How much is the increase in CO2 every year?

  • 146 Replies
  • 72790 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #100 on: 18/10/2009 08:58:40 »
The blue line is the energy we would get without an atmosphere, yellow line is what we get with it. Look at the combined efforts of carbon dioxide and water vapor: it keeps us cool!!
I think it will be difficult to get a more quantifiable result as this, unless somebody puts some money into some real research.

I didn't see the graph but it probably refers to energy recieved on the surface. So it would make sense that that would be less with an atmosphere because the atmosphere will absorb some of it. I think maybe the problem is you haven't got your head around the fact that the atmosphere is part of the planet too and if it's heated we all are.

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #101 on: 18/10/2009 09:10:43 »
Ok, this graph also shows what I want to tell you:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Look carefully where CO2 absorbs. The only place where it matters for the greenhouse effect (i.e. warming) is at 14 um. But in this area water(g) is also still absorbing! You will note that in the picture of earth's radiation the presence of the carbon dioxide leads to a tiny small corner not being emitted by earth.
But the carbon dioxide is also absorbing at around 2 and between 4 and 5 um which is leading to some infra red from the sun being cut short, i.e. cooling. Again, if we have to weigh the cooling and warming against one another. Bearing in mind the overlapping area of the water,it looks pretty much even to me?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #102 on: 18/10/2009 11:14:21 »
Three points
First why don't you understand that when CO2 in the earth's atmosphere absorbs radiation from the sun it makes the world hotter? There is no cooling effect.Secondly, the graphs show the absorbtion by CO2 of radiation at about 4µm so your assertion that "The only place where it matters for the greenhouse effect (i.e. warming) is at 14 um." is false.
Also  the earth emits much more radiation than the sun at those wavelengths so it's also not true to say that "carbon dioxide is also absorbing at around 2 and between 4 and 5 um which is leading to some infra red from the sun being cut short, i.e. cooling"
Even if there were a cooling effect (and there's not) the fact is that the absorbtion near 2µ is small and the sun's emmision there is small so the overall effect is very small. Also as I said, near 4µ the earth is emitting a lot more than the sun so the effect is a clear "greenhouse" effect.

Bearing those in mind, brings me to the third point. I asked if you would check that what you are saying is factually correct before posting it.
You clearly have not done so.

I don't expect to hear about a cooling effect again.
If you persist in bringing up that discredited idea than it will be clear that you are trolling and I presume that you will be treated accordingly by the mods.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #103 on: 18/10/2009 13:26:10 »
At least our friend in Australia picked it up:

"I didn't see the graph but it probably refers to energy recieved on the surface. So it would make sense that that would be less with an atmosphere because the atmosphere will absorb some of it."

Look at the graphs! What is coming from the sun on earth compared to measured above earth's atmosphere from the sun is about 30% less. Unless you have other figures? If you look at the graphs, principally the gasses that cause this effect are ozone, oxygen,water and carbondixide.If this is not cooling, then what is? Please do explain this to me?
Second, at 4 um, the radiation from both the sun (= about 0.5%) and from earth appear to be very small, so it looks to me this cancels each other out. It may be that the two absorptions between 2 and 3 of the carbon dioxde look small, but the energy coming from the sun in that range is still about 5%. Also, I think there is some work done that shows that there is also some absorbtion of carbon dioxide in the UV-visible range. I am still looking for a 2nd source to confirm that.
Lastly, what is the point of having a science forum, if we agree which each other about everything? There is a difference between discussion and debate.
In the case above we will continue to have a debate (i.e. not ever agreeing) because it appears nobody has any real figures.How on earth can we have a Copenhagen summit about all of this if nobody did any real research?

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #104 on: 18/10/2009 15:08:50 »
Quote
But the carbon dioxide is also absorbing at around 2 and between 4 and 5 um which is leading to some infra red from the sun being cut short, i.e. cooling.

No.
Unless by "cut short" you mean absorbed and by cooling you mean warming.

I am also suspect of trolling since you continually refuse to understand the concept that when IR is absorbed the atmosphere is heated, there is no cooling effect. When the atmosphere is heated, the entire planet is. You keep pushing the misconception that absorption means "blocking", but the result of "blocking" is heat. How on earth do you interpret this as a cooling effect?

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #105 on: 18/10/2009 15:20:51 »
I have a quote here from another expert in the field:
"Yes, that is correct. Light that is absorbed by gases is re-emitted in a random direction. "
"The amount of carbon dioxide is enough to absorb all the radiation in the bands where it absorbs within a few meters. So the only effect of an increase in CO2 is to move the location of absorption/re-emission closer to the source".

Tom Nelson

Are you sure about exactly what is the greenhouse effect? You are not answering the question that I asked in my previoos post?

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #106 on: 18/10/2009 15:38:13 »
Yes, i'm sure. Is this Tom Nelson you speak of trying to say that all the IR is absorbed within a few metres of atmosphere?

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #107 on: 18/10/2009 15:52:43 »
The first search result of "Tom Nelson" is his blog; "A personal blog that captures the latest headlines skeptical of the global warming debate with commentary."

And from his site:
Quote
About Me

Tom Nelson
    I have a Masters of Science degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.

