles have been progressivley colder while the
> warming cycles alternate in amplitude.

You're right - it's inevitable. But that's some few thousand years into the
future, and the warming is happening now.

Nice graphs, though.
--
derek

thru the last 7 ice ages the CO2 has never exceeded 300 ppm. We are now well over
300 so we have no basis of knowing what will happen. Ingrid

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:26:48 CST, Mike Patterson
>The last 4 cooling cycles have been progressivley colder while the
>warming cycles alternate in amplitude.