The Strong Correlation Between Global Temperature Rise and CO2 Concentrations
Roger Coppock
between CO2 and global mean surface temperatures is
quite strong. The statistical relationship is far stronger than
for any other cause of the observed warming that the
industry pseudo-scientists propose. But then, being a
fossil fool flunky means ignoring things like numbers,
measurement, and logic.
In a recent post, James simply lied and said that there
was no correlation.
On Sep 23, 6:37 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> China Fights Back: Scientists Find ''no solid scientific evidence to
> strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations''
REALLY, James? I've posted solid scientific evidence
strictly correlating global temperature rise and CO2
concentrations many times on this forum. Since you've
been sleeping, I'll post the information again.
Please see the scatter plot of CO2 and Global Mean
Temperature here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg
This shows a very tight relationship between CO2 and
temperature over the last 5 decades.
The regression statistics are here:
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.11e+01 2.34e-01 47.3 <2e-16
CO2 9.03e-03 6.77e-04 13.3 <2e-16
Residual standard error: 0.102 on 49 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.784
F-statistic: 178 on 1 and 49 DF, p-value: <2e-16
(Those who are new to statistical correlation and
"R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html
Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed
relationships.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-= The Data =-=-=-=-=-=-=
The global mean surface "Temp"erature data are the GISS
adjusted J-D yearly land and sea average, available from
NASA at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The "CO2" data are the yearly averages of the monthly data
from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at:
Benj
> Fossil fool flunkies, like James, deny it, but the correlation
> between CO2 and global mean surface temperatures is
> quite strong. The statistical relationship is far stronger than
> for any other cause of the observed warming that the
> industry pseudo-scientists propose. But then, being a
> fossil fool flunky means ignoring things like numbers,
> measurement, and logic.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
You think that you are so clever you can fool all the rubes out here.
You aren't. You are just a chip off the old Algore.
Of course there is a correlation betwen Atmospheric CO2 levels and
global mean surface temperature! Most of the surface of the planet is
water! And the sea (like soda pop) gives off or takes up CO2
according to it's mean temperature.
Your (and Academy Award winner Algore's) Big Lie is that this is a
CAUSAL relationship. You and yours tell the lie over and over that CO2
CAUSES warming, when in fact it is warming that causes CO2 levels to
increase. The IR absorption of CO2 is simply not great enough to EVER
be anything but a very minor cause of "global warming". Water vapor is
far more plentiful and has the big absorption bands. What's your idea?
Cover the oceans with plastic?
Idiot.
leona...@gmail.com
> between CO2 and global mean surface temperatures is
> quite strong.
•• Bullshit as usual, Roger
The world's oceans are being heated by
underwater tectonic activity - underwater
volcanic eruptions and blisteringly hot magma
seeping up from cracks in the sea floor.
The heated ocean water creates high levels of
CO2 that it sends aloft along with huge amounts
of moisture. That moisture becomes precipitation
— rain in the spring, summer, and fall, and snow
in the winter. Increased amounts of moisture in
the upper atmosphere equals increased amounts
of precipitation.
The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
heavenward and the heavier the precipitation. This
explains the large number of record-breaking
rainfalls we've been seeing in the past couple of
years — with as noted above, areas of the United
States getting 20 inches of rain in a day or so.
>
> The "CO2" data are the yearly averages of the monthly data
> from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at:
>
> ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
•• You can shove all your statistics where the Sun
don't shine. It doesn't matter what IPCC, NASA,
Hadley, or NOAA say, it is all fascist political junk.
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Surfer
>
> It doesn't matter what IPCC, NASA,
> Hadley, or NOAA say, it is all fascist political junk.
>
Lets look at graphs then:
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2
http://www2.grist.org/gristmill/images/user/6932/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Decreasing extent of Arctic sea ice
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
Orval Fairbairn
Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
.... and all of that is due to a change in atmospheric concentration of
CO2 of 0.000314 to 0.00038? c'mon, get REAL!