Last time I checked, a degree in electronics does not make you an expert on climate change. Please do not make false assertions.

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #108 on: 18/10/2009 20:40:48 »
 I am sure you got the wrong Tom. Try to google "cold facts on global warming". I am sure Tom still believes that carbon dioxide is or could be a major cause for global warming. I did not try to influence his opinion but perhaps my questions may have puzzled him/ I would not know.

Why is that you people do not keep your mind open as to who what the final outcome is of an investigation? Is this all politics? Are you people that much influenced by politics? That really puzzles me.

This is what he said on my relevant questions:

Hi Henry,

Carbon dioxide does not absorb in the visible or near ultraviolet. In the far ultraviolet (below 190 nm), its absorption is swamped by the absorption by oxygen.

You are right, for those regions where CO2 and water both absorb, CO2 is insignificant because of its lower concentration.

Tom Nelson

Makes sense to me, does it not, what he said?
CO2 and O2, could be like sort of brother and sister.
Also, water and carbon dioxide could be like our father and mother
i.e.the source of life as we know it.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #109 on: 18/10/2009 21:43:32 »
I am getting tired of this.
I already pointed out , a propos of your assertion "Yes, that is correct. Light that is absorbed by gases is re-emitted in a random direction. "
 that, for that radiation to be re emitted it had to get absorbed in the first place and that as soon as it's absorbed the atmosphere is already hotter.
All this re-radiation can do is slightly reduce the amount of heating.

There is no cooling effect.

You are trolling.

And as for "Why is that you people do not keep your mind open as to who what the final outcome is of an investigation?"
Did you consider the fact that you keep saying things that are demonstrably false?
It's not that I don't have an open mind, it's just that, in order to change my opinion, you need to provide me with some evidence.
You haven't.
Instead you have put up all sorts of trash. I have repeatedlty asked you to verify things before posting the; you haven't.

To cut to the chase, telling fibs doesn't convince scientists of anything but your own foolishness.

« Last Edit: 18/10/2009 21:56:14 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #110 on: 19/10/2009 06:28:34 »

But you demonstrated again that you did not answer the question that was posted:
"Look at the graphs! What is coming from the sun on earth compared to measured above earth's atmosphere from the sun is about 30% less. Unless you have other figures? If you look at the graphs, principally the gasses that cause this effect are ozone, oxygen,water and carbondixide.If this is not cooling, then what is? Please do explain this to me?"

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #111 on: 19/10/2009 06:55:34 »

But you demonstrated again that you did not answer the question that was posted:
"Look at the graphs! What is coming from the sun on earth compared to measured above earth's atmosphere from the sun is about 30% less. Unless you have other figures? If you look at the graphs, principally the gasses that cause this effect are ozone, oxygen,water and carbondixide.If this is not cooling, then what is? Please do explain this to me?"

You have been told the answer to that question a few times already. Why should I waste my time telling you again.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #112 on: 19/10/2009 10:25:34 »
So are we all agreed now that the ozone, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide have a combined effect so that approximately 30% less heat from the sun hits the earth? (I am trying to avoid the word "cooling" now, otherwise I get into trouble)

The point now is to try and find out what portion of that 30% less heat (if we are all agreed on that figure) is due to carbon dioxide alone.
After that, we must try and find out exactly the warming effect of the carbon dioxide.

How would we do that? This brings me back to my final report again.

I think the only way to get this information is by experimentation in large specifically designed climatic chambers where we can play around with various atmospheric compositions and various energy sources..... 

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #113 on: 19/10/2009 10:54:17 »
So are we all agreed now that the ozone, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide have a combined effect so that approximately 30% less heat from the sun hits the earth? (I am trying to avoid the word "cooling" now, otherwise I get into trouble)
It might be worth adding the words "warming the atmosphere in the process".

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #114 on: 19/10/2009 18:33:40 »
"So are we all agreed now that the ozone, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide have a combined effect so that approximately 30% less heat from the sun hits the earth?"

No, not unless you can tell us where else it might go.

The earth's atmosphere is part of the earth. (Did you think that it was part of venus or something?)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Ethos

  • Guest
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #115 on: 19/10/2009 22:55:08 »
The greatest amount of useless Co2 is being created by Al Gore everytime he opens his mouth!!!!!!!!

The "inconvenient truth" is a convenient misrepresentation manufactured by the Globalist agenda!
« Last Edit: 19/10/2009 23:07:27 by Ethos »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #116 on: 20/10/2009 06:54:10 »
quote author=Ethos link=topic=22348.msg280099#msg280099 date=1255989308]
The greatest amount of useless Co2 is being created by Al Gore everytime he opens his mouth!!!!!!!!

The "inconvenient truth" is a convenient misrepresentation manufactured by the Globalist agenda!
[/quote]
Since this is a science website I presume that you have evidence for that. Perhaps you might care to open another thread to discuss it.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2009 06:56:22 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Ethos

  • Guest
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #117 on: 20/10/2009 16:57:28 »

Since this is a science website I presume that you have evidence for that. Perhaps you might care to open another thread to discuss it.
Regarding which issue Sir? Whether Al Gore is responsible for the excess CO2 or, if the misrepresentation is due to the Globalist agenda?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #118 on: 20/10/2009 18:16:40 »
If either issue was on-topic then the distinction would matter.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #119 on: 07/11/2009 19:17:40 »
Bored,

The CO2 bandwagon has been getting noticeably lighter in recent years. One reason for this is the simple hysteria just LOOKS suspicious. ONLY 50 DAYS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET! I believe something like that was actually said by the highest official in one of the most advanced nations on earth just recently.

