Eaarth

[NeilBlanchard]

There are internal politics within the military -- but that is not what what I said. The planning for future needs and strategies done by the military are based on the facts -- which includes global climate change, and not on the politics surrounding it.

The Navy is having to spend $60-80M per pier at the base near Norfolk, Virginia because of the rising ocean water level. There are 14 piers that need to be raised -- do the math about the costs of ignoring reality.

By the way, there are not only extraordinary floods in Australia, and recently in Pakistan, Vietnam, Oklahoma, Tennessee (and other places here in the States), but also in Sri Lanka and Brazil, too. You might not find it in your heart to "care" about your fellow human beings, but that doesn't make the facts go away.

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's an example of the scientific process, adjusting our understanding of how the world works, on a related topic:

Weak nuclear force is less weak

So, it turns out a change in our estimate of the weak nuclear force means our Sun is more energetic than we thought. Even though the details have changed, it doesn't mean that all atomic science is wrong.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

There are internal politics within the military -- but that is not what what I said. The planning for future needs and strategies done by the military are based on the facts -- which includes global climate change, and not on the politics surrounding it.

The Navy is having to spend $60-80M per pier at the base near Norfolk, Virginia because of the rising ocean water level. There are 14 piers that need to be raised -- do the math about the costs of ignoring reality.

Let's see some supporting documentation. And not the usual pap from Greenie websites, please.

By the way, there are not only extraordinary floods in Australia, and recently in Pakistan, Vietnam, Oklahoma, Tennessee (and other places here in the States), but also in Sri Lanka and Brazil, too.

Oh my goodness! That must be proof that the sky really IS falling this year.

You might not find it in your heart to "care" about your fellow human beings, but that doesn't make the facts go away.

Yep. I don't care about the weather, nor your fallacious conclusions. You can call me heartless. But at least I'm not taken in by politically motivated hoaxes.

[NeilBlanchard]

It is the military itself that provides all the proof we need. They are switching to renewable energy as fast as they can, and they have to adjust all their plans for what is happening in the world.

The insurance companies also provide direct proof of global climate change. They have either raised their premiums a lot, or stopped writing policies when the risks are too high.

Another undeniable proof of global climate change is the fact that Russia has planted a titanium flag on the bottom of the Arctic ocean, at the North Pole. Why would they bother to do this? They are claiming the rights to the mineral resources that are now becoming accessible -- because the Arctic ice cap is melting.

These extreme and "freak" weather events are part and parcel of what has started to happen because of anthropogenic global climate change. It is affecting all of us, along with all the other life forms that totally depend on this Earth we live on. Our food comes from the Earth, our energy comes from the Sun (except for geothermal) and our water, and the atmosphere are all interdependent. Plants take in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen; and this is balanced by the rest. Change one thing drastically, and everything else is affected.

Despite what you may think, we are all affected by the sum total of other life forms, including our fellow humans, all over the world.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

These extreme and "freak" weather events are part and parcel of what has started to happen because of anthropogenic global climate change.

Where is your proof that this is being caused by Mankind, Neil?

Solar irradiation estimates from NOAA. First set here.


Total solar irradiance from 1855 AD to 1982 AD.

Second set here.

Total solar irradiance from 1852 AD to 2007 AD.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by t vago

......

that graph shows a spread of about %0.06

[Arragonis]

Hi,

I've stayed away from this but I have had some of the postings via email updates - not all I grant you, and I don't have time to read it all.

I think when we hit the point where the US military is being linked to a left-wing eco-power grab then we have passed through the looking glass, no ?

There are, of course, politics involved in this. I see for example Dr Hansen of NASA GISS thinks that Chinese style dictatorship is the only way to solve the 'crisis' because 'democracy' just can't do it. I think he didn't have the plot to lose, but if he did he's lost it now.

I still think the politics is a diversion, the science is still at issue here, and I still disagree with the OP.

And with that I will unsubscribe.

Hopefully successfully this time.

Have fun everyone.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

that graph shows a spread of about %0.006

I get a 0.07 % rise, so it looks like a decimal point is off.

Regardless, you can't just look at a percentage variation of solar irradiance without comparing it to the percentage rise in average global temperature.

So, we'll place the 0.6 C rise in the same percentage term as for the rise in solar irradiance. Taking the average global temperature on Earth, which is estimated to be 18 C, or 291.15 K, we get 0.6 / 291.15, or a 0.2% rise.

Now, take that 0.07% rise in solar irradiance, apply it to the Earth's atmosphere with all of its many mechanisms that are still poorly understood (even by pro-AGW climatologists), and you get a 0.2% rise in average global temperature.

Keep in mind that one of these poorly understood mechanisms is the ability of cosmic rays to influence cloud formation. Since clouds reflect sunlight back into space, that reflected sunlight cannot then cause greenhouse warming because it cannot hit the ground and warm it up. Solar output is known to partially shield the Earth from cosmic rays. So, if solar activity goes up, the Earth is a little more shielded from cosmic rays than before, and cloud formation drops. If cloud formation drops, more sunlight then is available to hit the Earth and heat up the atmosphere.

[dcb]

yes, missed a decimal there, thx.

it isn't a "rise" though. It's basically back where it started.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

yes, missed a decimal there, thx.

it isn't a "rise" though. It's basically back where it started.

It is?

Second set here.