Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 22-04-2015, 19:09   #1531
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 629
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

It's not a game, but if you treat it as such you will lose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
I can play that game too!

Link:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change


Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
  • "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Quote:
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.


Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (oblithis quity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).


Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latittudes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012).
The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
  • Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
  • CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
  • CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).

Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al. Figure 2a.
__________________

__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:10   #1532
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,815
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

I'm all for reduction in power plant emissions. Myself, I'm already 100% solar powered, well most of the time anyway. I've not had a power bill in 10 years.
__________________

__________________
sailorchic34 is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:19   #1533
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 629
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

See post #1528

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
I can play that game too!

Link:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change


Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
  • "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.
__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:20   #1534
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,815
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
It's not a game, but if you treat it as such you will lose.



CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Tell that to Dr. Salby. Who knew there were climate scientist's who don't know that the whole global warming thingy is settled.

I do understand Milankovitch cycles btw. Notice how we're in an interglacial now, where we might expect warming to appear. Just say'n.
__________________
sailorchic34 is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:31   #1535
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 629
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
I can play that game too!

Link:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change


Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
  • "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • An astoundingly stupid statement, even for a Denier
  • Quote:
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter8.pdf
Climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Circulation Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
Climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How reliable are climate models?
__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:32   #1536
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,815
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
It's not a game, but if you treat it as such you will lose.



CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
Lucky, I'm not trying to win.

from your post:

A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
  • Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles.
Wait what.... Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2. Our friends at the IPCC say that solar has no or very little effect on climate change. Now here a post saying warming is not started by CO2. Wow.





So it sort of looks like the big ball in sky and orbital dynamics actually does or can effect weather. But then I knew that...


I must say you're very good at posting links.
__________________
sailorchic34 is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:36   #1537
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,815
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

I believe that is doctor denier.
__________________
sailorchic34 is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:39   #1538
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 629
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
I can play that game too!

Link:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change


Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
  • "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.
__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:49   #1539
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,815
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

My move I guess:

from A Statistical Definition of the ‘Hiatus in Global Warming’ using NASA GISS and MLO data | Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Danley Wolfe
WUWT posted a piece I submitted last September titled ‘A look at carbon dioxide vs. global temperature’.
The main point I was trying to convey then is the “striking picture” of the actual data showing a complete lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature during the ongoing hiatus. The data set is NASA GISS global mean temperature and Mauna Loa/Keeling CO2, from 1959 through March, 2015.
The updated chart below (FIGURE 1) includes seven months of additional data from my last look. The recent months do not change the basic conclusion regarding the hiatus. But I feel there is more to learn by considering more deeply the implications of these data.
FIGURE 1

The crossplot of temperature versus CO2 [for the period 1999 to March 2015, commonly known as the “pause” or “hiatus”] reveals a shotgun scatter plot(Ref1) (FIGURE 2). Actually this figure says nothing at all about a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature, except that there is lack of any significant correlation (Ref2) That is a very important fact-data-based conclusion. This is the definition of the “hiatus”!
FIGURE 2

A first order fit of this data yields “an equation” relating temperature to (only) CO2, viz. T = .0024 * CO2 + 13.648; with an R-squared value = 0.033. You “could” use this equation to estimate the temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 (400 to 800 ppm), in this case 0.96oC. You also might be tempted to call this a “climate sensitivity” (in the sense commonly used), but it’s not. Actually it is just nonsense. So, what might be learned from this exercise?

The R squared(Ref3) of 0.033 prima facie tells you this correlation is, well … just meaningless. Therefore, using a 1st order regression is meaningless, as is any calculated climate sensitivity. The spread of data indicated by the standard deviation vs. min-max spread of the data shows the data are simply a scatter, no more.
To further illustrate the point, you might expand the temperature scale (vertical axis) (FIGURE 3). The 1st order regression fit equation of temperature to CO2 remains the same. I know this visual effect is “cheating”, but it helps in making the point.
FIGURE 3

The IPCC make a robust claim that climate change is “caused” by anthropomorphic / greenhouse gas causes – with a certainty at the “97% confidence level” (… never mind this is a social science Delphi polling of consensus hands, and not a fact-based probability. Having said that, they go on to say we are now “on track” (talking point phrase) for a temperature rise of 2oC, with range of 1.5-4.5oC (AR5) (Ref4), the self designated tipping point. So the obvious inference, therefore, is that AGW is what will be doing the “causing” of temperature to rise above the critical point leading to catastrophic damage to mother earth and all its inhabitants.

The actual data in the plot of temperature vs. CO2 during the hiatus is also shotgun scatter plot, except flatter. The accepted (by the consensus) hypothesis that global mean temperature (the dependent variable) can be explained by or is due to “mainly” a single variable, CO2 is patently false during the 18+ year hiatus. Did CO2 sensitivity go to sleep? Are other variables exactly canceling out the CO2 effect? It is also important to recognize that the Mauna Loa data includes manmade and non-manmade CO2. The policy prescriptions (and most of the agitation) are mainly directed towards reducing manmade CO2, although there is consideration on land use and burning of forests to plant palm plantations (as in Indonesia and elsewhere).