And then there are those heart rending photographs of the forlorn Polar Bear on a small ice berge. "There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html

And then there are the legions of Carbonistas are entirely unaware the climate has been both warmer and cooler in historical times then it is now. http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In fact, a period of global cooling about 4,000 years ago killed so many Egyptions through draught famine the entire society collapsed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml#five [Warm is Good, Cold is Bad] is my general summation on climate.

So you see why there are many skeptics.


*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #120 on: 07/11/2009 19:25:45 »
Bored,

The CO2 bandwagon has been getting noticeably lighter in recent years. One reason for this is the simple hysteria just LOOKS suspicious. ONLY 50 DAYS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET! I believe something like that was actually said by the highest official in one of the most advanced nations on earth just recently.
This was referring to the upcoming Copenhagen discussions on climate change, so nothing to do with 'hysteria' of any kind.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #121 on: 07/11/2009 19:46:39 »
Ben - I don't care WHAT it referred to. The fact this offical actually said that is prima facia evidence of hysteria.

Maybe you don't get it. Statements like this and others like it create a social climate of suspicion. JUSTIFIED suspicion in my opinion. If Gore shows me a forelorn Polar Bear on melting ice berg, while at the same time I have reports "there are a hell of a lot more Polar Bears", I take notice.


*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #122 on: 07/11/2009 20:00:14 »
Warm is good, cold is bad, that simple is it?

Ok. Why is warm good?

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #123 on: 07/11/2009 20:20:12 »
Madi

Warm is good for several reasons. First, it provides more arrible land. Excess agricultural production is the very deffinition of civilization.  How do you think Rome paid for the Flavian Amphitheater?  Wall Mart coupons?  No. The weather was such that excess food production, primarily from North Africa could be confiscated in the form of taxes to feed the workers. Then it got cold. No more wine from Britain! And of course the Northern Barbarians move South.

The very same thing in Old Kingdom Egypt.  The warm climate of the era provided rain to feed the Nile to such an extent the Pharoes could tax the excess agricultural production and feed tens of thousands of workers to produce, among other things, the Sphinx and the various Pyramids. 

Then it got cold. The Nile dried up so much that Lake-Whats-its-Name fed by the Nile dried up entirely for the only time in geographic record. We have actual old Kingdom hyroglyphic accounts it was so bad parents canabalized their own children.

Then just think about the very recent Ice Age.  I believe much if not all of the UK was under one or two hundred feet of ice. Certainly that was the case in North America. During the Ice Age Chicago was under something like ONE FRIGGN MILE of ice.  Having lived many years in Chicago I can attest to the advantages of warmer rather then cooler climate.

Or perhaps you prefer the colder, damper climate of the Bubonic Pague era. It only resulted in the death of, perhaps, half the entire population of Europe. But the whose counting!  After all, there are forelorn Polar Bears out there needing immediate rescue.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #124 on: 07/11/2009 20:28:20 »
Ben - I don't care WHAT it referred to. The fact this offical actually said that is prima facia evidence of hysteria.

Maybe you don't get it. Statements like this and others like it create a social climate of suspicion. JUSTIFIED suspicion in my opinion. If Gore shows me a forelorn Polar Bear on melting ice berg, while at the same time I have reports "there are a hell of a lot more Polar Bears", I take notice.


No, the fact that you cited it is prima facie evidence that you didn't understand it.

Also re the arrable land. The further from the equatror you push the boundary of "nice weather for farming" the smaller the area that's available.
It's something to do with the geometry of spheres.
The fact that it has been hotter and colder in the past doesn't make change good. It's the change that's the problem.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #125 on: 07/11/2009 20:42:42 »
Bored

Your last post suggests you are drunker then ME!  I am about out of beer, and will leave the stage.....

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #126 on: 07/11/2009 21:05:47 »
Quote
Warm is good for several reasons. First, it provides more arrible land.

There will be new arable land. Do you have evidence to say it will be more? There would be new arable lands in countries like Greenland and Canada, and higher rice yeilds in Northern China. However, at the same time:

China's grain harvest could be cut by 10% http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_warming_to_decimate_Chinas_harvests_999.html
Africa's food production will be halved http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/3883fde14bb3020c21fd8159ef50dd7c.htm
Crop disease may be boosted http://www.terradaily.com/reports/070814124316.rhrly4bx.html
Water shortages in the Mediterranean, flash floods along the Rhine, more than half of Europe's plant species will be at threat http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-5-2005_pg6_10
Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing http://www.pnas.org/content/104/37/14724.abstract
Fresh water supplies for coastal communities will diminish http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/saltwatr.htm
Decreased water supply in the Colorado river basin http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031764.shtml
Decreased water supply in the Murray-Darling basin http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033390.shtml
Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

To name a few.

