EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct

Pingback | Link #104291 ›

EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct « The IUSB Vision Weblog [...] Comments PoliGazette » EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct on EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correctgreasegirl on How to: [...]

Pingback | Link #104293 ›

EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct - Poli Gazette | The Warming Zone [...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104307 ›

Doomed The earth is in the midst of a global glaciation period. These periods last approximately 110,000 years. They ebb and flow. Let me make the global warming kindergardenish for everyone. 1. The planet comes out of a glacial period...roughly every 10-22k years. 2. Lots and lots of new acreage is covered with plants as ice sheets recede. 3. Plants absorbe CO2....produce oxygen. 4. Sunspots move to maximum heating planet even further and causing even more plants to grow. 5. Eventually plants who ABSORB CO2 die and release even more C02 into the air...this continues for centuries..Centuries of dying plant life producing c02. 6. CO2 rates build up....more plants die and decay releasing more Co2 into the air. 7. Co2 is absorbed into the lakes and oceans. Supersaturation occurs. 8. Eventually huge build ups of co2 cause the tides to shift southerly and northerly. 9. The planet cools 10. Ice forms......covers up trillions of acres of co2 infested dead foilage and prevents new plants from growing. 11. CO2 is broken down to its basic elements of Carbon and OXYGEN. 12. As co2 is removed from the air and sinks to the bottom of the ocean the tides move northward, sunspots return to maximum and the earth warms up. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.

Pingback | Link #104318 ›

Overcoming global recession SEO | SEO Traffic Spider | Real Money Reports [...] PoliGazette » EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting … [...]

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104328 ›

Doomed The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures. This is quite interesting as more and more air time is devoted to facts and figures NOT influenced by government grant money or UNIVERSITY endowments whose CONCLUSION has already been reached and the researcher must MAKE THE FACTS fit the conclusion. I've said it before and I will say it again. Global Warming is nothing but an Alinskization of a notion into a CRISIS that must be solved. The critics of Global warming have been Alinskized, shamed and silenced so that the average Human being only knows the lies spread by global warming advocates and not the whole truth. BUILD UPS of CO2 does NOT occur BEFORE global warming...its occurs after global warming has happened. DUH. Ice Core samples, coral samples from the last 500 million years all conclude this. Folks. We are not headed for Global warming...we are headed for a global cooling...its what build ups of co2 does.

Posted by Jeb

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104329 ›

Jeb

7. Co2 is absorbed into the lakes and oceans. Supersaturation occurs.

???

8. Eventually huge build ups of co2 cause the tides to shift southerly and northerly.

??? Does the increased CO2 change the postition of the earth relative to the sun and moon?

co2 infested dead foilage

By this, should I assume you mean carbohydrate infested foliage?

11. CO2 is broken down to its basic elements of Carbon and OXYGEN.

Really?

12. As co2 is removed from the air and sinks to the bottom of the ocean the tides move northward

Really? Is it the mass of the CO2 changing position that alters the tides? I didn't realize it was so heavy.

Let me make the global warming kindergardenish

In that you have succeeded.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104333 ›

Doomed @Jeb. Once again Jeb you prove my point of the Alinskization of the debate. Step up to the plate Jeb. Lets discuss the facts....not this...... :::??? Does the increased CO2 change the postition of the earth relative to the sun and moon?::: or Really? Absolutely classic Jeb. To the point that anyone who read my post and wants to gather some facts can seek them out. Anyone who reads your rebuttal and says....now that guy is loaded with concrete facts...well they can keep right on wringing their hands and dreading the rising of the tides another 2 inches this century.

Posted by Jeb

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104339 ›

Jeb Doomed, Are you even aware of how tides work? To claim that levels of CO2 or temperature are going to cause tides to move North and/or South is ridiculous. Go here or here if for some reason you really doubt this. My responses were as they were due to my complete befuddlement over how any one could believe what you wrote relating to the interaction of CO2 and tides. It is quite simply silly and calling so is does not make it "pure Alinsky" in any meaningful sense. Re: your usage of Alinsky Here is some recommended reading for you.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104343 ›

Doomed Massive brain fart on my part and I will give you this round. Tides.......I meant ocean currents. I still never even spotted the problem till I clicked on the link you provided and I thought to myself why the hello is he talking about tides. My bad.

Posted by Jeb

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104344 ›

Jeb The e-mails from the original post do look troubling. I hope the EPA makes public the entire chain of e-mails leading up to the ones published by CEI. I am curious in particular about,

I have stressed in previous emails that this is not a criteria document for climate change and greenhouse gases. If such a document is drafted, then perhaps your comments might be considered.

It is not made clear what type of document it is and that does seem a rather important piece of information. In context of the email exchange this makes sense as all parties presumably knew, but...

