| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
You're right about 3. I forgot my own numbers, it is around 5%. As to 2. I have read 0.6C several times. It seems to be the accepted number overall. I won't bother quibbling with 0.8C. And 4. has been shown to be correct in this thread. Repeatedly.
It is NOT an ad hominem to attack Hansen because of his previous perfidy. He (and you and many others) present him as an authority. He is a liar. His authority credentials are trashed. HE has a very clear anti-corporate slant, as evidenced by the essay you quoted part of. Also a demagogue issue, like Gore. Neither is believable. As to my attitude about extra-US monitoring stations, if even the stations within reasonable control and observation are suspect, and many are, what am I to believe about those that are out there in the great unknown?
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
In my post it clearly said NATIONAL. Most people know what that means.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
supernovasky writes:
Quote: Ad hominem. He gives sources for all the data. Anyone can go there and reproduce his work -- or disprove it. He didn't do the research himself -- he didn't gather any of the data. He is just using open source data to show how two drivers of climate change produce much, MUCH better matches than atmospheric CO2 concentration. He draws no conclusions. He simply overlays graphs, runs R2 correlations, and leaves it to the readers to reach their own conclusions. And objective readers will reach the same conclusion I and so many others have -- the correlation between global surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration is not very good at all, when examined over a timescale of a century. Quote: So sorry, but it is as accurate and reliable as any of the data you have presented in this thread. Quote: You keep going on about this supposedly vast difference between a graph of US surface temperature and a graph of global temperature. The fact of the matter is that although there are of course discrepancies, they are pretty damn close. If he had used the global NASA GISS graph, would the R2 values have been different? Sure they would have. But the CO2 R2 would still have been the lowest value of the three, with TSI second and PDO/AMO the best fit. Quote: LOL! You're the one who objected to my showing the readers raw "noisy" data. You claimed that only five year averaging (a form of smoothing) was acceptable, yadda yadda yadda. Now you're giving this guy grief for doing the same thing? Get real. Besides, he explains what he is doing and why he is doing it, and he still gives a bibliography of original source data for those who don't agree with his selection of noise removal and prefer to do their own. Quote: What wavelengths does that REAL graph cover? Does it extend into the ultraviolet? Quote: He is doing neither. And the irony of your complaining about using misleading curves is staggering after your progression of graph after graph with highly exaggerated Y axes. Quote: Actually, no. You haven't shown that the temperature graph of the US varies much from the temperature graph of the entire globe. I would be interested to see such a comparison. I suspect the rest of the readers would as well. Quote: There is a difference between weather and climate. And let's face it, every land mass on the planet has either the Pacific or the Atlantic on it, with most having them on both sides -- Eurasia is between the Pacific and the Atlantic. So is South America and Central America and Mexico and Canada. So is Antarctica. In fact, only Australia and Africa are not between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Quote: I said no such thing. Quote: I responded to you. You were just too revved up to notice it. I misled no one. All I did was point out (correctly) that the link you had used in that one post was an uncorrected one. Now, you may huff and whine that the corrections were so small as to be meaningless in the overall picture of things, but once again, that argument is used by Warmenists only when they choose to. If a new "hottest ever year" is recorded, they never note that it might be the hottest by 0.02 degrees, while Hansen's errors were greater than that. It's just "the hottest year evah"! We deniers just want some consistency. You can't have it both ways. Quote: Oooooh, man! Major blunder here. Stepped on your dick big time, dude. The Earth's atmosphere at sea level is in fact completely opaque to all frequencies of infrared light originating off-planet. This is why you never saw an infrared snapshot of the cosmos before IR telescopes were lofted into orbit. Or -- to put it into context of global warmening -- none of the black body radiation at IR frequencies originating at the planet's surface make it all the way out of the