Not to mention CO2's effects on ocean acidification, and its possible far-reaching ramifications.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2009 21:09:25 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Ethos

  • Guest
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #127 on: 07/11/2009 21:56:13 »
Warm is good, cold is bad, that simple is it?

Ok. Why is warm good?
Because I won't have to wear that cumbersome Snuggy..........Bhurrrrrr!

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #128 on: 08/11/2009 01:32:28 »
Madi,

Get yourself a wetsuit and start bringing those distraught Polar Bears to safety.  What you fail to realize is not all of us are Chumps. Lie to me about Polar Bear Populations, or past climate change, and you are history.

No second chances you fraudulent piece of iceberg flotsom.


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #129 on: 08/11/2009 10:19:12 »
Bored

Your last post suggests you are drunker then ME!  I am about out of beer, and will leave the stage.....
No, stone cold sober (but perhaps a bit hungover). Even if I had been drunk it wouldn't have given you and excuse to ignore the facts.
Feel free to answer the points I made.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #130 on: 08/11/2009 17:04:44 »
No second chances you fraudulent piece of iceberg flotsom.
This is getting worryingly close to an abusive attitude. People can be band from the forum for that, I've heard!
BTW, who's been lying to whom about polar bear populations?

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #131 on: 08/11/2009 17:32:36 »
Madi,

Get yourself a wetsuit and start bringing those distraught Polar Bears to safety.  What you fail to realize is not all of us are Chumps. Lie to me about Polar Bear Populations, or past climate change, and you are history.

No second chances you fraudulent piece of iceberg flotsom.



I have lied about nothing. You're attacking a straw man, I have said nothing of polar bears. You either didn't read or chose to ignore my points.

Abusing me will convince no one of anything, come back if you are ready to pull your head out of the sand and actually address arguments and facts.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2009 17:34:21 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #132 on: 09/11/2009 08:48:32 »
Ben - I don't care WHAT it referred to. The fact this offical actually said that is prima facia evidence of hysteria.

Maybe you don't get it. Statements like this and others like it create a social climate of suspicion. JUSTIFIED suspicion in my opinion. If Gore shows me a forelorn Polar Bear on melting ice berg, while at the same time I have reports "there are a hell of a lot more Polar Bears", I take notice.


But you don't take notice of the actual content of an article that contains the "just 50 days..." quote?  Did you bother to read past the headline? I think this probably shows that you're predisposed towards a particular attitude on climate issues.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #133 on: 09/11/2009 17:26:53 »
Bored chemist - You wrote: "Let's take a planet and add lots of CO2 to the armosphere and see if the temperature goes up."

You will be happy to note the industial revolutions on Mars, Pluto, and other planets and moons have also warmed them up noticeably as well.  Of maybe its just second hand CO2.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #134 on: 09/11/2009 17:37:34 »
BenV,

The guy is a politician and knows how to get a headline. That was the headline he got. I have the normal suspicion of political discourse.  However, I have two questions for you: 1)have you heard of the "hocky-stick" graph of planetary temperatures over the last couple of thousand years; and 2) do you belive it?

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #135 on: 09/11/2009 17:52:48 »
madi

I was not calling you a lier about Polar Bears, since you did not mention it. My post was simply an explanation that Nobel Prize Winner algore STILL will not admit there are more Polar Bears then in the recent past. His latest answer was just as political as ever "Are they on the endangered species list?"

The contradictions and inconsistency pile up like dirty snow in Chicago. There ARE more Polar Bears. Yes, the entire solar system seems to be warming. Yet, our planet now seems to be cooling right now. And yes, our planet has seen both warmer and colder spells over the millenium PRIOR to industrialization.

CO2 has been as high as 3000ppm, and the Jurassic period flourished. During the last Ice Age, with about the same CO2 as now, burried much of North America benieth a mile of ice. Having lived in Chicago, I would vote 3000 parts per million HOT, rather then 300ppm Ice Age. I shoveled my fair share of Chicago Snow. But one mile of ice would choke even the best Home Depot snow blower.

PS: The entire fiasco has become of supernatural indiference to me. Europe and Japan are going Nuclear, the US seems to be taking an appropriate Blow-Hard approach with windmills. The developing world will continue to burn fossile fuels. NONE OF THIS WILL CHANGE in our lifetimes. And I predict the sky will not fall.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 18:05:24 by litespeed »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #136 on: 09/11/2009 19:13:50 »
"CO2 has been as high as 3000ppm,"
[O2] used to be zero ppm so it couldn't do any harm to go back to that.


From this
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
cited by litespeed...
"Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output"

And, from the same site
"As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
"

Shall we just say that the evidence doesn't seem altogether uncontraversial?
« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 19:19:43 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #137 on: 10/11/2009 17:23:49 »
Bored

I found my Roma Era warming studies.  It took a couple of hours. The following link shows a number of proxy studies, with summaries.  http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropenorth.php

The following link is from that summary and shows the Roman Era 6C warmer. I am skeptical about that particular number....  http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N40/C2.php

"Linderholm and Gunnarson (2005) utilized the well replicated period of 1632 BC to AD 2000 of the Jämtland multi-millennial tree-ring width chronology derived from living and subfossil Scots pines sampled close to the present tree-line in the central Scandinavian Mountains as a proxy for summer temperatures. Several periods of anomalously warm and cold summers were noted throughout this record: (1) 550 to 450 BC (Roman Warm Period), when summer temperatures were the warmest of the entire record, exceeding the 1961-1990 mean by more than 6°C, (2) AD 300 to 400 (Dark Ages Cold Period), which was "the longest period of consecutive cold summers," averaging 1.5°C less than the 1961-1990 mean, (3) AD 900 to 1000, a warm era corresponding to the Medieval Warm Period, and (4) AD 1550 to 1900, a cold period known as the Little Ice Age."