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104346 ›

Doomed It now seemed beyond doubt that there had been shifts in the North Atlantic particularly around the end of the last ice age some 11,000 years ago — a time geologists on land had long known as the "Younger Dryas" climate shift. The entire pattern of ocean circulation had evidently changed within a couple of thousand years, or perhaps only a few hundred depending upon how the core samples were actually evaluated. That resonated with studies by Willi Dansgaard, Hans Oeschger, and others using cores drilled out of the Greenland ice sheet in the early 1980s. Certain periods such as the Younger Dryas had seen ***very abrupt cooling*** around the North Atlantic, episodes so striking that they got a name of their own, the "Dansgaard-Oeschger events." Oeschger was particularly struck by a rapid rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the *****END***** of the last ice age, which others had recently discovered in ice and deep-sea cores. Quoting from various papers including...Schnitker 1979..... Ruddiman and McIntyre (1981); Boyle and Keigwin (1982) I could go on and on and on with the research data suggesting extremely fast moving shifts in climate due to ocean currents/Salinity/CO2. In fact at this very moment Sigourney Weaver has lent her name to a documentary about the acid build up in coral reefs that is causing ecological harm. This acid change is due to the manifest absorbtion of Co2 into the ocean changing the salinity levels. I have been In Geology/Hydrology for over 30 years. This is my field. I keep abreast of it and the people I talk to that arent paid to make facts support a popular conclusion see just the opposite of what the AGW crowd is howling about. The consensus opinion based upon research by .... Broecker et al. (1960); the circulation pattern was mentioned already by Rossby (1956); translated as Rossby (1959), p. 13.......is that the deep water remains submerged for 650 years using carbon dating techniques to determine when was the last time the water had been on the surface. The planet is cooling not warming. The build up of CO2 is a precursor for global cooling and not global warming. We are once again moving into a period in which rather DRASTICALLY the weather will shift, the ocean currents supersaturated with co2 will move southerly bringing freezing temperatures to a temperate northern hemisphere. We are in fact in for a rough century but it is not going to be global warming that will be our undoing...it will be global cooling and a radical and somewhat sudden shift in climate brought on my the supersaturation of the lakes and oceans of c02.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104362 ›

Doomed http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AtlanticClimate.htm A theory that I subscribe too. Schwartz, Peter; Randall, Doug (October 2003). An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. This was a study undertaken by the US department of defense which has since been taken down from its postings...Interesting that such would happen in a time when any conflicting evidence opposed to global warming would be removed rather then allowed to stand on its own merits. http://web.archive.org/web/20051119045242/http://sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html You might notice that 15,000 scientists signed a petition to then President Clinton rebutting the Kyoto treaty based upon faulty scientific evidence and modeling essentially taking evidence and forcing it to conclude a preordained conclusion. Even the late great Carl Sagan realized and recognized that the greatest peril to our planet was NOT CO2 but was in fact Smog and pollution and aerosols. CO2 is part of the lifes cycle. The fact that in times past massive forest fires were allowed to burn for years on the planet until extinguishing themselves shows one pure scientific fact. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The captured CO2 in plant life that dwarfs this planet will not be denied. It will get back into the atmosphere one way or the other. Water is the great co2 sink. 90 percent of the earths surface is water. It takes an extremely long time for this amount of water to become supersaturated with co2. However studies of northern hemisphere lake bodies have shown that these lakes are nearing their scientific supersaturation of co2. What does this mean exactly? It means that when the oceans become super saturated with co2 it changes the salinity levels of the ocean currents....the ocean currents then begin shifting bringing with it abrupt changes in weather patterns. What you are seeing is in fact a result of co2 build ups in the atmosphere and the oceans and lakes. If we stopped emitting another drop of CO2 it would not change a thing....supersaturation has occurred....it is time for mother earth to readjust herself. Her auto immune mechanism is kicking into action and she will cleanse herself of the imbalances of CO2 and Oxygen that plagues her lungs. She will survive....it matters not what we do or do not do at this juncture in time. Our greatest contribution to planet earth is not curbing co2. Its curbing Smog, Pollution and aerosols and insuring that hydrologists have the tools to prevent ground water contamination. I have been to global warming conferences. 2 of them to be exact. I have debated global warming vs. global cooling to the point that the AGW people want to have me physcially removed for daring challenge their expertise....I mean after all I only have a masters and 37 years of field work experience....they have a phd. and did a couple field trips.

Posted by Chuck Norton

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104364 ›

Chuck Norton Gents, All the information one needs is right in the 98 page report linked in the article. Both the UN and the EPA have internal reports that were leaked or forced out by legal action that admit that the so called "global warming skeptics" are correct and have been for years. Global warming alarmists never want to answer the following questions. If their view on "warming" is accepted true or not, who benefits monetarily, who gains power, who suffers and who benefits by the suffering?

