Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I can't be on the internet 24/7- LOL

***LOL too, LOL, Sure miss you though and I am glad you're back!
I value your opinions and your time here. Ok, some mistakes, typos on my part are possible too, but here you go with the questions.

A quick clarification. Global warming is said to be caused by green house gases that allow all radiation to penetrate the atmosphere and then prevent heat (Infra-red radiation) from escaping. (your post didn't look like you understood that, maybe it was just me.)

***Just you!!LOL

No, I wouldn't think there would be an across the board increase because you can see that temperatures do not increase linear throughout the whole atmosphere.

First, the point I was trying to make was, that when you introduce an insulator into a system, you will get maximum temperature changes at the location of the insulator. Due to this, you should see major changes in atmospheric temps. before you see any at the Earth surface. (And that doesn't even take into account the heat sync. effect of the earth, due to it's mass (heat holding capabilities) compared to the atmosphere's mass. After all, you are still getting the same heating, it is just that the heat can't escape like it used to. Why wouldn't you see much higher temperature changes in the atmosphere when that is the location of the insulation? (I am only talking about changes in temps. not what the temps. actually are-those are two distinct things.) Temps. will obviously be different in the various "ospheres", but there should still be more of a change in the upper portion of the lower atmosphere than there is directly on the Earths surface. The satellite data doesn't show this to be happening.

****Of course not, LOL, its measuring temp changes in the stratosphere, not the troposphere. different forces dictate each layers temperature changes if any occur. Stratosphere absorbs UV within Ozone layer.
less ozone to absorb heat, stratophere cools. Not the whole damn globe. That Uv light does make it to Earth and upon refraction will change wavelengths to lower energy EM rad, absorbable in troposphere.

you said ****Global averages of what, your graph says stratosphere and our weather occurs in the troposphere.

****Average troposphere temperatures are what count

I don't believe that is true. Considering we are talking about global warming, the stratosphere should be warming also.

****Why would you use the stratosphere changes when you know they are not behave like the rest of the "Globe"
Define "Globe"
***No, Stratosphere is warmed by absorption of UV from ozone layer and consequent radiation of that energy into heat energy, UV light that is not captured will absorb in troposphere upon refraction into lower energy EM radiation.

Admittedly, the troposphere temps. are important, but I don't think global warming would necessarily exclude the stratosphere from changes. And again, considering the stratosphere's density compared to the troposphere's you should see a bigger change there due to density. (Also, if the temp. of the stratosphere is related mostly to ozone levels, the temp. maps should correlate with ozone distribution maps.)
****Great, then why look at the stratosphere if, "Admittedly, the troposphere temps. are important"
****Why look at something unrelated? Thats like saying "my toe hurts doctor, I am shopping for bandaids to get more data"
Cool, I did not know glaciers are growing. What ice shelves are growing? By how much and where are they? Fascinating investigative work you have done. Tell me more!

As for glaciers, there are a lot of them that are growing. This first short article is about 5 years old, (but still well within the time frame global warming alarmists talk about) here is a URL to look at it and some more recent ones.

http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

Looked at the above post. At the bottom of the site they say,

"The growth of Norway's glaciers is unparalleled, as most of the world's glaciers are melting as a result of global warming. In the Alps, glaciers have melted to about half of their size since the 1850s"

*****So, Are there more growing glaciers than shrinking ones? What does most mean as used by the fellow from your reference?

Niwa's surveys showed an increase in ice almost every year from 1979 to 1997
http://www.ecology.com/ecology-news-links/2003/articles/5-2003/5-27-03/glaciers.htm

Looked at this site and they have a link for students where they say this about greenhouse gases.
"The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing due to human activities. The Industrial Revolution has resulted in an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 30%, from 280 ppmv around the year 1700 to a value of over 360 ppmv at the present day. Accurate measurements of CO2 have been made in New Zealand at Baring Head since 1971. Data from ice cores show that during the 17th and 18th centuries the CH4 concentration in the atmosphere was about 0.7 ppmv. The current CH4 concentration is more than double that value.
Do we know why?
The increasing concentration of CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels (such as oil, gas and coal), and the destruction of forests. These activities release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The main natural source of CH4 is from wetlands. A variety of other sources result directly or indirectly from human activities, for example from ruminant animals, rice paddies, leakage from natural gas pipelines, and from the decay of rubbish in landfill sites. These emissions continue to increase atmospheric CH4 concentrations.
Why do we expect climate to change?
Increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will absorb more thermal radiation, and the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere will warm. This extra warming is called the enhanced greenhouse effect.