PS: This is a nice link to long scale co2/Temp tracking: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #139 on: 10/11/2009 18:55:44 »
Bored

I found my Roma Era warming studies.  It took a couple of hours. The following link shows a number of proxy studies, with summaries.  http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropenorth.php

The following link is from that summary and shows the Roman Era 6C warmer. I am skeptical about that particular number....  http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N40/C2.php

"Linderholm and Gunnarson (2005) utilized the well replicated period of 1632 BC to AD 2000 of the Jämtland multi-millennial tree-ring width chronology derived from living and subfossil Scots pines sampled close to the present tree-line in the central Scandinavian Mountains as a proxy for summer temperatures. Several periods of anomalously warm and cold summers were noted throughout this record: (1) 550 to 450 BC (Roman Warm Period), when summer temperatures were the warmest of the entire record, exceeding the 1961-1990 mean by more than 6°C, (2) AD 300 to 400 (Dark Ages Cold Period), which was "the longest period of consecutive cold summers," averaging 1.5°C less than the 1961-1990 mean, (3) AD 900 to 1000, a warm era corresponding to the Medieval Warm Period, and (4) AD 1550 to 1900, a cold period known as the Little Ice Age."

PS: This is a nice link to long scale co2/Temp tracking: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Who cares?

There never was any God-given promise that the sun wouldn't fluctuate.
However the fact remains that we cannot predict those fluctuations with any accuracy (apart from the 11 year sunspot cycle and even that's up a gum tree at the moment).

We can predict the effect of the excess CO2 and, in general, it's not good.
So we should try to reduce that excess.

What happened a hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not we should invest in wind turbines today.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #140 on: 11/11/2009 14:14:01 »
madi

This is just the sort of junk science example that gives CO2 science a bad name. Dramatic music, meliphorous presenter, and one single scientist (Peter Cox). Cox should work a slight of hand gig in Vegas.

1) He tells us the climate jumps about a bit, perhaps a bit colder if a volcano goes off, but just a bit jiggley. Very convenient his chart began at the end of the last "Little Ice" age.

2) And of course there are no dissenters on hand to point our the climate jumps about quite a lot over the last couple of millenia. Both significanly warmer and significantly cooler.

3) His climate models are marvels of simplicity. He just simple TELLS us these things are true. He should at least name WHICH model. But the mortal sin is if he has a model, he needs to run it BACKWARD. Perhaps he is an Extreme Crationist and believes the climate began less then two hundred years ago.

Your very presentation of this silly film clip as some sort of serious scientific reference is troubling in and of itself.



*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #141 on: 11/11/2009 14:33:53 »
Madi

I would be negligent if I did not present you with a better example of scientific reference then what you provided me. Specifically, I wished to know what sort of evidence there might be that supported the idea The Roman Era Warming, at least better then 'Britain Exported Wine'.  The following is some of what I found. I suggest you ponder the differences in science presentation between your film clip and the following.


ROMAN ERA CLIMATE
Jiang et al. (2002) used diatom assemblages from a high-resolution core extracted from the seabed of the north Icelandic shelf to reconstruct a 4600-year history of mean summer sea surface temperature in that general region. In doing so, they found that the warmest temperature of the record (~8.1°C) occurred near its beginning about 4400 years before present (BP). Thereafter, the climate cooled, fitfully over the next 1700 years, but more consistently over the final 2700 years. In fact, most of the data of this final period are well described by a steadily declining linear relationship. There is, however, one data point at about 1500 years BP (during the Roman Warm Period) that rises above this line by ~0.5°C and another at about 1350 years BP (during the Dark Ages Cold Period) that falls below the line by ~0.5°C. Then comes a departure centered on about 850 years BP (during the Medieval Warm Period), when the temperature rises by more than 1°C above the line describing the long-term downward trend. Last of all, the most recent data point (during the Current Warm Period) has a value of ~6.3°C.

These findings clearly indicate that the past 2700 years have witnessed a significant deterioration of the climate in the vicinity of the north Icelandic shelf, as the region has moved ever further away from the benign weather of the Roman Warm Period. After the planet's descent into the Dark Ages Cold Period, however, the Icelandic record depicts a nearly complete recovery during the middle of the Medieval Warm Period; but the warmth of this period soon gave way to the rapid cooling that produced the Little Ice Age, which brought mean summer sea surface temperatures down by ~2.2°C from what they were at the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. Clearly, it's time for a little warmth once again; and the results of this study suggest that the region surrounding Iceland is going to need a whole lot of it to return to its former "glory days" of both the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.