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104370 ›

Doomed You are correct Chuck Norton. It is why I have had some rather heated debates at global warming conferences with so called experts on AGW. The gist of those arguments are explain to me simply in the AGW world what is most responsible for controlling weather? Atmosphere or the Oceans? Its staggering the lack of understanding these so called EXPERTS have on the relationships between global weather patterns and 90 percent of the earths volume. Oceanography is a relatively new science in so far as their are not thousands upon thousands of scientist daily doing research on global salinity levels, co2 saturation, tides, currents and rate of sinking of current warm water or current heavy saline water. The extent to which oceans are the main and almost exclusive driver of weather and events on this planet is slowly becoming understood. In the meantime the evidence emerging from the oceans is rejected in favor of a few graphs that say....yup man is producing lots of co2 therefore its all our fault. End of discussion. End of scientific ethics which challenges every hypothesis and postulate. So far nothing has emmerged to challenge anything coming from the oceans other then abject denial.

Posted by Chuck Norton

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104384 ›

Chuck Norton Well Doomed, When little factors like solar activity and water vapor (which is the primary green house gas) are left out of the computer models used and exalted for, believe it or not, peer reviewed studies one has no choice but to laugh at the "peers".

Posted by Michael Merritt ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104458 ›

Michael Merritt Doomed, If we're heading toward a cooling, then what of all the ice in the Arctic Sea that has melted over time? It's my understanding that over the past 30-40 years that the sea has changed from near impenetrable (without ice breaking ships) to having large swaths of area that easily navigable. This is due to increased sunspot activity? Perhaps too much credence is lent to CO2. It's been targeted, as making one thing the enemy is easy to due. Yet, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. But what you're saying that that the increased amount of CO2 released into the air since the widespread emergence of automobiles and other forms of CO2 spewing machinery has little to no effect on warming? I have no experience in your field or any other, but it wouldn't surprise me if scientists were wrong about CO2 being a factor in warming. It also wouldn't surprise me if the situation turned out to be not one extreme (greenhouse gases) or the other (sunspots), but a little of both.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104494 ›

Doomed Good questions MM. Let me try to explain without getting overly technical. The earth is a gigantic greenhouse. Many things change its thermostat. Sunspot cycles. The orbital glitches of the earth around the sun. Water Vapor and CO2. Lets address water vapor and co2. Because this planet is a gigantic greenhouse there are 9900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 trillion plants and trees etc. that ABSORB co2 and produce oxygen. Now when these plants die....they decay. Decaying plant life RETURNS CO2 into the atmosphere. Since the earth must maintain an ecological balance of co2, o2 and N(nitrogen) the planet which is 90 percent water absorbs co2 into the water bodies. Essentially our bodies of water are HUGE carbon sinks. So C02 is absorbed into the oceans.....The more co2 that is absorbed into the oceans the more the salinity levels change......the more saline the heavier the water. The heavier the water the more likely it is to sink. Right now recent studies have indicated that deep water has been deep for on average 650 years. Meaning the typical time reference for sinking, heavy salinity and thus high in c02 water is 650 years. So we are concluding that it takes roughly 650 years for the earth to deal with c02 build ups. Now since emerging from the last ice age 11,000 years ago the planet has been heating up....aka...its producing more co2 because the ice sheets are receeding and exposing more land to growing plants....The recceding ice produces Xn cubic miles of fresh water that is put back into the oceans. This fresh water pushes heavy water deep and keeps less saline waters on the surface...El Nino is a prime example of this. Fresher water is easier lifted into the air...that is why when it rains on a tropical island the water is fresh and not salt water....The more fresh water pushed into the ocean the more fresh water that can ascend into the atmosphere and create a greenhouse effect. Now back to co2. Co2 trapped in the ocean because of massive amounts of co2 being released by a warming planet of 11,000 years creates problems for the planet. Every ice core sample ever drilled has shown that build ups of co2 PRECEEDS global cooling and DOES NOT PRECEED global warming. Right now there is no doubt that we have an over abundance of co2 in our atmosphere and even worse....in our bodies of water. Scientific analysis shows our lakes and oceans nearing their scientific super saturation point of CO2. Meaning that the planet has too much co2 and that earth must deal with this. Mother Earth deals with TOO MUCH CO2 by cooling. She cools because the super saturation of the oceans creates shifts in the ocean currents due to the salinity levels being changed via rapidly sumberging heavy water. The more fresh water that races into the sea the faster this water sinks creating even more chaos in the oceans. Hence the flushing of fresh water from the north and the southern pole areas along with co2 sinked oceans forces the warm currents that keep the northern hemisphere temperate begin being pushed southerly...studies are still ongoing as to do the currents themselves actually stop all together of slow to the point of bare movement because of the heavy water. Core samples from sea beds, Greenland and the South pole all indicate that the jump from moderate temperatures to extreme temperatures are sudden and dramatic. In geologic times that is a couple hundred years. Well since about the 1850's we have been seeing a drastic build up of c02 in core smaples....by the end of this century we will have gone thru about 250 years of geologic time. I postulate that the changes we are seeing today are not leading to global warming but rather are in fact leading to the sudden and dramatic shifts in temperature that will lead to an even worse global cooling. Trust me global warming would be much better then global cooling. Heavy build ups of C02 which we are experienceing now, in every core sample ever taken comes right before a sudden shift into global COOLING...not global warming