atmosphere. None of that energy is re-radiated into interplanetary space. Quote: Only by those folks who subscribe to the Warmenist agenda. Folks with an open mind long ago noticed solar activity correlates much more closely, and PDO/AMO even more so. And of course, historically (before the beginning of the Industrial Age) increases in temperature were caused by mechanisms other than humans. The Little Ice Age didn't occur because people stopped burning stuff. The Medieval Warm period didn't occur because humans burned stuff, nor did the Roman warming period (too bushed to look up the actual name for it. Holocene, maybe?). To get back to the political angle on this, it would be the height of madness for politicians to impoverish their populace on such flimsy -- and frankly ludicrous -- theorizing. This is just one of the many reasons McCain is merely the best of a bad lot. He has swallowed the Warmenist koolaid. I just hope he'll be too busy dealing with other stuff to ever actually do anything about Carbon taxes and CAFE gas mileage minimums and all the rest of that codswallop. Phred
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: When I show that without a doubt, the average temperature has been increasing since 1998. WhereI show yearly averages and 5 year averages to show the 2000s were hotter than the 1990s. Where I show that even their own notorious hadcrut graph from the hadley center shows average warming of the planet where I showed how comparing the hottest month in 1998 to the coldest in 2008 is not indicitive of average yearly temperatures decreasing this decade where I show that even with Phred's noisy month-by-month data chart that does not even use yearly averages, that even HIS chart represents an increasing trendline Users can determine the answer to #4 themselves, if they want. I've already shown that from 1998 to today, the temperature trend is still positive and increasing. Quote: I'm sorry, but I have to fault you on this mistake. Its a simple calculation, and its intent was to mislead people thinking the earth should be warming up more if global warming is happening because of CO2. Quote: The only part that you are correct on is that he does seem to be against corporations that are wantonly emitting carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air. If he is right, he has all the reason to. This certainly does not make him any less of a scientist though than al gore, and certainly doesnt, as you claimed earlier, make the IPCC equivalent to the ELF, a terrorist faction. Also, it IS an ad hominem, because you confuse attacking the messenger with attacking the issue to score you argument points. Nobody buys it. Quote: Uh... their observations were not suspect. It was a minor glitch that didn't affect global temperatures at all. What had happened was that during the NOAA restructuring of the computer network, NASA did not realize that there would be downtime, and that the NOAA would not be streaming real-time data anymore when it came to the 48 contiguous states, so the time the temperatures were taken were skewed a bit, because their information LAGGED compared to the global data stream. So truth be told, the US data was less reliable than the global data. However, this did not affect very many stations, and quite honestly, your accusations of global station data being off are baseless. The fix was easy. Furthermore, you didnt address my other points about the US-centric temperature graph, namely that you CANNOT get global data without global stations, and that there are US stations ALL OVER THE WORLD, and that HALF of the temperature readings are taken by the US government on the ocean's surface. -------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/05/08 07:21 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Sorry kid, but a proven liar has zero credibility. Hansen not lied about the data which he twisted to suit his agenda he lied that he was being censored when he was merely being subjected to "PEER REVIEW". Will you please stop including those fucking graphs in every fucking one of your fucking posts. Everybody who might be interested in actually looking at them has seen them 20 fucking times. Most of us are not impressed.
Let's cut to what we agree on In 100 years temps have risen less than one degree celsius while CO2 concentration has gone up 15%. Nobody can show that is due to increased CO2. CO2 concentration is slightly less than 0.0004%. Some utter loons think carbon dioxide is the hell spawn gas that will destroy the world in fire and brimstone. There is no reason to believe that CO2 causes global warming or that the current tiny warming is bad or unnatural or unusual. In fact, it is quite natural and normal, seeing as how it has happened over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again thousands of times.