What can we do about it?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into force on 21 March 1994. The ultimate objective of the Convention is:

... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system

they are even growing here in sunny California
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1678.html

OK, I looked at this site and I found this quote, be welcome to find it yourself, I use "find on page" under "Edit" when I don't feel like looking that hard, but here goes.

"Since most (but not all) Alaska glaciers are melting at a rapid rate, one might expect California glaciers to have disappeared long ago, but Howat explained that the state holds many small cirque glaciers in its high mountains. The seven glaciers extending like pudgy fingers from the summit of Mt. Shasta have grown in the last 50 years because of weather patterns that have resulted in lots of snow up high, enough to offset melting losses below.

“In some areas, global warming can result in the increase of snow at high elevations,” Howat said.

do an internet search and I am sure you can find many more. I know there are some growing in Alaska as well.

****I looked at your provided sites and they say some glaciers are growing but many more are shrinking. Now what do I do?

Here's something else I found interesting that I though you might like.

While this shows that there is some correlation between CO2 and global temps. It also shows that things have been both hotter and with higher CO2 levels than today, and yet things didn't continue to get worse as many global warming alarmists are saying. It also shows that there must be many other variables because there are points on the graph where there is not a correlation. (Temps. going up while CO2 is going down and vice-versa.) Also, we were not even around during these regular fluctuations. What caused them? Don't think it could be a regular cycle that doesn't involve us do you?
LOL

I never thought of that! But have these little bastards been breathing and farting before 1850. How come now they are so productive? Is it because of fertilizer runoff?

When you look into it, it is amazing how little effect we could even have on global warming, if it is occurring.
This is a quote from your posted sites' link to students you posted say this for students?
"The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing due to human activities. The Industrial Revolution has resulted in an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 30%, from 280 ppmv around the year 1700 to a value of over 360 ppmv at the present day. Accurate measurements of CO2 have been made in New Zealand at Baring Head since 1971. Data from ice cores show that during the 17th and 18th centuries the CH4 concentration in the atmosphere was about 0.7 ppmv. The current CH4 concentration is more than double that value.
Do we know why?
The increasing concentration of CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels (such as oil, gas and coal), and the destruction of forests. These activities release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The main natural source of CH4 is from wetlands. A variety of other sources result directly or indirectly from human activities, for example from ruminant animals, rice paddies, leakage from natural gas pipelines, and from the decay of rubbish in landfill sites. These emissions continue to increase atmospheric CH4 concentrations.
Why do we expect climate to change?
Increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will absorb more thermal radiation, and the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere will warm. This extra warming is called the enhanced greenhouse effect.

What can we do about it?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into force on 21 March 1994. The ultimate objective of the Convention is:

... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"

****What does anthopogenic mean? Do they want me to take a course in anthropology or are they just stupid?

For instance, pretty much every living thing produces CO2. (CO2 production is basically just the byproduct of using carbohydrates) Ants, for instance. Who would even consider ants?
****I had an ant farm once and I thought I smelled gas! Good Point!
Did you know that all the ants on Earth weigh 12 times more than all the humans?--just showing how insignificant we really are. And then take into account things like, bacteria, forest fires, termites, all other animals, etc.

****Damn, did these little bastards exist before. Why are they breathing and farting so much more now. Kind of inconvenient for me to realize this. They need to go on a diet and stop this crap!!!Or are they growing in population in leaps and bounds? Hmmm, one to think on.

Accidentally placed it up here, anyway, hope the animals are done breeding, and you can answer more of my questions.

Like always I always enjoy your posts and your research and your analysis.