Posted by Steve

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104497 ›

Steve This is a great presentation refuting many of the "conventional wisdom" regarding climate change. If you have some problem with the speaker (Lord Mockton) please read the primary sources he references. They are very recent studies published by well known researchers and universities. http://www.youtube.com/user/MNFMI#p/u/0/4zOXmJ4jd-8

Posted by Jeb

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104514 ›

Jeb

Since the earth must maintain an ecological balance of co2, o2 and N(nitrogen)

Here by earth do you mean biosphere? The earth will do just fine with a far different atmospheric make up, the organisms living on it on the other hand...

the planet which is 90 percent water absorbs co2 into the water bodies.

The volume of the earths oceans is ~1.35x10^6 km3, given that they make up more than 90% of the earths water, let's round that up to 2.16x10^6 km3 to make the math easy. The volume of the earth is ~1.08x10^12 km3. That would make the volume of the oceans ~0.00002% of the earth's volume. The disparity is even greater if we use mass.

The more co2 that is absorbed into the oceans the more the salinity levels change…………the more saline the heavier the water....

Are you saying that increased carbonic acid from dissolution of CO2 changes salinity enough to change thermohaline circulation in the oceans, that decreased pH due to increased carbonic acid will increase salt solubility thereby increasing salinity or do you think there is some other link causing significantly increased salinity? In any case I think you are seriously mistaken.

This fresh water pushes heavy water deep and keeps less saline waters on the surface…El Nino is a prime example of this.

How is El Nino a prime example of the halocline dynamics you mentioned? Neither El Nino nor the normal upwelling it interrupts are salinity driven.

Fresher water is easier lifted into the air…that is why when it rains on a tropical island the water is fresh and not salt water…

No again. The salts do not evaporate and the water does. The water is effectively distilled out of the salt water solution in the water cycle. (Rain is the distillate)

The more fresh water pushed into the ocean the more fresh water that can ascend into the atmosphere and create a greenhouse effect.

Do you just mean by this that lower salinity will equate to lower boiling point? This ignores that most of that freshwater originated in the ocean to which it is returning. In order for salinity to be effected the water must come from a new source like melting ice sheets or glaciers. The effects of that are multifaceted and include the relative albedos of ice and water near the top of the list.

Mother Earth deals with TOO MUCH CO2 by cooling.

Why the repeated anthropomorphizing? It does more to obscure than illuminate.

She cools because the super saturation of the oceans creates shifts in the ocean currents due to the salinity levels being changed via rapidly sumberging heavy water.

To be clear, are you saying that increasing CO2 will increase salinity* and that increased salinity will be great enough that will accelerate the thermohaline circulation, the so called 'conveyor belt' circulation, which will somehow translate into surface currents changing position and driving some type of climate change?

The more fresh water that races into the sea the faster this water sinks creating even more chaos in the oceans.

and to be clear, adding more fresh water in the form of rain and runoff, which would if mixed decrease the salinity, will speed the thermohaline circulation as well?

the warm currents that keep the northern hemisphere temperate begin being pushed southerly…studies are still ongoing as to do the currents themselves actually stop all together of slow to the point of bare movement because of the heavy water.

Are you talking about thermohaline circulation or surface currents here? You seem to talk about surface currents and thermohaline circulation as though the two were interchangeable. Their primary drivers are different and they react in different ways. The currents that move warm (low latitude) waters with their stored heat to higher latitudes are surface currents. For example the Gulf Stream** by bringing the heat stored in low latitude waters North moderates the climate of Northern Europe. The density driven currents are much slower, are driven primarily by temperature (thermo) and salinity (haline), and are for most of their travel at ~3oC.

In geologic times that is a couple hundred years.