As I understand it, in a proper multiple regression analysis all the important “known” variables (say 6-7 in number) would be included in the regression model and their F stats would tell you the relative significance of each. Then you would adjust the model … eliminating variables to get the “best fit” with suspected variables … of course this doesn’t speak to “unknown variables” which is a different problem. Other variables would include solar incidence, water vapor, other GHGs, ocean temperature oscillation, etc. (A colleague pointed out it’s a little more complicated than this since “significance” in an econometric modeling sense also depends on degrees of freedom.)
We also know that the integrated assessment climate models (IAMs) are deterministic physical models of the climate with built in predetermined physical cause and effect structures. We can say they are wrong based on their ability to explain the data (facts) during this hiatus.

Nevertheless, the lousy R squared³ and apparent zero “fit” does allow us to conclude that during the hiatus, the assumption that CO2 is the major thing driving global mean temperature is not just a lousy hypothesis, it’s wrong and unsupported by the data (fact). We can also say that all of the variability (scatter) in the data is due to “not CO2.”
__________________
sailorchic34 is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 19:51   #1540
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 629
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar
It's not a game, but if you treat it as such you will lose.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
Lucky, I'm not trying to win.

from your post:

A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
  • Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles.
Wait what.... Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2. Our friends at the IPCC say that solar has no or very little effect on climate change. Now here a post saying warming is not started by CO2. Wow.


So it sort of looks like the big ball in sky and orbital dynamics actually does or can effect weather. But then I knew that...

I must say you're very good at posting links.
I've not followed your and JackDale's discussion as closely as I might, but I think you were discussing changes in solar output over yearly or decadal time periods.

The Milankovitch cycles have to do with the orbit of the Earth relative to the sun, over 10's and 100's of thousands of years, and have little or nothing to do with changes in solar output.
__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 20:05   #1541
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,815
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
I've not followed your and JackDale's discussion as closely as I might, but I think you were discussing changes in solar output over yearly or decadal time periods.

The Milankovitch cycles have to do with the orbit of the Earth relative to the sun, over 10's and 100's of thousands of years, and have little or nothing to do with changes in solar output.
Yes, quite correct.

I was talking about the small 0.1% to 0.2% change in output over the 11 year solar cycle period. That change is roughly 1.3 watts/m2 and is toward the lower end of co2 forcing. It actually changes some weekly and monthly too as the 1.3 watts is the smoothed plot over the cycle period. The IPCC report lists the change in solar forcing at 0.05w/m2. I just disagree with that assessment.
__________________
sailorchic34 is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 20:06   #1542
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 629
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
My move I guess:

from A Statistical Definition of the ‘Hiatus in Global Warming’ using NASA GISS and MLO data | Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Danley Wolfe
WUWT posted a piece I submitted last September titled ‘A look at carbon dioxide vs. global temperature’.
The main point I was trying to convey then is the “striking picture” of the actual data showing a complete lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature during the ongoing hiatus. The data set is NASA GISS global mean temperature and Mauna Loa/Keeling CO2, from 1959 through March, 2015.
I give up. You win.


Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 20:24   #1543
Moderator
 
sailorchic34's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Boat: Islander 34
Posts: 4,815
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Don't you find it interesting that NASA GIS data sets was used on your and my links. Mind you, even the IPCC recognizes the pause. gee even Dr. Mann recognizes the pause.

No question Co2 is rising, just that the corresponding temperature rise is lagging a bit. which it should not, if Co2 were the driver.


Here's bit from Dr. Curry at the capital.



The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability that are caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.
Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change. This includes
  • The slow down in global warming since 1998
  • Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
  • Climate models that are predicting much more warming than has been observed so far in the 21st century
While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response.
We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:
  • The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century
  • Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.
  • Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution
  • It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.
Her testimony can also be downloaded here [House science testimony apr 15 final].
__________________
sailorchic34 is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 20:41   #1544
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,048
Images: 1
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
So I am to believe that a 3 percent increase in co2, which is 0.0012% of the atmosphere (the MM portion), where total co2 makes up all of 0.04% of the atmosphere, causes excess warming. Sort of the tail wagging the dog. Actually the tip of the tail wagging the dog.
Someone does not understand trace elements

Ozone makes up 0.3 ppm of of the ozone layer, but protects us from UVB.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 22-04-2015, 20:43   #1545
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,048
Images: 1
Re: Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34 View Post
Sorry no I don't believe that solar forcing number of 0.05 watt/m2.
Your side says the belief is for religion. Go get a another verifiable number.
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
arc, water

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes CaptainK Atlantic & the Caribbean 0 25-04-2006 22:42
Scientists blame sun for global warming CaptainK Polar Regions 17 17-04-2006 11:25
Public service ads aim to raise awareness about global warming CaptainK Polar Regions 11 26-03-2006 13:52
Pacific islanders move to escape global warming CaptainK Pacific & South China Sea 36 17-01-2006 00:30
New source of global warming gas found: plants CaptainK Pacific & South China Sea 6 16-01-2006 00:02



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:02.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.