Working nearby, on Iceland itself, Olafsdottir et al. (2001) simulated the spatial relationship between temperature change and potential vegetation cover there over the period of the Holocene, evaluating their results against palynological and geomorphological data. This work revealed that during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, vegetation may have covered about 60% of the land. By the time the Roman Warm Period began to wane about 2300 years ago, however, a vegetative decline commenced that continued until the Medieval Warm Period reversed the decline for about 400 years. The appearance of the Little Ice Age, however, resulted in "an unprecedented low potential for vegetation for the Holocene that lasted c. 600 years, i.e., between AD c. 1300 and 1900," which suggests that the Roman Warm Period was likely the most vegetation-friendly (i.e., warmest) period of the post Climatic Optimum era.

Berglund (2003) identified several periods of expansion and decline of human cultures in Northwest Europe and compared them with a history of reconstructed climate "based on insolation, glacier activity, lake and sea levels, bog growth, tree line, and tree growth." This work revealed "a positive correlation between human impact/land-use and climate change." More specifically, in the latter part of the record where both cultural and climate changes were best defined, there was, in Berglund's words, a great "retreat of agriculture" centered on about AD 500, which led to "reforestation in large areas of central Europe and Scandinavia." He additionally notes that "this period was one of rapid cooling indicated from tree-ring data (Eronen et al., 1999) as well as sea surface temperatures based on diatom stratigraphy in [the] Norwegian Sea (Jansen and Koc, 2000), which can be correlated with Bond's event 1 in the North Atlantic sediments (Bond et al., 1997)." And, of course, the climatic state from which this cooling began was the agriculturally-friendly Roman Warm Period.

Grudd et al. (2002) assembled tree-ring widths from 880 living, dead, and subfossil northern Swedish pines into a continuous and precisely dated chronology covering the period 5407 BC to AD 1997. The strong association between these data and summer (June-August) mean temperatures of the last 129 years of this period then enabled them to produce a 7400-year history of summer mean temperature for northern Swedish Lapland. The most dependable portion of this record, based upon the number of trees that were sampled, consists of the last two millennia, which the six researchers say "display features of century-timescale climatic variation known from other proxy and historical sources, including a warm 'Roman' period in the first centuries AD and a generally cold 'Dark Ages' climate from about AD 500 to about AD 900." They also note that "the warm period around AD 1000 may correspond to a so-called 'Mediaeval Warm Period,' known from a variety of historical sources and other proxy records." Lastly, they say that "the climatic deterioration in the twelfth century can be regarded as the starting point of a prolonged cold period that continued to the first decade of the twentieth century," which "Little Ice Age," in their words, is also "known from instrumental, historical and proxy records."

Going back further in time, the tree-ring record displays several additional warmer and colder periods. And in a telling commentary on climate-alarmist claims to the contrary, Grudd et al. report that "the relatively warm conditions of the late twentieth century do not exceed those reconstructed for several earlier time intervals." In fact, the warmth of many of the earlier warm intervals significantly exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century.

Hormes et al. (2004) identified and dated periods of soil formation in moraines in the Kebnekaise mountain region of Swedish Lapland in the foreground of the Nipalsglaciaren, after which they compared the climatic implications of their results with those of other proxy climate records derived throughout other areas of northern and central Scandinavia. The chief result of these efforts was that two periods of soil formation were identified (2750-2000 and 1170-740 cal yr BP), which spans of time coincide nearly perfectly with the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods delineated by McDermott et al. (2001) in the δ18O record they developed from a stalagmite in southwestern Ireland's Crag Cave. Hormes et al. additionally report that during the periods when the soil formation processes they discovered took place, "the glacier was most likely in a position similar to today, and climate conditions were also similar to today."

With respect to their identification of soil formation during the Roman Warm Period, Hormes et al. describe similar prior findings of contemporaneous soil formation at Svartisen glacier between 2350 and 1990 cal yr BP by Karlen (1979), Austre Okstindbreen glacier between 2350 and 1800 cal yr BP by Griffey and Worsley (1978), and Austre Okstindbreen glacier between 2750 and 2150 by Karlen (1979). In addition, they note that the pine tree-based temperature history of northern Fennoscandia developed by Grudd et al. (2002) "discloses a spike +2°C higher than today's around 2300 cal yr BP," and that "the lacustrine records in Lapland and Finland are also consistent with supposition of a warmer climate than at present before 2000 cal yr BP and cooler temperatures before 2450 cal yr BP (Rosen et al., 2001; Seppa and Birks, 2001; Shemesh et al., 2001; Hammarlund et al., 2002; Heikkila and Seppa, 2003)."

Utilizing plant macrofossils, testate amoebae and degree of humification as proxies for environmental moisture conditions, Blundell and Barber (2005) developed a 2800-year "wetness history" from a peat core extracted from Tore Hill Moss, a raised bog in the Strathspey region of Scotland. Based on the results they obtained from the three proxies they studied, the two researchers derived a relative wetness history that begins 2800 years ago and extends all the way to AD 2000. The most clearly defined and longest interval of sustained dryness of this entire history stretches from about AD 850 to AD 1080, coincident with the well known Medieval Warm Period, while the most extreme wetness interval occurred during the depths of the last stage of the Little Ice Age. Preceding the Medieval Warm Period, their hydro-climate reconstruction reveals a highly chaotic period of generally greater wetness that corresponds to the Dark Ages Cold Period, as well as dryness peaks representing the Roman Warm Period and two other periods of relative dryness. In addition, the correlation this study demonstrates to exist between relative wetness and warmth in Scotland strongly suggests that the temperature of the late 20th century was nowhere near the highest of the past two millennia in that part of the world. In fact, it suggests there were five other periods over the past 2800 years that were considerably warmer.