I think that you are off by a couple of orders of magnitude here. There is more, but I have to get to work. * by what process you will presumably make clear in answer to my above question. ** then Labrador and NAD

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104520 ›

Doomed Jeb I didnt realize I was writing a scientific paper in a comments section on the internet. Forgive me for trying to simplify my hypothesis into laymans terms that are easy to understand. In any case I think you are seriously mistaken. Fine....Ive put forth my hypothesis of what I believe is happening....Lets hear yours.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104524 ›

Doomed k1 = (Mg2+)(CO32-) k2 = (Ca2+)(CO32-) k3 = (HCO3-) / (CO32-) / (H3O+) k4 = (CO2(aq)) / (HCO3-) / (H3O+) These calculations show that the atmosphere connected to a warm ocean contains more carbon dioxide than if connected to a cold ocean. This is what drives the absorption close to the poles and the desorption in the tropics. When you look at the surface waters of the frigid zones, the surface water is actually colder than the deep waters and the halocline is responsible for maintaining water column stability. You seem confused as the the vertical maintanence of the salinity levels as underscored by the presence or lack there of of abundant co2. As the calculations above show there is more co2 in warmer waters thus driving the heavier saline columns downward while less co2 found in the colder waters of the south keep the the vertical saline columns stable. In these regions, the halocline is important in allowing for the formation of sea ice, and limiting the escape of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. IT IS PRECISELY THIS CONCEPT that I have spoken of when I say that Mother earth cools and prevents the escape of CO2 into the atmosphere until the co2 can be broken down into her component parts. Additionally these Haloclines are also found in fjords, and poorly mixed estuaries where fresh water is deposited at the ocean surface. As I stated it is this influx of fresh water that creates salinity issues most notably in cold water areas that see this warmer melting fresh water mix with the colder surface water causing an imbalance in vertical saline stability. Jeb Wrote @Are you talking about thermohaline circulation or surface currents here? Im talking about both. In addition as I stated above I did not realize that someone wanted to have an in depth scientific debate using technical terms. Jeb you should know that The combinations of salinity and cold temperatures make the water denser and cause it to sink to the bottom. Its relatively straight forward. The deepwater movement of this intensely saline rich water is of equal importance as is the surface currents. They both make up the dynamics of the ocean which allows it to do what it does. It is also the co2 sinking of the ocean and the oceans desire to poor co2 back into the atmoshpere that mother earth covers these areas with ice and prevents the release of co2 until the situation can stabilize.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104535 ›

Doomed Are you saying that increased carbonic acid from dissolution of CO2 changes salinity enough to change thermohaline circulation in the oceans, that decreased pH due to increased carbonic acid will increase salt solubility thereby increasing salinity or do you think there is some other link causing significantly increased salinity? In any case I think you are seriously mistaken. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=33395 They dont.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104560 ›

Doomed Jeb sed.....How is El Nino a prime example of the halocline dynamics you mentioned? Neither El Nino nor the normal upwelling it interrupts are salinity driven. Considering the El Nino is still under a lot of reasearch Im surprised you would make this statement Jeb. El Nino....warm water phase....warm water means higher content of co2...higher content of co2....means the saline has been pushed under. The research I have seen shows that the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years. The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104594 ›

Doomed Additionally given the Marine life extinction events that happened during the Ordovician period when CO2 as measured in core samples exceeded 4000 ppm as compared to todays 387 ppm I find it fascinating that scientists of today are absolutely convinced that never in the history of the world has our earth faced such peril as it does today thanks to mankind pumping a few ppm of co2 into the atmosphere. The question becomes..How did we get 4000ppm co2 into the air and secondly......how did earth get rid of this co2 when for all intents and purposes the entire earth was a sauna during this period? How could we have cooled. Where did all this ice come from. For the last 112,000 years our planet has actually been relatively cool given historical time references. Many think I advocate that because we have had a few relatively cool years in relation to the 1998 hot year, that means I think in the next 6 months were going to slip into an ice age. Hardly. The CO2 scare says that by the year 2100 we will double our co2 in the atmosphere given the current levels of co2 being pumped into the air by mankind. Totally forgotten in all this is that mankind will RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS around 2050-2065. Hence the doubling of CO2 based upon the current production of man made c02 is IMPOSSIBLE. Now the doubling of co2 is not impossible by 2100 but not because of mankind. If we double the ppm of co2 by 2100 to 750 ppm then the story goes our reefs will abandon us and we will all starve to death. That is indeed very possible. But it will not be because of what man has done. Essentially the co2 content has been rising since 1723 confirmed by ppm core samples taken in greenland and Antarctica. The rising of co2 since 1723 to the year 2100 is in geological times roughly equivalent to 300 years of time. Based upon historical revelations that our planet has shifted in and out of Ice ages many times in this short of a time reference it is not hard for me to point to global cooling as being our biggest fear for the future....not global warming. Additionally Al Gore in his movie says if all the ice melts it will raise the ocean level 20 feet.....he shows a nice animated film showing the devastation 20 foot higher oceans will cause. However....fact check....the IPCC states that the ocean will rise no more then 8 to 16 inches by the year 2100 given current rates of melting.... 8 inches versus 240 inches. Even 16 inches vs. 240 inches. Is there any wonder that global warming skeptics are SKEPTICAL. The proponents have to LIE about their facts to SCARE the people into acting on untruthful information. Basically Al Gore and the AGW crowd is asking us to base policy on LIES, DISTORTIONS of the TRUTH and outright deceptions. And they wonder why the Global warming skeptics question the validity of every study they produce. Polar bears....yeah they are all dieing right? Because of global warming. Fact Check in the last 40 years the polar bear population has increased 2x-5x depending upon what method you use in measurements. Why the lies? Why the scare tactics? As several well known proponents of AGW have stated openly and publicly and Im paraphrasing here......"We have to scare the Bejusus out of the people or they wont act." So why is it that the UN and their global warming council are so adamant about AGW? Simple...they want cap and trade type policy which will shift monies from the rich, industrial nations to the poor, undeveloped nations. Thats not a bad thing....for research shows that developed nations stabilize their populations while undeveloped nations tend to have higher then the norm birth rates. Turning the poor nations into developing and stable societies will drastically cut the birth rates of these nations, not increase them. AGW is agenda driven and it has nothing to do with science.