Yeah, the animals are fine. I just had to make a bunch of deliveries yesterday, feed a bunch of snakes, clean cages, collect eggs, and some more stuff hatched (leopard tort., Yellow-naped amazon, Goffin Cockatoo, Senegal parrot, some leopard geckos)--I didn't make it to the internet yesterday.

I don't know if I told you or not, but I originally started looking into global warming because of all the changing predictions. The UN would say 7 degrees in 100 years, then 2 degrees, then .7, then back up to around 8. It turns out that they were using computer models to make these predictions! They had to admit it at a UN meeting, when they were questioned by various countries as to why the predictions had changed so radically this year! I later found out that is what NASA did originally too! (but NASA admitted, early on, that an error in the program caused much larger than appropriate predictions.) Everytime they changed the computer model, they got a different answer!-LOL -great science guys! Write a simple program, that couldn't possibly take into account all the needed variables, to predict something that most scientist can't even agree is happening!

Another interesting thing is that UN was holding these meetings on climate change because of a "target" that they made up that was being missed. (I don't remember if it was CO2 levels, or the temps. in their computer model.) But who set that target? Why was that target chosen?
----------

I had to run earlier, and when driving, I realized what I had posted earlier this evening wasn't very clear. I really shouldn't have posted it. I thought I had better do so, since, by the title of your other post, you thought I probably wasn't going to respond! I hope this explains what I meant a little better!

CO2 makes up a very small amount of the atmosphere (.035%), and it can be found through out the lower atmosphere, though not homogenously. This is important because it means that the insulating action of CO2 will occur over a distance of many miles. Since the infra-red radiation is being prevented from radiating into space, the entire atmosphere that contains the CO2 would be at fault (regardless of whether it is located in the troposphere or stratosphere). With this very "non-dense" gas absorbing all that radiation, it should heat far more noticeably than the first 20 feet or so would, where the land based temperature stations are located. Especially when you consider the heat sync effect of the Earth.

Now, finally, to answer some of your questions!

As for the stratosphere being what NASA was measuring, I think that is because that is what is most easily measured! I believe that the sensors that are aimed at Earth will detect the temperatures where the atmosphere starts becoming dense. The much less dense layers would simply be "looked through". (This is an assumption on my part. I don't know how the technology works. How it could take temperatures of lower layers without the higher layers temps. interfering, thus stratosphere measurements vs. troposphere. Interestingly, both satellite data and ground based data are not simply measured. They both have calculations made to them to make adjustments. Are these adjustments made to account for O3 levels? I don't know. --Something that bothers me a bit, but at least the satellite data has been confirmed by two methods, and it doesn't have the Urban development flaw built in). It is true that the land based temps. (troposphere) have shown an increase of .04 degrees C. per decade. But extrapolating using that data, (instead of computer models) you would only get a .4 degree C over 100 years.

What do you use? actual measurements? computer models?--I guess it depends on who you are.

One reason I don't think it's wrong to measure the temps. at the stratosphere level is that 99% of the atmosphere occurs within the troposphere and the stratosphere. There is no distinct line separating the two, it is basically just a man made barrier for definitional reasons. (Most, but not all, weather is in the troposphere.) They each "bleed" into each other. It's not like gasses aren't exchanged between the two, and thus temps. as well. Also, what are O3 levels doing? I know the ozone holes grow and shrink, but I don't really know what ozone is doing around the rest of the globe. If the levels are constant, they wouldn't have an effect on the satellite's ability to measure global warming.

(Another fraud, I believe, is the O3 hole being caused by man made CFCs)--but that's another can of worms! Are the O3 holes located at the poles, where the O3 can't regenerate, because it is never shaded there from solar radiation? Is it solar cycles that are the cause of it? (I think so.)

Another interesting thing about the Urban development theory, Urban Island theory or what ever you want to call it--it corroborates the articles that I have read stating that most of the warming seen (in land based temp. stations) occurs both at night and during winter in cool climates, with little to no change to daytime temps. or the summer temps. in warmer climates.--just what you would expect from Urban development. This data also isn't explained away by global warming.

