Saturday May 24, 2008, 3:49 pm
LOL - how funny indeed. Not that this has any bering on the subject LOL...but with global warming there is MORE mositure in the atmosphere - warm air holds more moisture - duh!!!

Saturday May 24, 2008, 3:50 pm
Please do get some basic understanding of the science - you could start here:

Global Warming
Frequently Asked Questions

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Saturday May 24, 2008, 4:13 pm
Water vapor is actually a strong greenhouse gas (like CO2, methane etc.). It serves as a Feedback loop in the climate picture ... increased CO2 leads to warming ...which leads to more water vapor...which leads to more warming ... etc...

Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor?

According to a team of Swiss scientists, heat from other greenhouse gases is causing more water to evaporate, releasing the vapor into the atmosphere above Europe. That vapor in turn, adds to the greenhouse effect, further warming the region.

full story:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

Saturday May 24, 2008, 6:22 pm
WATER VAPOR IS 90-95% of the "greenhouse effect".
There is a difference between "chemtrails" and "contrails".

Chemtrails have been presented as a solution to "global warming, but they seem to be more connected to MILITARY USES, with their sunblocking capacity used as a cover story.

Contrails act pretty much the way they always did. They disappear within a short time'

Chemtrails are made by a mixture that has been analysed as containing barium and aluminum salts in a polymer matrix that linger and spread for hours.

I didn't notice them until March of 2001, but they seem to have been around for a while, just not on the scale that started in the summer of 2001.
I was telling my son about it and he poo-pooed it. I looked up and a passing airliner was leaving a disappearing contrail way above a lower flying C130 tanker leaving a chemtrail. His jaw dropped when I pointed it out to him.

A journalist named Will Thomas started writing about them in the late 90s.
Google Cliff Carnicom, he's another expert.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 7:12 pm
Changing the conversation to chemtrails does not change the fact that this is no news, just a lot of posturing :)

Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:04 pm
Who can tell what the article was about....the link doesn't work.
The picture sure looks like chemtrails.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:08 pm
I was going by the title and discription - the link was to Q/A on contrails :) Actually the discription above has NOTHING to do with what was linked - it is simply commentary being promoted as "news"

Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:43 pm
Water vapor is the most dominant of the greenhouse gases and it is what is causing the major portion of the very minor increase in CO2 levels; as the oceans warm they release more CO2. The trigger for water vapor to form clouds is an increase in the levels of aerosols and in order for aerosols to form cosmic radiation is needed, but an active sun blocks cosmic radiation. Solar activity is at a low as Solar Cycle 23 slowly comes to an end. Solar Cycle 23 is already the longest lasting cycle in recorded history. SC 23 is in its 12th year and is expected to last perhaps another year before it gives way to SC 24. Solar scientists believe that SC 24 will be unusually weak compared to a normal cycle and that would indicate an above average amount of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere which is already being hit with substantial amounts with the current low level of solar activity. With above normal levels of cosmic radiation you get increased levels of aerosols and that increases water vapor forming into clouds and more clouds means more cooling as those clouds block the warming solar radiation. Water vapor is a double edged sword; as a gas it is a warming agent but when it condenses into clouds it becomes a cooling agent.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:53 pm
Sorry, but the solar cycle has lost its influence - it used to correlate well with tem - that is until the human addition of CO2 threw this correlation off. The sun does indeed influence the climate, but now humans are a more domenent cause...

and as you say, water vapor is a strong green house gas - but it is a feed back mechanism as I said above...

Saturday May 24, 2008, 11:33 pm
'You are entitled to your own opinion...You are not entitled to your own facts"

You seem to make up "facts" as needed.

To say solar cycle influence has ceased has got to be hubris, if nothing else.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 11:36 pm
We agree on the water vapor issue, but come back in a year and tell me again how the continuing low level of solar activity has lost its influence. It would seem this past winter fits very well with the influence of low solar activity. Personally, I kinda hope they are wrong about SC 24; I really don’t like cold weather. I would much rather see it warmer with longer growing seasons so the plants can absorb some of that CO2 you are so worried about.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 6:35 am
Attention C2 techs: I recieved everybodys comments on this article in my net messages, only one person on these comments i never recieved notification they posted. Is that because I blocked them?
So am i to beleive that since i blocked them i cannot recieve NM's or notifications of a comment from them, But they are still aloud to Harrass me on my posts? Just curious. Wanted to notify you that what you did last week is working fine.
You paid opposition/employees can no longer be blocked?

