Swamp Gas, July 30, 2007

Atlantic Ocean has more than doubled over a century, scientists say, because of global warming.

John D. says: It can't be, it's cold outside today.

The W.H. and the Republicans love the Gonazles controversy because it distracts our attention-deficit Congress from the Iraq war. Maybe Leahy, who must be a secret Bush ally, can spin this pursuit of a not-very-bright
Bush crony through the 2008 election. While the surge continues full blast and the do-nothing Congress bogs down on the intricacies of perjury charges. In late 2008, Gonzales goes to work for a Texas law firm for megabucks. Bush rides into the sunset in 1/09, with Iraq' surge on full blast. The new Democratic President spends his/her eight years trying to get us outta there. Or maybe not. Could there be something to Obama's characterization
of Hillary as Bush-Cheny lite. What would she really do in Iraq. I'm not even an Obama fan, but that statement has given me pause.

"Atlantic Ocean has more than doubled over a century, scientists say, because of global warming."

Try reading it again moron. You weren't even close. You left out the part about hurricanes.

You must be one of those brilliant global warming scientists.

If you read the linked article on the alleged hurricane increase, you'll find several scientists quoted who say the study is junk science.

"The new study drew criticism from experts who dispute the merits of combining data from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when hurricane-tracking satellites didn't exist, with statistics gleaned from more modern technology.

"Looking for trends in noisy count data is fraught with problems," says researcher James Elsner of Florida State University in Tallahassee. "I agree with the message, but cannot recommend the science."

"They're saying there's a long, upward trend of the last 100 years in tropical storms. All the data I have looked at show that's not the case," says scientist William Gray, head of the Tropical Meteorological Project at Colorado State University.

Gray, a critic of the view that human-induced greenhouse gases drive climate and hurricanes, says 19th-century data "is just not that good.""

But ever fear, Gaia worshippers. The Tribune will continue to censor the views of scientists like Elsner and Gray.

Elsner and Gray aren't scientists. Come on, they disagree with the majority. Everyone knows that in science no one questions a majority opinion. Ever.

Posted by: global warming is caused by the sun | July 30, 2007 9:51 AM

I figured you could read the line yourself. I took for granted you were old enough to read the whole line. I'ld like to talk more with you...how long is your recess?

"how long is your recess?"

Since the Atlantic Ocean has doubled in size, my recess consists of swimming laps since everything is under water.

By the way, nice try at covering up that bone-headed post of yours from before.

Global....I thought as I said before..That I was dealing with grown-ups. You obviously went back and read the quote(you can't cut and paste highlighted words)but your the dunderhead that came out with the moron funny. Grow up!

global warming is caused by the sun,
That theory has been largely discredited by reputable scientists. The magnitude of increase in solar activity does not account for the average temperature increase the earth has seen within the last century. Plus, if solar radiation was the cause of global warming there could not be warming in both the southern and northern hemisphere at the same time. Think about it. Good night, John D.

bill r.

You might want to try that last post again in English.

bill r.

You might want to try that last post again in English.

Posted by: global warming is caused by the sun | July 30, 2007 12:41 PM

I don't really want to have a duel of wits with an unarmed man.

“there could not be warming in both the southern and northern hemisphere at the same time.”

So, global warming is now only affecting half the earth?

That’s a new one.

I thought the global warming dimwits based their argument on worldwide, YEAR-ROUND temperature changes.

Sunlight (and therefore solar radiation) does reach the southern hemisphere and affect it's climate all year round, or has that theory been largely discredited by reputable scientists also?

(Posted this before and it didn't make it, sorry if it becomes a double post)

"there could not be warming in both the southern and northern hemisphere at the same time.”

So, global warming is now only affecting half the earth?

Posted by: global warming is caused by the sun | July 30, 2007 2:45 PM

Your reading comprehension sucks. I don't know how you understood me to say global climate change is only affecting one of the two hemispheres.

Help me to understand.

"The Tribune will continue to censor the views of scientists like Elsner and Gray.

Posted by: Bruce | July 30, 2007 10:04 AM"

How is the Tribune censoring them Bruce? You pulled their names from the article that The Swamp linked to - but since they weren't mentioned in the 2 sentence summation, you think that that's "censorship"?

I thought that you were smarter than that, Bruce.

Yeah, and for decades, cigarette companies published studies by their paid scientists that insisted there was no statistical correlation between smoking and cancer and emphysema. Just goes to show you that any company can hire a whore scientist, and they will continue to "debunk' conventional wisdom until evidence forces them to play nice. That's fine. When both coasts are under water, we'll send refugees to live with Swamp readers that like to quote the whores.