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:15:51 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
>
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter what IPCC, NASA,
> > Hadley, or NOAA say, it is all fascist political junk.
>
> Lets look at graphs then:
>
** ROTFLMAO
Measuring gas coming out of a volcano pure idiocy
> Decreasing extent of Arctic sea icehttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
** NOT happening-- period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Carbon dioxide
** Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical
compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently
bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard
temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's
atmosphere in this state.
** Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis
to make sugars, which may either be consumed in
respiration or used as the raw material to produce other
organic compounds needed for plant growth and
development. It is produced during respiration by plants,
and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend
either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a
major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is
generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels
or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical
processes. Small amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted
from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as
hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates
in crustal rocks.
** As of March 2009, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere
is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.[1] Atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the
change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant
growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of
carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer
as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern
autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay.
** Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light
but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.
** Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1
atmospheres. At 1 atmosphere (near mean sea level pressure),
the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below
-78 °C and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above -78 °C.
In its solid state, carbon dioxide is commonly called dry ice.
CO2 is an acidic oxide: an aqueous solution turns litmus from
blue to pink. It is the anhydride of carbonic acid, an acid
which is unstable and is known to exist only in aqueous
solution.
** CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will
make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to
10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing
dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to
an hour.[3]
** Typically the gas we exhale is about 4% to 5% carbon
dioxide and 4% to 5% less oxygen than was inhaled.
** Breathing produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of
carbon dioxide per day per person.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
-- --
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <409tb5965vdg43ajbpipraj2o4rf61c...@4ax.com>,
>
> Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:15:51 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
> > <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't matter what IPCC, NASA,
> > > Hadley, or NOAA say, it is all fascist political junk.
>
> > Lets look at graphs then:
>
> > Rising levels of atmospheric CO2
>
> > Decreasing extent of Arctic sea ice
> >http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
>
> .... and all of that is due to a change in atmospheric concentration of
> CO2 of 0.000314 to 0.00038? c'mon, get REAL!
•• ROTFLMAO
You get real, Fairbum.
Measuring CO2 from a volcano is like measuring
your farts.
Decreasing extent of Arctic sea ice~~ Plainly false
1- Neither of those links represent anything worth noting.
In any event, CO2 has NO effect on the climate, IPCC
and Algore notwithstanding.
Sam Wormley
>
> In any event, CO2 has NO effect on the climate, IPCC
> and Al Gore notwithstanding.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
---some recent data---
The Arctic Offers More Evidence of Human Influences on Climate Change
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115010&org=NSF&preview=false
"Recent, sudden and dramatic Arctic warming was preceded by almost
2,000 years of natural cooling"
Global Warming Could Forestall Ice Age
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html
Emissions Linked to End of 2,000-Year Arctic Trend
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html
Darrell Kaufman explains Arctic sensitivity to climate change
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_videos.jsp?cntn_id=115010&media_id=65582&org=NSF
Arctic at warmest levels in 2,000 years or more
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/ncfa-aaw083109.php
leona...@gmail.com
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > In any event, CO2 has NO effect on the climate, IPCC
> > and Al Gore notwithstanding.
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>
> ---some recent data---
>
> The Arctic Offers More Evidence of Human Influences on Climate Change
>
> "Recent, sudden and dramatic Arctic warming was preceded by almost
> 2,000 years of natural cooling"
>
> Global Warming Could Forestall Ice Age
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html
>
> Emissions Linked to End of 2,000-Year Arctic Trend
>
> Darrell Kaufman explains Arctic sensitivity to climate change
>
> Arctic at warmest levels in 2,000 years or more
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/ncfa-aaw083109.php
•• No science in the bunch
You have to do better, Worms.
Sam Wormley
> On Sep 27, 1:21 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> In any event, CO2 has NO effect on the climate, IPCC
>>> and Al Gore notwithstanding.