Posted by Chuck Norton

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104607 ›

Chuck Norton Michael Merrit, Are you referring to the Arctic Sea Ice that is up 28.7%? http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/arctic-sea-ice-now-287-higher-than-this-date-last-year-still-rallying/ Data and top down satellite photos of the sea ice for your evidentury pleasure. By the way, if it was truly GLOBAL warming why was Antarctica (south pole)cooling for decades? Remember the Earth's axis is not stable it warbles.

Pingback | Link #104639 ›

New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study « The IUSB Vision Weblog [...] » Obama’s List of Accomplishments II on Obama’s List of Accomplishments IIPoliGazette » EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct on EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correctgreasegirl on How to: [...]

Posted by Tully

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104642 ›

Tully Er, I think you mean "wobbles," not "warbles." Though I had a girlfriend once he warbled, and she was definitely unstable.

Posted by CFN ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104645 ›

CFN Hi Tully, Wobbles, warbles....shrug, hey the bottom line is Weebles wobble but they don't fall down! Women, unstable? Ya don't say! :-)

Pingback | Link #104646 ›

PoliGazette » New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study [...] as they had the EPA when they suppressed a report showing how global warming skeptics are correct (LINK – [...]

Posted by Michael Merritt ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104657 ›

Michael Merritt Chuck: I think it will be interesting over the next couple years to see if a backwards trends continue. Was 2000-2007 simply a fluke? A quick period of warming followed by a return to normal? Whatever "normal" is in terms of climate.

Posted by Jeb

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104671 ›

Jeb Doomed,

I didnt realize I was writing a scientific paper in a comments section on the internet. Forgive me for trying to simplify my hypothesis into laymans terms that are easy to understand.

That is hardly the level of clarification I have requested. In order to address what you have written I need to understand what you are trying to say. I have asked for clarification on several key points. For instance it appears that you have conflated thermohaline circulation and surface currents. What do you mean when you say the earth is 90% water? It is not by any measure I know of. By what mechanism do you see CO2 increasing salinity? Is it simply the added carbonate, bicarbonate, and carbonic acid that you see increasing salinity enough to be a current driver? That seems a stretch. Your characterization of evaporation off of bodies of salt water and fresh water obscures more than illuminates.

Considering the El Nino is still under a lot of reasearch Im surprised you would make this statement Jeb. El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2…higher content of co2….means the saline has been pushed under. The research I have seen shows that the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years. The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

In pieces,

warm water means higher content of co2

CO2 is less soluble in warmer water.

higher content of CO2….means the saline has been pushed under

No it does not. Earlier you stated that higher CO2 meant more saline water. That is also incorrect in addition to contradicting your statement above.

the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years

Because the normal upwelling has been interrupted allowing a thermocline to form.

The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

There is more than one way for water to become more dense. When there is no El Nino event the normal coastal upwelling along the West coasts of the continents continuously brings cold nutrient rich waters to the surface. This is not due to a salinity driven process, rather it is the combination of atmospheric currents and Eckman transport moving the coastal surface waters away from the continent and colder deeper waters moving up to replace the displaced water. When an El Nino event disrupts this the surface waters are not pushed away from the continent so the deeper colder waters are not pulled up to replace them and consequently the surface water is much warmer. This has manifold effects, among them are increased local rainfall since the warmer water allows for increased precipitation and massive die offs of animals that rely directly and indirectly on the nutrients that are brought to the surface with the upwelling water.