Sunspot cycles may hold key to global warming, cooling

Leader-Telegram
Sunday, May 25, 2008

The 2008 winter was the coldest in 40 years for the upper Midwest, Plains states and most of Canada. Minnesota newspapers report that this year's opening of the locks to Mississippi barge traffic, delayed by three weeks, was the latest since the modern waterway opened in 1940.

Eau Claire, where "old-fashioned winters" have been a thing of the past, recorded 43 days of below-zero temperatures, while folks down in Madison shoveled away at a 117-year record snowfall throughout the season, as did many in New England and Canada.

Rare snowfalls struck Buenos Aires, Capetown, and Sidney during their mid-year winter, while China continually battled blizzards. Even Baghdad experienced measurable snowfall.


Antarctic pack-ice far exceeded what Captain Cook saw on his 18th century voyage into the Southern Ocean. On the continent itself the miles-thick ice continues to accumulate despite peripheral melting along the Antarctic Peninsula and occasional calving of an ice block. At the opposite pole, flow-ice once again spans the entire Arctic Ocean, and by April it had extended into the Bering Strait, making up for the much heralded melt-back last summer


From January 2007 through the end of January 2008, the average global temperature fell by nearly a degree Fahrenheit, based on data obtained by the MET Office in Great Britain and other international temperature monitoring networks.

What are we to make of this? The recent climate conference held in New York City, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, provides some answers. Several hundreds climatologists in attendance dispelled notions that the global warming debate is over. Most attendees, who readily acknowledge the existence of post-Little Ice Age warming, believe man-made emissions are unlikely to cause major climate change and signed a declaration to that effect.

Bill Gray, dean of hurricane forecasters, attributed short-term climate change to slow-moving deep ocean currents that result from variation in the salinity of water sinking near the poles and ultimately welling up again along the coast of South America. These fluctuations account for the comings and goings of the familiar El Nino/La Nina cycles and the longer Pacific Decadal Oscillation that stretches over a large area of the eastern Pacific.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 6:36 am
jumps up an down I am now stronger then the SUN,,,yippeeee
I now influence my enviroment more then the sun,,,let's test this outrageous claim

I command all the Plants to grow!

Nope didn't work

I command the winds to come in and blow away the C2 trolls

Nope did't work

But man what a nice tan im getting from the Sun sitting outside this morning

Hate to tell the above delusional member that the sun tanning me is effecting me more then my influence to make the plants grow and the wind blow

the member is seriously delusional

Sunday May 25, 2008, 6:48 am
if a person is harassing you .....you still can take action ......copy and paste the comments which you find are harassment find a lawyer that is licensed to practice law in california or call the police in claifornia yourself ..file charges ..........and you can still flag for review of members that are stalking you but you can no longer block due to people not having the same ideas that you do .......a pattern is needed to show stalking by the way .........

Sunday May 25, 2008, 8:43 am
BTW - no one can be blocked on the comments of the news - no conspericies here - if you block someone (which laurie is so good at), then you get no mesages from them, but they can still comment...

Sunday May 25, 2008, 8:45 am
the denialist troll would like you to think the sun is all powerful, but it is wrong...

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'

Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.


Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.

Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming."

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A, shows there is no doubt that solar activity over the past 20 years has run in the opposite direction to global warming, and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures.

Dr Lockwood and his colleague Claus Fröhlich, of the World Radiation Centre in Davos Dorf, Switzerland, have produced the most powerful counter argument to suggestions that current warming is part of the natural cycle of solar activities. "There is considerable evidence for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate, and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial change in the first half of the last century," they write.

However, since about 1940 there has been no evidence to suggest that increases in global average temperatures were caused by solar activity. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified," the two scientists said.

The theory that past changes in solar activity may have explained some changes in the climate before the industrial revolution is not in dispute. In previous centuries, for instance, notably between about 1420 and 1570, when the Vikings had to abandon their Greenland settlements, solar minima corresponded with unusually cool weather, such as the "little ice age" of the 17th century.