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Heh. You're getting agitated. You have not shown that Hansen has zero credibility. You showed that he made an error of .003%, globally, and it was more of a NASA error than a Hansen error. That's better than most doctors, man. Your attacks and ad-hominems are completely unfounded, and you really have not answered the bulk of my responses to just about every claim you've made thus far. Quote: Yes, this is true. Quote: False. I have gone over this several times. I've gone over the physics and the correlations. Nobody can PROVE it, but they can certainly show the evidence. I believe I've done a good job at showing the evidence. I direct any users interested in forming their opinion on the matter to read the following posts: Where I list 30 sources that have concluded CO2 affects temperature Where I give official quotes from scientific organizations that solar variation is not responsible for the current warming trend Where I explain why and provide sources for why anthropogenic CO2 is the reason for the temperature increase and CO2 since 1880. Where another poster, seemingly caught between the sides, makes a good argument and comes to the conclusion that solar forcing is not responsible for modern heating, and that CO2 is a better correlation Another post where I showed a lack of correlation with solar irradiance Where I post two charts, showing lack of correlation with both Irradiance and Sunspot Numbers, and correlation with increasing CO2 Where I talked about the physics behind CO2 absorbtion of infrared frequencies and why they heat the atmosphere, using physics AND sources Quote: I'll say it again, you can look at the physics in the last link, but furthermore, this shows that you do not truly understand the capacity of CO2. Just because it makes up very little of the atmosphere, does not mean it cannot be a strong force. It is just like a thin sheet of construction paper will block out many more times the amount of light a 10 foot deep pool of pure water will. Quote: The person debating the issue on YOUR side asked me to show him the US graph and the World temperature graph to see the differences. Also, as far as people not being impressed, I notice that I got a lot of emails and shroom ratings for backing up my stances, even by the Admin Seuss. I notice you, on the other hand, got a 0 shroom rating. Draw your own conclusions, but do you really think you are making inroads with your distortions of fact? Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/07/08 02:32 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm going to ask yet again. Post one link that we can actually read that establishes that the concentration level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased temperature across the globe. For all your dancing and bullshit you have still not done that. Not one time. If you think you have, please present that as a stand alone link so I don't have to go through your whole pile of bullshit yet again. It actually is something that could be proven beyond say a 95% level of probability. If it existed.
Understand the capacity of CO2? Show it. There is no reason to believe your story. None. It is a fiction. Produce the link. Or just give it up already, Bojangles. All you offer is speculation and specious, twisted data from someone who lies. Hansen lied about more than you admit.
| |||||||
|
Cuban Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
Especially because it was being espoused by that arch turd, Al Gore, who I believe to be one of the most reprehensible and dishonest fuckholes ever birthed of woman.
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth" - And Replies by Drew Johnson, Tennessee Center for Policy Research posted February 26, 2007 Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh — more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh — guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. (The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.) chattanoogan.com -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I've sourced my stuff much more than you've sourced your stuff. The capacity of CO2, you want me to show it? Read these sources: Kaplan ground through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would certainly change the overall balance and temperature structure of the atmosphere. Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12. http://ams.allenpress.com/archiv The structure of the H2O and CO2 absorption bands at a given pressure and temperature needed to be considered in figuring just how much radiation is absorbed in any given layer. Every detail had to be taken into account in order to calculate whether adding a greenhouse gas would warm the atmosphere neglibly or by many degrees. Plass pursued these details with a thorough set of one-dimensional computations, taking into account the structure of the absorption bands at all layers of the atmosphere. His final figures showed convincingly that adding or subtracting CO2 could seriously affect the radiation balance layer by layer through the atmosphere, altering the temperature by a degree or more down to ground level. Plass, G.N. (1956). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29. Gonna have to purchase this one if you want to read it. Plass, G.N. (1956). "Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere." American J. Physics 24: 303-21. I think, though I'm not sure, that the american journal of physics can be found with most library searches. Plass, G.N. (1956). "Carbon Dioxide and the Climate." American Scientist 44: 302-16. You can buy it here if you dont have access to a library with it: http://www.springerlink.com/cont Plass, G.N. (1956). "Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate." American J. Physics 24: 376-87. Plass, G.N. (1959). "Carbon Dioxide and Climate." Scientific American, July, pp. 41-47 Anyone can access this if they have access to a library or such. Plass' articles seem to all be in journals that do not offer full text for free. Still, that does not make them any less remarkable. Some things you can do is look for journals that cite his articles, there are hundreds. Here is a good article citing plass' findings and also talking about the capacity of CO2 in the 15 micron band: http://ams.allenpress.com/archiv This is a very good article finding that water vapor and ozone have very little capacity in the upper atmosphere when compared to CO2, and this causes atmospheric heating. -------------------- .