>>
>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>>
>> ---some recent data---
>>
>> The Arctic Offers More Evidence of Human Influences on Climate Change
>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115010&org=NSF&preview=...
>>
>> "Recent, sudden and dramatic Arctic warming was preceded by almost
>> 2,000 years of natural cooling"
>>
>> Global Warming Could Forestall Ice Age
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html
>>
>> Emissions Linked to End of 2,000-Year Arctic Trend
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR200...
>>
>> Darrell Kaufman explains Arctic sensitivity to climate change
>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_videos.jsp?cntn_id=115010&media_id=65582...
>>
>> Arctic at warmest levels in 2,000 years or more
>> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/ncfa-aaw083109.php
>
> •• No science in the bunch
> You have to do better, Worms.
>
Like I tell my students, Leonard, you have to *read* the material!
Sam Wormley
> You can shove all your statistics where the Sun
> don't shine. It doesn't matter what IPCC, NASA,
> Hadley, or NOAA say, it is all fascist political junk.
>
<smiling>
My, my, Leonard, can you articulate any reason why you hold
such hostility toward the people and organization you noted
above?
-Sam
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
I M @ good guy
wrote:
And then what, wring your hands, or twiddle your fingers?
Or send money to Al Gore to invest in planting trees?
The wiki statement that "the carbon dioxide gas" in
the atmosphere "transmits visible light" is funny, who
thought that up, as if one molecule of CO2 being bounced
around by 2000 molecules of N2 and 500 molecules of
O2 could ever be opaque to visible light.
The world has gone mad, with the media and paid
TV advertising "teaching" that everybody can get rich
playing the stock market, a president that expresses
a goal of making the world "free" of nuclear weapons,
and a new AGW sucker born every day to bore us
telling us how we can go green while video shows
women and children painting walls green.
And what does the future hold, a bunch of
green monkeys freezing to death?
Marvin the Martian
> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> In any event, CO2 has NO effect on the climate, IPCC and Al Gore
>> notwithstanding.
>
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Works wonderful on Mars. Not.
> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
Man, even when you know what's wrong with a paper the way you use it, you
keep using it incorrectly.
< snip proof crap gets published >
Marvin the Martian
< snip Wormley's correlation proves causation fallacy, which he says he
doesn't make because he does, and he wants his falsehood to be believed. >
The entire IPCC argument is nothing more than one big "correlation proves
causation" argument. Two problems: 1) Correlation proves causation is a
well known fallacy in science, one no real scientist would make it. So
anyone who makes this argument isn't a scientist; not about the subject
they are making it in, anyway. 2) the correlation went negative in 1998,
so the fallacy isn't even based on anything true!
One is reminded of the fact that piracy is also correlated to global
warming. The recent rise in piracy off the African coast correlates well
with the recent cooling trend. Ergo, in Wormy science, we can stop global
warming by producing more pirates.
http://seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
What? That kind of thinking works for Wormley and the IPCC! You say there
is no mechanism for pirates to produce global warming? Well, there is no
mechanism for CO2 to cause warming, either. That's what all the failed
"computer models" were about.
Lets study what correlation REALLY means.
Correlation between measurements A and B can mean:
1) A causes B.
2) B causes A.
3) C causes A and B.
4) Random chance caused the correlation.
The Pirates to CO2 correlation falls under case 4.
Now, what Wormley is ignoring, in his consistently half truth deceptive
way, is: 1) that solar cycle is even more strongly correlated to global
temperature than CO2 and 2) CO2 increases LAG temperature increases. The
data was literally fudged to move increases CO2 back in time so it could
cause the warming, since we still believe in causality and the prospect
of finding tachyons is looking pretty grim.
Now, if solar cycle is much more strongly correlated to global
temperature than CO2, then there is NO WAY CO2 can be the major cause of
the warming, as CO2 cannot cause the solar cycle.
So, the man made Global warming non-hypothesis is once again debunked.
(This non-hypothesis can be debunked by a couple of arguments, this is
one of them.)