I find it fascinating that scientists of today are absolutely convinced that never in the history of the world has our earth faced such peril as it does today

I find it odd that you think that this is what scientists are saying.

Totally forgotten in all this is that mankind will RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS around 2050-2065.

Where are you getting that figure. If true it would be ample reason to push for a carbon tax and massive investment in renewables that many are proposing due to AGW.

If we double the ppm of co2 by 2100 to 750 ppm then the story goes our reefs will abandon us and we will all starve to death.

Doubling of CO2 and the associated depression of pH would indeed be disastrous for any marine life that has a carbonate skeleton including corals and many phytoplankton and the effects of that would be dramatic on marine and coastal food webs.

The rising of co2 since 1723 to the year 2100 is in geological times roughly equivalent to 300 years of time.

What are you trying to communicate here. 2100-1723=377 in normal time. Geological time generally refers to events on the scale of 10s of thousands to 100s of millions of years.

Additionally Al Gore in his movie says if all the ice melts it will raise the ocean level 20 feet…..he shows a nice animated film showing the devastation 20 foot higher oceans will cause.

and

However….fact check….the IPCC states that the ocean will rise no more then 8 to 16 inches by the year 2100 given current rates of melting….

Two different statements. Will all of the ice be melted by 2100? If not then the two statements are not contradictory. The 20' claim is certainly meant to be shocking, but I don't think that he stated that sea levels would rise by 20' within the next century as your comment seems to suggest.

These calculations show that the atmosphere connected to a warm ocean contains more carbon dioxide than if connected to a cold ocean. This is what drives the absorption close to the poles and the desorption in the tropics.

1) You added Mg (k1) to the standard carbonate system (k2, k3, k4). My understanding is that MgCO3 also decreases in solubility with increasing temperatures. I don't understand how its addition will reverse that trend. 2) You seem to be saying to different things here. On the one hand you say that warm oceans can hold more CO2 and then say that this drives absorption of CO2 in colder waters and desorption of CO2 in warmer waters. Its absorption near the poles and desorption in the tropics supports my position of decreasing solubility with increasing temperatures.

Posted by CFN ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104677 ›

CFN Bingo Micheal Merrit you just hit the nail on the head. Who is to say what "normal" temperature is? Heck in the middle ages Greenland, which is now virtually covered by a giant glacier, was so green and warm for a time they grew GRAPES there for wine. The same is true for Scotland. What is to say that this wasn't normal? /sarcasm I wonder what man did to cause the warming back then. /sarcasm off. :-)

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104782 ›

Doomed You seem to be saying to different things here. On the one hand you say that warm oceans can hold more CO2 and then say that this drives absorption of CO2 in colder waters and desorption of CO2 in warmer waters. Its absorption near the poles and desorption in the tropics supports my position of decreasing solubility with increasing temperatures. Well I wrote a long post with lots of links in it and its missing. Let me answer this. I did not say that warm oceans hold more co2. I said warm ocean atmospheres contain more co2. This is how the cycle works jeb. This is not me making stuff up. The arctic is a co2 sink. The tropics exhale co2 back into the atmosphere. Ice is used to sequester carbon. It always has been. Whats missing in all of this is that the core samples that have been drilled show ppm of co2. Meaning that with each square measurement of Ice their is a given amount of co2. The melting of this ice for the past 110,000 years has expelled this captured co2 back into the atmosphere. This carbon is scrubbed and rebalanced using the oceans as gigantic co2 sinks. The fact that we have had a run up of co2 based upon industrial times is for the most part in my opinion nothing more then the saturation of the oceans and lakes that are not able to keep up with the 650 year time frame needed to deal with influxes of co2. See carbon dating techniques used to measure how long the cold, frigid deep waters have seen the surface. Eventually as we move away from co2 burning to other forms of energy and we reduce black carbon, CfC's and other aerosols that have much more of an adverse affect on heat retention we will see the earth moving to take care of this imbalance of co2. Glaciation. There are no other adequate means of co2 sequestering other then glaciation. That is of course barring man made scrubbing.

Posted by Jeb

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104854 ›

Jeb

I did not say that warm oceans hold more co2. I said warm ocean atmospheres contain more co2.

Statements like,

El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2…

caused me to think you were arguing that warmer oceans would be able to absorb more CO2 than colder oceans.

The arctic is a co2 sink. The tropics exhale co2 back into the atmosphere.