But climate sceptics have exploited this to dispute the idea that man-made emissions are responsible for global warming. In the recent Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, the rise in solar activity over the latter half of the 20th century was erroneously presented as perfectly matching the rise in global average temperatures.

Dr Lockwood said he was outraged when he saw the documentary, because of the way the programme-makers used graphs of temperature rises and sunspot cycles that were cut off in the 1980s, when the two trends went in the opposite direction.

"The trouble is that the theory of solar activity and climate was being misappropriated to apply to modern-day warming. The sceptics were taking perfectly good science and bringing it into disrespect," Dr Lockwood said.

The Royal Society said yesterday: "There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day."

Sunday May 25, 2008, 8:51 am
and here is the solar influence data which shows clearly that the solar cy7cle is no longer consistant with the warming trends - the only people making thins up are the denialists

Nope, they used to up until 50 years ago :)

Solar Activity and Climate

conclusion: While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to diverge noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for an additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. We base this interpretation on such modelling work as that by Mitchell, et al. (Nature, 1995, vol. 376, p. 501) in which the combined effects of greenhouse gasses and aerosols have the property seen above - an accelerating temperature increase from about the 1970's.

details here:
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml

Please look at thi Ralph unless you have your head in the sand :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 6:46 pm
Well, no wonder Lockwood and Froelich couldn't find evidence of the Sun being a factor from 1940 on....that's when the cooling started and it didn't start warming up until the late 70s -early 80s
http://climate.uah.edu/maps/28yeartemps.jpg
Lockwood an dFroelich's paper was published last year and was shown to be quite flawed and was soundly rebutted.

Lockwood, M., Frolich, C., Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880, Published online

This paper is the latest in a rich tradition of near 20 years of IPCC inspired attempts to trivialize the solar/climate link.

There has been more than one rebuttal around the internet but I like Joe D’Aleo’s, “Shining More Light on the Solar Factor A discussion of Problems with the Royal Society Paper by Lockwood and Frohlich” which quotes an analysis by Dr N. Scafetta which draws on work by Dr. Richard Willson of Columbia University, an expert in satellite solar data.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=131

Do catch up, won't you.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 7:25 pm
Ya, so there has been rebuttal - dosen't mean it is good - you are the one who needs to catch up :) And please look at the information rather than making stuff up hunny child :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 7:27 pm
and anyway, this whole sun thing really does not disprove the effect of CO2 now does it hunny child :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 7:38 pm
What it does is relegate CO2 to a very minor influence, but be that as it may...the one thing that drives the spike in the vampires heart is the irrefutable fact the WARMING PRECEEDS THE RISE IN CO2.

That one just can not be wriggled out of. and there you are, again taking up 2 posts to say nothing. Think of the energy you waste. Not very "Green" of you to waste so.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 8:20 pm
no need to answer that question ...what for the 20th time...you do not look for answers...you spout dogma and ignore everything else (and then have the gall to say that others do that)...truely pethetic

Sunday May 25, 2008, 9:56 pm
I have not blocked Chris O. but he has blocked me as well as telling a number of his friends (?) to also block me. Is that the reason I do not receive notification of his comments when he post to articles that I am tracking or I have submitted? Censorship is the most effective tool for those that wish to limit the availability of information that has the potential to overwhelm their position. You may have a point Laurie T.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 9:57 pm
Oh Pope Sutton - both Judy and Laurie have me blocked too (or at least they did)...and your free to comment on my articles now with the new Care2 policy...so stop wining ... BTW the reson you would not get notifications of my postings would be because YOU have ME blocked ROFL!!!!!

Sunday May 25, 2008, 10:05 pm
and you must be running low on facts to resort to personal attacks - just like you attack Gore when facts don't fit your dogma...

Sunday May 25, 2008, 10:27 pm
Gore, is the frontman. He's now worth $100 Million after having only $2 Million when he left office where he did favors for friends and for which he's obviously been well rewarded since. Directorships and stock options tend to flow to cooperative politicians after theyt leave office.

He's only ever talked about the environment. His real record on it is pretty abysmal. He's a phony.

Of course he should be exposed.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 10:27 pm
Ah, I AM in good company :)

Monday May 26, 2008, 7:18 am
okay enough Dale Husband,