Linderholm and Gunnarson (2005) utilized the well replicated period of 1632 BC to AD 2000 of the Jämtland multi-millennial tree-ring width chronology derived from living and subfossil Scots pines sampled close to the present tree-line in the central Scandinavian Mountains as a proxy for summer temperatures. Several periods of anomalously warm and cold summers were noted throughout this record: (1) 550 to 450 BC (Roman Warm Period), when summer temperatures were the warmest of the entire record, exceeding the 1961-1990 mean by more than 6°C, (2) AD 300 to 400 (Dark Ages Cold Period), which was "the longest period of consecutive cold summers," averaging 1.5°C less than the 1961-1990 mean, (3) AD 900 to 1000, a warm era corresponding to the Medieval Warm Period, and (4) AD 1550 to 1900, a cold period known as the Little Ice Age.

Last of all, Allen et al. (2007) analyzed pollen characteristics within sediment cores retrieved from a small unnamed lake located near the coast of Nordkinnhalvoya, Finnmark, Norway, after which they used the results of this effort to construct a climatic history of the area over the course of the Holocene. In doing so, they discovered that "regional vegetation responded to Holocene climatic variability at centennial-millennial time scales." More specifically, they report identifying "the most recent widely documented cooling event, the Little Ice Age of ca 450-100 cal BP," the "Dark Ages cool interval, a period during which various other proxies indicate cooling in Fennoscandia and beyond," which they place at 1600-1100 cal BP, the "Medieval Warm Period that separated the latter two cool intervals," and "the warm period around two millennia ago during which the Roman Empire reached its peak," which, of course, was the Roman Warm Period.

In view of these several research findings, it should be obvious that the Roman Warm Period was a very real feature of northern European climatic history, and that it likely was even warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date. Furthermore, since all of that prior warmth occurred at times when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today, there is no compelling reason to believe that the lesser warmth of today has anything at all to do with the air's current much-higher CO2 content.

References
Allen, J.R.M., Long, A.J., Ottley, C.J., Pearson, D.G. and Huntley, B. 2007. Holocene climate variability in northernmost Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 26: 1432-1453.

Berglund, B.E. 2003. Human impact and climate changes -- synchronous events and a causal link? Quaternary International 105: 7-12.

Blundell, A. and Barber, K. 2005. A 2800-year palaeoclimatic record from Tore Hill Moss, Strathspey, Scotland: the need for a multi-proxy approach to peat-based climate reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 1261-1277.

Bond, G., Showers, W., Cheseby, M., Lotti, R., Almasi, P., deMenocal, P., Priore, P., Cullen, H., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 1997. A pervasive millennial-scale cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science 278: 1257-1266.

Eronen, M., Hyvarinen, H. and Zetterberg, P. 1999. Holocene humidity changes in northern Finnish Lapland inferred from lake sediments and submerged Scots pines dated by tree-rings. The Holocene 9: 569-580.

Griffey, N.J. and Worsley, P. 1978. The pattern of neoglacial glacier variations in the Okstindan region of northern Norway during the last three millennia. Boreas 7: 1-17.

Grudd, H., Briffa, K.R., Karlen, W., Bartholin, T.S., Jones, P.D. and Kromer, B. 2002. A 7400-year tree-ring chronology in northern Swedish Lapland: natural climatic variability expressed on annual to millennial timescales. The Holocene 12: 657-665.

Hammarlund, D., Barnekow, L., Birks, H.J.B., Buchardt, B. and Edwards, T.W.D. 2002. Hoolocene changes in atmospheric circulation recorded in the oxygen-isotope stratigraphy of lacustrine carbonates from northern Sweden. The Holocene 12: 339- 351.

Heikkila, M. and Seppa, H. 2003. A 11,000-yr palaeotemperature reconstruction from the southern boreal zone in Finland. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 541-554.

Hormes, A., Karlen, W. and Possnert, G. 2004. Radiocarbon dating of palaeosol components in moraines in Lapland, northern Sweden. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 2031-2043.

Jansen, E. and Koc, N. 2000. Century to decadal scale records of Norwegian sea surface temperature variations of the past 2 millennia. PAGES Newsletter 8(1): 13-14.

Jiang, H., Seidenkrantz, M-S., Knudsen, K.L. and Eiriksson, J. 2002. Late-Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures based on a diatom record from the north Icelandic shelf. The Holocene 12: 137-147.

Karlen, W. 1979. Glacier variations in the Svartisen area, northern Norway. Geografiska Annaler 61A: 11-28.

Linderholm, H.W. and Gunnarson, B.E. 2005. Summer temperature variability in central Scandinavia during the last 3600 years. Geografiska Annaler 87A: 231-241.

