alt.energy.renewable

"Fran" wrote in message
news:99f1809e-4048-4fbf-93b6-9d9abf3a7f3a@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 8:21 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
> "Mr Right" wrote in message
>
> news:d4729619-7da6-42d3-89e0-cd090fda0b79@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 27, 11:07 pm, Fran wrote:
> < It's always good to have facts in front of you -- 'the good oil'
> < so to speak
>
>
>
> < [A prediction that proved correct]
> <
> < During the past century, global surface temperatures have
> < increased at a rate near 0.05°C/decade (0.09°F/decade),
> < but this trend has increased to a rate of approximately
> < 0.15°C/decade (0.27°F/decade) during the past 25 to 30
> < years. There have been two sustained periods of warming,
> < one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and
> < the most recent beginning about 1976. Temperatures
> < during the latter period of warming have increased at a
> < rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to
> < occur during the next century with continued increases
> < of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
>
>
>
> Fran,
>
> Using the facts, your own "good oil" so to speak, please explain the
> following:
>
> Who made "A prediction that proved correct", what did they predict,
> and when did they make their prediction.

Well it's odd to ask, given that you cut it out but ...


"This La Niña event is likely to persist into early 2008, according to
the
latest information from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center."

So, basic reading suggests the following answers

a) NOAA
b) persistence of La Niña into early 2008
c) some time in 2007

> Why was there a warming trend from 1910 to 1945.
>

Actually, if you look carefully, the steady upward ascent of five year
means dates from 1918. Between 1880 and 1918, the pattern for the
rolling five year mean was erratic, with the anomaly varying between
-0.1 and -0.3 from the 1951-1980 mean. After 1918, the trendline is
rather more continuous to a peak in 1943, before falling back to
achieve decadal nadirs in 1955-57 and 1965 at -0.4 and -0.5 recovering
in between to near parity in 1960. From 1976 onwards though, the trend
line is pretty uniformly one way -- up.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

The early century warming would have been driven largely by sharp
upward movements in atmospheric inventories of CO2 and overlayed by
patterns of irradiance. Of course, the take up of CO2 by ocean and
other sinks would have been greater then precisely because they
weren't so saturated as they are now. Moreover, some of the forests
cleared during the early settlement of the United States were
beginning to recover, and thus function as more effective sinks. This
in turn probably exaggerated the effects of changing irradiance in
global temperatures.

> Why was there NO warming trend from 1945 to 1976.
>
Aerosols -- mainly sulfates -- have been cited as the principal
factor. These are fairly shortlived in the atmosphere, and with the
introduction of scrubbers, the increased albedo dissipated and allowed
greater insolation at the surface.
*****************************************************

ROTFLMAO
A likely story!



New Study, Aerosols Cause Warming

Monday, August 06, 2007



By Steven Milloy



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291906,00.html



Himalayan glaciers are melting - but not nearly as fast as the fanciful
notion of global warming will have you believe.



A new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature
found that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called
"aerosols") that make up "brown clouds" may actually contribute to
warmer temperatures - precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed
by global warming alarmists.



"These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol
particles as cooling agents in the global climate system .," concluded
the Nature news article summing up the study.



Based on data collected by unmanned aerial vehicles over the Indian
Ocean, researchers from the University of California, San Diego and NASA
reported not only that aerosols warmed temperatures, but they also
increased atmospheric heating by 50 percent. This warming, they say, may
be sufficient to account for the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.



Putting aside the fact that the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating
since 1780 - some 70 years before the onset of the current post-Little
Ice Age warming trend and 100 years before the onset of significant
global industrialization - full appreciation of the significance of the
researchers' finding requires a brief trip down recent-memory lane, one,
incidentally, that no media outlet reporting this finding bothered to
make.



Global warming alarmism is rooted in the idea that ever-increasing
manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, cause
global temperatures to warm. This idea, however, doesn't match up very
well against real-world observations.



During the 20th century, for example, while manmade carbon dioxide
emissions steadily increased from about 1940 to 1975, global
temperatures cooled.



Global warming alarmists, such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), try to counter this observation by claiming that
aerosol particles in the atmosphere - like soot and sulfates from fossil
fuel combustion, and dust from volcanic eruptions - can mask the warming
effect of greenhouse gases and cool the planet by reflecting solar
radiation back into space.



So then, which is it? Do aerosols cool or warm the planet? Can they do
both?



The correct answers to these questions are not as important as the fact
that they are unanswered and will likely remain so for some time to
come.



At the very moment that Congress considers enacting energy-price-raising
and economy-killing legislation to regulate greenhouse gases based on
the idea that human activity is harming global climate, the new aerosol
study underscores (again) how little we understand whether and how human
activities actually impact global climate.



Consider other recent research that ought to give our arm-chair
climatologists in Congress pause.



In May, researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide emissions was three
times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s. But while
humans may be burning more fossil fuels than ever before, that
ever-increasing activity isn't having any sort of discernible or
proportionate impact on global temperatures.



In April, researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that
forests in northern regions - those north of the line of latitude that
runs through southern Cuba - will warm surface temperatures by an
estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.



Last October, Swedish researchers reported that cosmic-ray-caused
changes in cloud cover over a five-year period can have 85 percent of
the temperature effect alleged to have been caused by nearly 200 years
of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. They estimated that the temperature
effects of cloud cover during the 20th century could be as much as seven
times greater than the alleged temperature effect of 200 years worth of
additional carbon dioxide and several times greater than that of all
additional greenhouse gases combined.



Would it be considered "piling on" to remind Congress that last year's
hurricane season predictions - that is, a 95 percent chance of a very
active season - turned out to be a total bust? If hurricane experts
armed with supercomputers can't predict a regional storm season six
months into the future, why would anyone think that they can project
global climate trends for the next 100 years?



These are just some of the things that climatologists have learned or
have been proven wrong about in just the past year.



Given the myriad scientific holes in the manmade global warming
hypothesis and allowing for the inevitable future discoveries about
climate, it seems quite absurd for Congress to proceed on global warming
as if, in Al Gore's words, "There is no longer any serious debate over
the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming."



The new aerosol study doesn't show that climate alarmists may be just a
little off course - it shows that they may be 180 degrees off.



If manmade global climate change is something worth fretting over - and
it's not at all clear that it is - the aerosol study opens up the
possibility for an entirely new hypothesis for global warming with
aerosols as the culprit. Yet up to now, the "consensus" crowd has
portrayed aerosols in the opposite light as cooling agents.



When so-called "consensus" can be that far off, it would seem that there's
plenty of room for serious debate.



Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a
junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct
scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.




--



Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"The question scientists should now be asking is not how much it will
warm over the next 50 to 100 years, but why has it warmed so little
during the major carbon dioxide buildup?" Patrick J. Michaels,
Environmental Scientist , University of Virginia