Reply #6: The article quotes NOAA and the NAS. [View All]

[Popol Vuh]

Then there's this information below: I don't know, but, I have to question the carbon argument and review the solar maximum information.

Comparison between the change in the global temperature (red line), the Carbon Dioxide Concentration (blue line), and the sample tree ring (green line) from 800 AD to 2005 (AD). As you can see, what took only 150 years during the Medieval Period of Global Warming has taken 200 years in our Industrial Era. This means that the current Global Warming is rising SLOWER than during the Medieval Age. Besides, our Global Warming is LOWER than that of the Medieval Period. A further characteristic is that the warmest phase in the Medieval Period lasted about 190 years, whereas the warmest period of the contemporary Global Warming lasted merely 3 years (from 1997 to 1998), with its highest point in 1998. This evidence demonstrates that the Global Warming is a cyclic natural phenomenon.



http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_32

This Graph shows that there have been many periods warmer than the present warm period. Actually, our Global Warming is benign compared with prehistoric warming eras. I want you to pay attention on the Ordovician period. During this period, the atmospheric CO2 reached 2240 ppmV (eight times higher than at present); nevertheless, the mean temperature diminished considerably to the extent of causing an Ice Age. We can see also that the Triassic Period was warmer than the Holocene (present Epoch); however, the CO2 concentration was lower than at present. Evidently, there are other factors more efficient than CO2 for warming the Earth.



http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_35

Cosmic Rays are atomic nuclei (generally protons) and electrons that are observed to collide with the Earth's atmosphere with exceedingly high energies. When these nucleons bump with the atmospheric molecules most of their energy is released as heat, warming up the Earth's atmosphere. As it is shown in this graph, the "Global Warming" is not an anthropogenic event, but a natural cycle related to the energy of the Universe, not with an anomalous Greenhouse Effect. It is evident that the He nucleons (blue line) affect directly on the Earth's temperature variations (red line); however, it looks as if there were not a coincidence between the Intergalactic Cosmic Rays (green line) and the Global Warming Variation (GWV). However, in the graph, below these lines, I transferred the gray line that corresponds to the Intergalactic Cosmic Rays (ICR) just 13.7 months, so you can see the conclusive coincidence between the ICR and the Earth temperature oscillations.



http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_45

The correlation between the Anomaly in the Intensity of the Intergalactic Cosmic Ray (IICR) and the variations in the terrestrial tropospheric temperature is obvious. The present Global Warming does not depend on the concentration of the Greenhouse Gases, but on the Density of the Energy that is incoming from space, so from the Sun as from the interstellar medium. The blue to green bars represent the anomaly of the tropospheric temperature since December 2001 to October 2007. The red to brown bars represent the IICR on real time when the IICR once they have reached the Earth. Observe that the anomaly at the end of the histogram of the ICR climbs up, with a very few declines. However, we lack data for the months after February 2007. If the intensity of the ICR increases, the next year (2008) will be a warmer year; however, if the intensity of the ICR declines, 2008 will be a normal to colder year. The correlation is just the opposite of Dr. Nir Shaviv's hypothesis.



http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_47

Many people have been confused because they have read from NOAA's page that 2006 has been the warmest year of the decade. Nevertheless, when going through the data provided by the own NOAA, we find that in fact 2006 have been the coldest year of the decade. There is not discrepancy between both reports from NOAA, given that, when talking about the warmest year, NOAA refers only to some states of the United States (Texas and New Mexico) and Southeastern Asia. On the other hand, the data for a local warmer year come from ground weather stations, that is to say, stations located within the cities or “heat islands”, whereas the data that indicate that 2006 has been a global (anywhere in the world) colder year were taken at 1000 meters above sea level, far from “heat islands”.

Comparing both sources of data to see its trustworthiness, the data obtained at 1000 meters above sea level are more reliable than the obtained on ground. It is worth to add that the data from globes agree with the data provided by satellites, which are the most precise figures, while the data from ground stations does not match with reality.

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html