McDermott, F., Mattey, D.P. and Hawkesworth, C. 2001. Centennial-scale Holocene climate variability revealed by a high-resolution speleothem δ18O record from SW Ireland. Science 294: 1328-1331.

Olafsdottir, R., Schlyter, P. and Haraldsson, H.V. 2001. Simulating Icelandic vegetation cover during the Holocene: Implications for long-term land degradation. Geografiska Annaler 83A: 203-215.

Rosen, P., Segerstrom, U., Eriksson, L., Renberg, I. and Birks, H.J.B. 2001. Holocene climatic change reconstructed from diatoms, chironomids, pollen and near-infrared spectroscopy at an alpine lake (Sjuodjijaure) in northern Sweden. The Holocene 11: 551-562.

Seppa, H. and Birks, H.J.B. 2001. July mean temperature and annual precipitation trends during the Holocene in the Fennoscandian tree-line area: pollen-based climate reconstruction. The Holocene 11: 527-539.

Shemesh, A., Rosqvist, G., Rietti-Shati, M., Rubensdotter, L., Bigler, C., Yam, R. and Karlen, W. 2001. Holocene climatic changes in Swedish Lapland inferred from an oxygen isotope record of lacustrine biogenic silica. The Holocene 11: 447-454.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2009 14:37:44 by litespeed »

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #142 on: 12/11/2009 21:13:08 »
Quote
In view of these several research findings, it should be obvious that the Roman Warm Period was a very real feature of northern European climatic history, and that it likely was even warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date. Furthermore, since all of that prior warmth occurred at times when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today, there is no compelling reason to believe that the lesser warmth of today has anything at all to do with the air's current much-higher CO2 content.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
To claim that "higher CO2 in the past disproves CO2 warming" is essentially a straw man argument. If climate scientists were claiming CO2 is the only driver of climate, then yes, high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #143 on: 12/11/2009 23:02:33 »
Madi - You wrote: "But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate."  Well duuuhhhh.  However, kudus for putting the wooden stake into algore and his forlorn Polar Bear.

The Little Ice Age ended no later then 1900. Many climatologists believe most of the subsequent and expected warming took place prior to 1950. Climate has been unstable since, with a recent trend back towards cooler. I hope you are correct the climate will once again warm up. If not? Well, there will be money to be made on the fozen Thames Winter Fair!

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #144 on: 15/11/2009 17:53:51 »
What graph are you looking at that makes you think the earth is cooling?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #145 on: 08/01/2010 08:27:15 »
I have a quote here from another expert in the field:
"Yes, that is correct. Light that is absorbed by gases is re-emitted in a random direction. "
"The amount of carbon dioxide is enough to absorb all the radiation in the bands where it absorbs within a few meters. So the only effect of an increase in CO2 is to move the location of absorption/re-emission closer to the source".

Tom Nelson

Are you sure about exactly what is the greenhouse effect? You are not answering the question that I asked in my previoos post?

Here is how CO2 spreads..CO2 and please read where that link links too. (About Lisa Moore, Ph.D., scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense. (further down))

Here is the global analysis for November by NOOA Satellite and Information Service

Notice the trends..

And if you are serious I'm prepared to discuss it with you, but not until you read this first. You only need to read the part discussing CO2 and methane :)

The rest is other stuff.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2010 08:36:07 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
How much is the increase in CO2 every year?
« Reply #146 on: 08/01/2010 11:18:45 »
"CO2 has been as high as 3000ppm,"
[O2] used to be zero ppm so it couldn't do any harm to go back to that.


From this
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
cited by litespeed...
"Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output"

And, from the same site
"As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
"

Shall we just say that the evidence doesn't seem altogether uncontraversial?

Bored Chemist, to that one might add that there are evidence pointing to Russian hackers being the ones that (according to my sources) with the help of the Federal Security Service (FSB= Federal'naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti) cracked and spread a lot of good disinformation about climate scientists. A beautiful disinformation job in fact, but the real beauty was the way they puzzled together enough 'random information', in such a way that people reading it only would draw one conclusion. Russia have always been good at disinformation and have several projects involving natural gas (methane) as well as oil and the power politics in Russia is geared to Power, not environmentalism.

FSB crackers

--Quote-----From GlobalSecurity.org--

"The Federal Security Service (FSB - Federal'naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti, previously known as Federal Counterintelligence Service - FSK) is the most powerful of the successors to the KGB. In the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, the FSB slowly took on the responsibilities of a number of agencies. Most recently, it absorbed FAPSI, the Russian equivalent of the United States' National Security Agency.

The FSB's power is rooted in the influence of President Vladimir Putin, a former director, and a vast network of former officers that has permeated all sectors of Russian government and society. It is estimated that, among Russia’s 1,000 leading political figures, 78% have worked with the FSB or its predecessors. With this sort of clout at its disposal, FSB carries out intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, economic crime investigation, electronic intelligence, border control and “social monitoring.”

----End of quote-----

Another thing worth pointing out here is that once a site is compromised you can't trust its materials anymore, that mean that you either have it all back-upped and start from there with a entirely new OS or that you accept the risk of corrupted data and 'back doors.'
« Last Edit: 08/01/2010 11:34:54 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."