Why would you use the stratosphere changes when you know they are not behave like the rest of the "Globe"

While I know they are different, I don't know that they would behave differently. If the troposphere temps. went up by a few degrees, why wouldn't the stratosphere do so also?
Yes, it is true that UV will warm the O3 portion of the stratosphere. I assume that is taken into account when NASA made their adjustments to the readings. Also, O3 tends to be in the upper portion of the stratosphere, other gasses in the lower part. How is this accounted for? I don't know.

Great, then why look at the stratosphere if, "Admittedly, the troposphere temps. are important

Because stratosphere temps are important too. And land based measurements of the troposphere are known to be biased.

As for the glacier questions, I really don't know. It's just that melting glaciers get all the press, while growing ones are pretty much ignored. I would tend to question the term "most" as well. Primarily because of all the other misrepresentations I have seen by environmentalists. They never seem to have data to back up "most", and it is usually just an allegation.

The increasing concentration of CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels (such as oil, gas and coal), and the destruction of forests

That's another funny one! Destruction of forests. What does that mean? Are they trying to mislead the public again. They don't mention that only includes fires or trees falling and rotting. Cutting of trees would have the opposite effect. Preventing trees from decomposing for many years, by making lumber for homes, reduces CO2 levels.

And again, I can't stress how water vapor is always left out of the equation! 95% of warming comes from water vapor, 5% from CO2. So if we predict that temps will rise by 6 degrees in the next 100 years, and we can reduce our CO2 emissions by 20% world wide (not likely since countries like China are starting to develop industry), then we could change global warming predictions by 5% of 20% of 6 degrees. Or a whopping .06 degrees. Just think, all we have to do is spend trillions of dollars, devastate our economy, change our lifestyle, and global warming will only be 5.94 degrees instead of 6 degrees over the next 100 years. That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.;p

Here's another article you might like.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

Rodney

What is up with this scientist views and liberal-conservative stuff?
Can you respond to the qestion besides answering "You think so, thats because why" when asked about stratosphere-troposheric differences?
Your cited post on glaciers said they were all melting because of anthropogenic global warming! What does that mean your postion is?
Reread the orignal post at the top of this new thread and try again. Don't go soft on me!! People are counting on you for serious analysis!!

First, I don't agree with every aspect of every article that I show as a reference. I reference them to show that there are so many variables, that scientists can't agree on, about almost everything regarding global warming, that it is a theory at best. If scientists can't agree, how can the media constantly represent global warming as fact? There used to be something in science, where an experiment had to be reproduced by another scientist before it was even considered legitimate. Where has this practice gone? When was the last time you heard global warming referenced as the theory of global warming? Since I started this topic many months ago, I haven't seen it called "a theory" on the news once! I have seen it called global warming, as though it is a fact, about 3 times on the broadcast news since then. Is it just laziness that prevents "the theory" from being said? I doubt it. Make a mental note of it, when you hear related stories on the news, and you will see what I mean.

And yes, many glaciers are growing and many are shrinking. This tends to indicate that weather, at specific locations, does change over the years, nothing else. For instance, if warming was occurring at a location that contained many glaciers, and cooling, exactly equal to it, was occurring in a desert, would the desert cooling make the news? Nope. Would the warming at the glacier site make the news? Yep. Would both these conditions, added to each other, indicate global warming? Nope. Would the publics view on global warming be influenced by this? Yep.

If someone in the public goes through a heat spell, does it reinforce his belief of global warming when he hears it represented as fact on the news? Yes.

Does that same person ignore the cold spell he goes through because it doesn't reinforce this belief? Yep!

As for glaciers, just do a quick internet search on "growing glaciers." I was just trying to point out that it is ridiculous to say melting glaciers indicates global warming because no one ever says growing glaciers indicate global cooling. (But these biased articles will say things like "some glaciers are growing due to increased snowfall caused by global warming" in an effort to discredit one glaciers growth method, while giving credit to any glaciers melting method. Weren't the melting glaciers formed by snow fall earlier? Why was their formation legitimate, while the current formation of glaciers due to snow is not?

Rodney