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Oh, and here is a quote from my source, in response to an earlier claim by Phred:
http://ams.allenpress.com/archiv Quote: -------------------- .
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: That is putting it mildly. I have never seen the case for global warming laid out so convincingly and comprehensively as you have done here in our forum. I want to thank you for taking the time to prove the skeptics wrong, cleaning their clock, and doing so in a civil manner. And you did so in spite of powerful forces attempting to shut off the debate on the science side when it became clear they were losing. To the opposition's credit they did not make good on that threat. Classic thread and one which will long be remembered. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Dont thank me, I am just doing what I feel needs to be done. The responsibility now lies with you, and with every reader of this thread. Use it, because it contains responses to some VERY common global warming myths. Dont just stop here and read what I said, and walk away comforted that science has won... Because it has not. There are very powerful forces at work right now against the science, and it is your job as a human being to stand up for good science and show others exactly what you learned here. Take away these responses to other forums, other people. Don't let people say erroneous statements and just walk away. Read the data, educate yourself on the issue, you owe it to the world and mankind to educate yourself on this issue and take a stance, take a stand. Update: As a funny anecdote, this thread is about to be more read than the forum rules
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/06/08 12:25 AM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: And yet even though this is the most comprehensive and convincing case presented so far in this forum, it still falls far, FAR short of actually being, you know, convincing. The thing is, super has been great at hammering over and over and over again at all kinds of data which beg the question. The question being -- How significant is humanity's contribution to the very small increase in average global temperature over the last century? The Warmenist hypothesis is that the main driver for climate change is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and that human activity is responsible for the recent increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Neither of these hypotheses have been shown to be accurate. CO2 concentrations rose and fell repeatedly long before the Industrial Age began. In fact, long before humans ever appeared on the planet. Global surface temperatures also rose and fell repeatedly long before the Industrial Age began and long before humans appeared on the planet. And there is scientific evidence as strong and as peer-reviewed and as credible as anything supernovasky has presented here that increases in global temperature have preceded increases in CO2. Anyone with an objective eye can look at the graph of increasing CO2 concentration and note it is a pretty smooth increase. That same person can look at the NASA GISS graph and notice it is far from smooth. What the fuck happened between roughly 1940 and 1980? In a four decade span when the world was becoming increasingly industrialized (the post WWII boom), at a time when the CO2 concentration was rising steadily, the temperature was not increasing. How can that be? The Warmenists say, well, there were other factors involved during those four decades. Factors so powerful they completely overwhelmed the CO2 effect. Okay... fair enough. But why is that excuse only valid for CO2-induced warmening? Why is it not valid for TSI-induced warming and PDO-induced warming? Super has typed dozens of paragraphs shitting all over TSI and PDO, while carefully ignoring the fact that CO2 still fares even worse than either of them. No matter how many nits one can pick with the TSI and PDO correlation, one can pick a lot more with the CO2 correlation. Politicians may not be the best-informed individuals when it comes to arcane minutiae of climatology, but they aren't (as a whole) downright stupid. And they would have to be downright stupid to base economic policy on a hypothesis as flimsy as that being pushed by the Warmenists. When science can come up with a convincing reason for us to believe that the mechanisms which caused (as just one example) the Medieval Warm Period are not the same mechanisms causing the Post-War (current) warm period, then politicians should start thinking about taking action. Until then, they should keep their hands to themselves. Phred
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 2 months, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
> When science can come up with a convincing reason for us to believe ...