In no small part due to the colder water being able to absorb more CO2. Ice does act as a CO2 sink and loosing ice does release CO2 into the atmosphere.

The fact that we have had a run up of co2 based upon industrial times is for the most part in my opinion nothing more then the saturation of the oceans and lakes that are not able to keep up with the 650 year time frame needed to deal with influxes of co2.

This sounds like an argument in favor of limiting CO2 emissions.

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104866 ›

Doomed I said.........El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2… Professor Carl Wunsch of the Department of Oceanography at MIT says.... "the oceans both absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. He says if the ocean is heated it tends to release carbon dioxide." Since we began talking about global warming and I was talking about global cooling I have focused on how the ocean might 1. affect CO2 and 2. How the oceans themselves would deal with co2. Since even the lead author of the IPCC report is on record as verbally rejecting the conclusions of what is written in the report. That 15,000 scientists signed a petition to Clinton urging him to reject the Kyoto treaty. Since you can find 1000's of scientists who do NOT subscribe to AGW...the science is not settled. According to Professor John Christy ALSO of the IPCC, temperature in the upper atmosphere doesn’t match the expectations of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, either. According to the theory, it should be much higher than it actually is. Satellites and weather balloon data both tell us this. I went to the NOAA site, pulled the raw data and voilla. There you have it the temperatures in the upper atmosphere have hardly risen at all. AGW is bunk....tens of thousands of scientists get their money from green organizations and yet every soul who is opposed to AGW is paid hackeys of the Oil Industry. AGW....The great Lie. The science is not settled and those of us who look at the facts know its not settled.

Posted by Jeb

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104878 ›

Jeb Then what did you mean by this?

El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2…higher content of co2….means the saline has been pushed under. The research I have seen shows that the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years. The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

How are you relating CO2 and salinity here? Why would high atmospheric CO2 indicate anything about local deep water salinity? Why would you say that the only reason for a deepening thermocline is salinity if you knew the mechanism for upwelling?

“the oceans both absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. He says if the ocean is heated it tends to release carbon dioxide.”

That is correct since CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. Re: my confusion about your position on CO2 and water temperature Above you also stated,

As the calculations above show there is more co2 in warmer waters thus driving the heavier saline columns downward while less co2 found in the colder waters of the south keep the the vertical saline columns stable.

Which seems to me to state that 1) warmer waters absorb more CO2 and that somehow drives heavier more saline waters deeper and 2) colder waters hold less CO2 and so by virtue of holding less CO2 keeps water columns more stable According to your most recent statements you realize that CO2 is less soluble in warmer waters making the above statement quite confusing. Additionally I am still unsure about the connection you have attempted to make between CO2 and salinity. How does CO2 drive heavier more saline waters downward? How does CO2 in the colder waters "keep the the vertical saline columns stable"?

Posted by Doomed

| Quote | Trackback | Link #104882 ›

Doomed The idea is not mine.....It never has been my idea. I just happen to agree with some pretty smart people on what could happen. "They saw that the vast mass of water that gradually creeps northward near the surface of the Atlantic is as important in carrying heat as the familiar and visible Gulf Stream. "It was an easy calculation," recalled Broecker, "and I was astounded by the amount of heat that it had." The energy carried to the neighborhood of Iceland was "staggering," Broecker explained — nearly a third as much as the Sun sheds upon the entire North Atlantic. If something shut down the conveyor belt, climate would change across much of the Northern Hemisphere." Additionally. "A bit more convincing was a 1983 report, using the geochemistry of isotopes in fossils, with complex evidence pointing to "a dramatic change in ocean circulation" in the last glacial period. The deep waters of the North Atlantic had apparently grown cold and still. Scientists were being gradually pushed to think about dramatic transitions in the circulation of the North Atlantic, or even the entire world-ocean." And one last thing...... ""Studies of fossil shells in the cores gave clues about ocean waters in the past, with a striking conclusion. It now seemed beyond doubt that there had been shifts in the North Atlantic particularly around the end of the last ice age some 11,000 years ago — a time geologists on land had long known as the "Younger Dryas" climate shift. The entire pattern of ocean circulation had evidently changed within a couple of thousand years, or perhaps only a FEW HUNDRED"" Whats important to me is somewhere in the past the oceans seemed to come to a rather abrupt standstill and the Earth plunged into rapid cooling.......WHY? I have put forth my explanation of why we are more likely to experience global cooling then warming.

Posted by Tacnet

| Quote | Trackback | Link #105451 ›

Tacnet -- We should be more concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change because Typhoons are getting much stronger and there are greater incidence of Flooding. take for example the recent Typhoon Ketsana which devastated some countries in South East Asia.

EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct‹ Article Page

EPA Tried to Supress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct
‹ Article Page