Janet,

Saying the sun doesn’t have anything to do with warming the globe, are you that unintelligent?

How can you claim to have any knowledge of global climate change when you don’t even understand how the sun works?

Tomorrow it’s going to be 80 degrees in Brazil during the day and 52 degrees at night.

Daytime = more solar radiation and higher temperature. Night time the sun goes bye bye and the temps decrease. See how that works?

Amazingly enough, that’s how it works in the Northern hemisphere at the same time !!!!!

You’re the one that said the sun (solar radiation) couldn’t affect both hemispheres at the same time. What do you think the following statement means?

“if solar radiation was the cause of global warming there could not be warming in both the southern and northern hemisphere at the same time”

My reading comprehension is fine; you, on the other hand, might want to consider taking a fourth grade science course. Think about it.

I appreciate the personal attacks, "BC", which only show you can't make, or choose not to make, a rational argument. It makes you a fitting companion to "bill r." above who claims that the Atlantic Ocean has doubled in size over the last century.

I'd suggest you do a "Swamp" archives search for Elsner and you'll discover that he's never been mentioned.

The question is, why does the political Left feel the need to censor opposing points of view? The answer is simple: Leftists realize their arguments can't stand up to scrutiny.

global warming is caused by the sun,

"The conclusion that observed climate change is our fault rests on the pattern of warming, too. As it happens, "human and natural factors that affect climate have unique signatures," says climatologist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The clearest signature is differences in the warming of different layers of the atmosphere. According to satellites and weather balloons, the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, has warmed; the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, has cooled. That's not what a hotter sun would do. "If you increase output from the sun, you increase the amount of energy that arrives at the top of Earth's atmosphere," says Santer. "And you get heating throughout the whole column. Have we observed anything like that? The answer is a very clear no." Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas and methane from, among other surprising sources, rice fields (where bacteria thriving in the submerged paddies release this and other gases) act from the bottom up. That is, they warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere by trapping heat waves wafting off the planet's surface. The warm troposphere and cool stratosphere "is entirely consistent with our best understanding of how temperatures would change with an increase in greenhouse gases," says Santer.

Another problem for the blame-the-sun idea is that the climate balance sheet doesn't, well, balance. Solar output rises and falls over an 11-year cycle. The high point in the cycle raises surface temperatures 0.2 degree F, at most--much less than the increase that has been measured between the late 1800s and now.

More recent changes are even tougher to blame on a hotter sun. From 1955 to 2000, the world's oceans warmed .7 degree F, Tim Barnett of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and colleagues reported in 2005. That may seem small, but the immensity of the oceans means the amount of heat required to warm them even a little is enormous. In the same period, the sun has increased its energy output less than 0.1 percent, according to satellite measurements. That's not nothing, but it's not enough to explain the warmer seas. The extra solar output can no more account for that than holding a candle under a pot can account for boiling a gallon of water. Extra heat pouring out of the planet's core could warm the oceans, except for one problem: it would heat the oceans from the bottom up. In fact, the greatest warming is at the waters' surface. "And if it were natural variability, then a couple of oceans might warm but others would cool, and the net would be zero," says Barnett. "All the oceans are warming, and for that you need a net heat source. We've ruled out everything but greenhouse gases."

One by one, climatologists have gone through the signs of climate change and exonerated both natural variability and natural outside sources as the main culprits. Extremely warm summers, such as the 2003 European heat wave that killed thousands of people? A human fingerprint. Glacial retreat? Ditto, though it is partly natural. Stronger tropical storms, such as Katrina? Possibly our fault, though on this one the evidence is murkier. Heavy precipitation that alternates with dry spells, so that when it rains it pours? That also conforms to models of man-made climate change. And neither natural variability nor more solar heat can explain the warmer surface waters in the hurricane breeding grounds of the Atlantic and Pacific, which have heated up .5 to 1 degree since 1906. Natural oscillations have never been that great, says Santer. And extra solar heat "is way, way too small, an order of magnitude too small."
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=119F768E285DC168&p_docnum=5&s_dlid=DL0107073115120027133&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=nwsub&s_accountid=AC0106021514225610902&s_upgradeable=no

We can quote different articles all day.

I still stand by my assertion that it is foolish to say that solar radiation could not warm the northern and southern hemispheres at the same time. It can, and does every day.

And it's getting hotter on Mars. Must be those rice fields they talk about in the article you quoted.....