The problem is that politics has taken over this area of science. Want lots of funding, publications, etc, then publish data that is pro-global warming. Want to lose your funding, lose your job, and be hounded as a fraud of big oil, then publish data that supports anti-global warming. Not much different than the "science" that supports the drug war. When politics takes an interest in science, the validity of the science tends to go out the window. The system will eventually correct itself, but for now, politics has the win, Al has his Nobel Prize to justify his obscene energy usage, and the rest of us suffer as food (thanks gasohol) and "clean fuel" prices continue to climb. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
It wobbles my mind that the best you can do is some tangentially relevant studies from 50 years ago that do not even address what I am asking for. Are you trying to tell us all that there have been no studies that establish that CO2 causes global warming in the last 50 years? Because that's what you're telling me. Of course, I knew that already. But surely there must be some recent studies somewhere by somebody that can show some causal connection. Or maybe there just isn't.
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: But CO2 has not been seen in the amounts and concentrations that it is seen today. Furthermore, I direct readers back to the physics of CO2's radiative effects to determine for themselves whether or not the hypthesis is accurate or inaccurate. I tend to source all of my material, but I won't rehash on this topic. However, it is covered in detail in the following posts: back to earlier posts where I showed CO2 correlation and cursory explanation Where I explained the physics of CO2, the cursory explanation where I went into a much more detialed explanation of the physics behind CO2, with sources Where I go into a peer-reviewed source-filled response on CO2's affect on temperature, and even took the time to personally look for weblinks to journals that usually charge for their reports Quote: The reasons behind the precession of temperature to CO2 in the vostok temperature record are clear as day. Initial temperature spikes could not have been caused by CO2, because there was no mechanism that increases CO2 at the rate that we are seeing today, not even volcanic eruptions. There are other events that can also change temperature, and I have never argued that such events do not exist. Other forcings for temperature are well-explored in climatology. Take a look at the actual Vostok Ice Core Data: ![]() What you are looking at when you look at the Vostok Ice Core is the presence of cycles called Milankovitch cycles. This is a natural increase in temperature caused by orbital eccentricity and procession that occurs every tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. Milankovitch predicted these cycles in these papers: Milankovitch, Milutin (1930). "Mathematische Klimalehre und Astronomische Theorie der Kilimaschwankungen." In Handbuch der Klimatologie, edited by W. Köppen and R. Geiger, Vol. 1, Pt. A, pp. 1-176. Berlin: Borntraeger. Milankovitch, Milutin (1941). Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. Belgrade: Koniglich Serbische Akademie. And they were validated by the Volstok ice core data. Some scientists doubted that the time lag could be measured so precisely, but most of the evidence pointed to a lag. It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles. In fact most scientists had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called Milankovitch cycles) set the timing of ice ages. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia, altering how long snow lingered in the spring, which crucially affected how much sunlight was absorbed. The fact that carbon dioxide levels lagged behind the orbital effect should have been no surprise. But now this could be seen as the first step in a powerful feedback cycle. For even a small change in the gas level would bring further changes in the global heat balance, which would in turn alter the gas level, which... and so forth. This suggested how tiny shifts in the Earth's orbit could be amplified into the enormous swings of glacial cycles. Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop. This is further discussed in the following paper: Imbrie, John Z., et al. (1984). "The Orbital Theory of Pleistocene Climate: Support from a Revised Chronology of the Marine Delta-18O Record." In Milankovitch and Climate. Understanding the Response to Astronomical Forcing, edited by A. Berger et al., pp. 269-305. Dordrecht: Reidel. I also discussed feedback loops in earlier posts. Quote: It is because the world was becoming increasingly industrialized, that the world cooled. Woooah! Stop the presses, but I thought industrialization led to global warming! Not so fast. There were other, stronger factors at play in 1940 to the late 1970s. Before I talk about those effects, I want to bring up this graph that I'm sure anyone whose been watching this debate has seen so many times before: ![]() Take a look at the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. Why did the temperature drop so far then, when CO2 was increasing so fast? Nobody in their right mind, especially any self-respecting climatologist, will claim that there are no other forcers for climate. There was something else at play... The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global. Slightly cooler than usual temperatures recorded worldwide and the brilliant sunsets and sunrises have been attributed to this eruption that sent fine ash and gases high into the stratosphere, forming a large volcanic cloud that drifted around the world. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in this cloud -- about 22 million tons -- combined with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, blocking some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth and thereby cooling temperatures in some regions by as much as 0.5 degrees C. An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years. source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of9 So, we just discovered that some pollutants have a cooling effect. Namely, aerosols and sulfates. I wonder how, then, we can explain the cooling from 1940, to 1980... Well, with what I just said, sulfates would be a great place to look. After all, from 1940 to 1980, Sulfate emissions were skyrocketing and, in the late 1970s, because of international treaties and the baning of certain aerosols, the aerosol concentration in the atmosphere started dropping. Anyone can look at earlier graphs to see, also, that during the time period after 1970, CO2's slope increased plenty from what it was up until around 1950 and 1960. Therefore, the planet's temperature had to catch up with the CO2, that it had halted through the use of very harmful aerosols and sulfates that were leading to utter destruction of ecosystems, increased incidence of diseases and cancers, and horrible polution. Here is the graph of sulfate emissions... ![]() source: http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/ I want you to notice something, from looking at that chart. Check out 1946 on the sulfate chart. What happens? Sulfates drop a lot, and what happens to the temperature? It goes up a bit. I want you to also notice that from 1940-1980, humanity saw the largest increase of sulfates and aerosols in recorded history. As such, its powerful coolant effects stabilized the warming effects of CO2. This ended in 1980, which is when treaties were beginning to be signed that limited aerosol emissions. Likewise, what happened as soon as sulfate levels evened out, and even dropped a little? CO2 gained a higher slope, and temperatures started soaring again. Sulfates are temporary in the atmosphere. They are short lived, but powerful when they are emitted. They balance out faster than CO2 whenever there is no constant addition, as there was in 1940-1980. You can read much more about this from this source: Schneider, Stephen H., and Clifford Mass (1975). "Volcanic Dust, Sunspots and Long-Term Climate Trends: Theories in Search of Verification." In Proceedings of the WMO/IAMAP Symposium on Long-Term Climatic Fluctuations, Norwich, Aug. 1975 (WMO Doc. 421), edited by World Meteorological Organization (WMO), pp. 365-72. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization. Quote: Why do you call us "Warmenists"? Is that supposed to be a play on feminists? I already explained that TSI induced warming has very little correlation at all. Any reader can go to the earlier threads and find out why. I will also say that your attempt to prove that solar had a greater fit was through the use of only 2% of the earths surface, the US stations, which was just like what you did earlier when there were claims that 1934 was the hottest year in modern temperature records. Once again, you CANNOT use US temperature records alone to make ANY conclusions on the fit of global warming. Also, the PDO had the same problem. You matched it to the US climatological records, not the global ones. You matched the source of the US's yearly weather, (the PDO and AMO), to... get this, USA's yearly weather. Globally, the PDO and AMO too have virtually no fit. I explained why no scientist expects even close to a 100% correlation. There are several factors at work, and no single one of them can be responsible for all of the earths climate. CO2 is a powerful forcing factor, as has already been determined and sourced in the posts above, due to the physics behind CO2 and its strong correlation to temperature. Lastly, those that say that CO2 has little correlation with temperatures need only to look at the Vostok ice core data. I was under the impression that correlation was not what was up for debate, but causation (which is why I provided the physics behind the causation and the articles that were peer reviewed that came to that conclusion, that still stand to this date). The correlation of CO2 with temperature is not really up for debate, that matter is quite, quite settled, and represents a much better fit than anything else. Looking at modern times, CO2 still has a great fit. Temperature goes through cycles dictated by short-lived events and changes, that are usually seen as "up,down,up,down" spikes. CO2 is not matched with these up/down/up/down spikes, because, as you point out, it is pretty smooth to begin with. CO2 is instead matched with the average of those spikes, a line that runs straight through the middle of the periods of the curve, a "displacement" of the temperature cycles, if you will. Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/06/08 03:09 PM)
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It addresses exactly what you are asking for. Causation. They are papers that explain exactly how CO2 causes increased absorption. They are papers repudiating what Phred said about the earth's atmosphere being opague to infrared. They are papers whose validity still stand to this day, based on GREAT science, cited by many people since their time, and never unproven. What you are doing is called duck and run. You get what you are asking for, an explanation, a source. This has happened so many times in this debate. As soon as you got an answer, a credible answer, a source, a counterpoint, you move to a new topic of debate, and try to expand upon your original request. Plass and Kaplan were some of the brightest scientists of the 20th century. The matter was completely settled by them, and their radiation math still stands. Also remember that the second article I linked, this one: http://ams.allenpress.com/archiv Was in 1968. There really have been no new findings on this subject since then. It was proven, without a doubt, that CO2 has a much stronger effect in the upper atmosphere. Feel free to engage in counterpoint, if you want to talk more science, I'm a bit while I wrote this, so I will have to come back later when I am clear-headed to discuss the matter further. Apologies for those that have been following the debate if I cannot respond until tonight.
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/06/08 03:15 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
It sure wasn't proven in that study. Not even close. Or even addressed directly. Title of the study:
Infrared Radiative Cooling in the Middle Atmosphere Come on man, who's zooming who?
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Lol. This proves to me that you didnt read or understand the study, not even to the very end. Remember that cooling and heating are two sides to the same coin, temperature transfer. They wanted to see how easily earth cooled if it used the earlier model, opague to infrared, before Plass, Kaplan, and then much later, this paper came out, vs. how easily it cooled if it were not opague, focused on an analysis of the 15 micron band, the way at which CO2 traps heat. Of course, Plass and Kaplan had already determined that it was not opague, so this paper set to find out the effects that water vapor and ozone had on radiative heat escape. The way that the earths temperature is works is take radiative heating and subtract radiative cooling. The paper found that CO2's presence was much stronger than water vapor and ozone in preventing radiative cooling. Here is a line from the report: Quote: I will repost what I posted in an earlier post explaining exactly this effect. Quote: Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12. Plass, G.N. (1956). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29. Those are the major sources. Here is the other source, that I also assume you didnt read, with a pdf link to it... http://ams.allenpress.com/archiv This one goes MUCH more into depth on the causitive effect of CO2 on blocking radiative heat from escaping. Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/06/08 03:45 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
You keep giving me links to minutia that don't answer my question. They also are relatively ancient. The last one is from 1951. Why don't you point me to the line that establishes that any increase in glowbull temperature is due to CO2 concentration. Weren't we being fed a line of smoke about the coming ice age since these studies? Why yes, yes we were.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Good article on global warming. ( |
4,997 | 86 | 06/10/03 04:56 AM by Innvertigo | ||
![]() |
A look at global warming. ( |
13,994 | 119 | 02/27/04 01:07 AM by EchoVortex | ||
![]() |
Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria ( |
5,177 | 75 | 05/04/03 08:07 PM by luvdemshrooms | ||
![]() |
Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy ( |
10,911 | 112 | 08/31/04 07:48 PM by Gijith | ||
![]() |
Global Warming? ( |
2,409 | 37 | 07/18/03 06:49 PM by Innvertigo | ||
![]() |
More fantasies about global warming | 994 | 17 | 11/01/03 02:44 PM by d33p | ||
![]() |
Blair must tackle global warming | 463 | 1 | 05/28/04 10:30 AM by phi1618 | ||
![]() |
"The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair ( |
2,887 | 20 | 03/14/04 12:45 PM by silversoul7 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 39,558 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||




while I wrote this, so I will have to come back later when I am clear-headed to discuss the matter further. Apologies for those that have been following the debate if I cannot respond until tonight.