A smart fellow named Svensmark noted the stronger correlation with solar
cycle. He developed a theory that solar winds blew away cosmic rays that
caused cloud cover in the lower atmosphere, much in the same way
physicist use "cloud chambers" to study high energy sub atomic particle
trajectories.
Svensmark tested mechanism at CERN and verified it. Mind you, NO ONE has
been able to show how CO2 caused the observed warming. Calculations and
measurements show that cloud cover causes cooling. Svensmark came up with
a complete theory of Global climate change. It not only predicted the
last decade of non-warming, but is consistent with the last 4 billion
years of climate data.
Some additional factoids:
1) The IPCC and the global warming frauds fought like hell to keep
Svensmark from being funded. They didn't want to be exposed as damned
liars and a blot on the good name of science.
2) The computer models of the IPCC failed to predict the last ten years,
yet they insist, for no good reason, that they can predict the next ten
years. Perhaps using Svensmark's theory, they can!
3) The solar cycle correlation was shown back in the 1990s. The
"rebuttal" was the fabrication of the "hockey stick" global temperature
increase. They argument was that solar cycle and global temperature were
correlated up until the late 1990s, but this correlation was broken with
the rise in CO2. This increase was fabricated using urbanized data
points. It was false. Once these data points were thrown out, the strong
correlation was again shown to predict. This "error" could have been due
to gross and utter stupidity, but more likely it was out and out fraud.
Either way, idiots or frauds, do you want to believe them?
Bruce Richmond
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:33:08 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
Oh, I vote for planting trees.... because we're going to be cutting a
lot of them to heat our homes, and maybe fire our power stations as
well. At least we wont be using fossil fuels :)
> The wiki statement that "the carbon dioxide gas" in
> the atmosphere "transmits visible light" is funny, who
> thought that up, as if one molecule of CO2 being bounced
> around by 2000 molecules of N2 and 500 molecules of
> O2 could ever be opaque to visible light.
>
> The world has gone mad, with the media and paid
> TV advertising "teaching" that everybody can get rich
> playing the stock market, a president that expresses
> a goal of making the world "free" of nuclear weapons,
> and a new AGW sucker born every day to bore us
> telling us how we can go green while video shows
> women and children painting walls green.
>
> And what does the future hold, a bunch of
> green monkeys freezing to death?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam Wormley
You are free to dissect the paper in this forum, Marvin.
leona...@gmail.com
•• Excellent analysis!!!
Sam Wormley
I don't thing you made on credible point, Marvin. You routinely confuse
weather and climate and are very short sighted.
Marvin the Martian
I've done that already. That was my point in THIS post.
The paper rebuts an argument that the greenhouse gas effect EXISTS.
That the greenhouse effect results in about a 30 C increase in mean
global temperature is accepted fairly well. I don't dispute it at all. It
is also well known to be due to WATER VAPOR, not carbon dioxide. Carbon
Dioxide has a very small contribution, and human made Carbon dioxide even
LESS of a contribution, amounting to only 0.03 C, which is down in the
noise level.
I pointed this out to you and you keep offering up the same paper as
proof that CO2 causes all the greenhouse effect. That is not just stupid,
but stubbornly stupid. That's stupid that can't be cured by education.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sep 27, 5:43 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:33:08 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
> > wrote:
> > >leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Sep 27, 1:21 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> In any event, CO2 has NO effect on the climate, IPCC
> > >>>> and Al Gore notwithstanding.
>
> > >>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > >>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> > >>> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> > >>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>
> > >>> The Arctic Offers More Evidence of Human Influences on Climate Change
> > >>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115010&org=NSF&preview=...
•• Fake computer data worthless
> > >>> "Recent, sudden and dramatic Arctic warming was preceded by almost
> > >>> 2,000 years of natural cooling"
[several worthless and fraudulent links snipped]
•• Upside down cake (of ice)
>
> > >> •• No science in the bunch
> > >> You have to do better, Worms.
>
> > > Like I tell my students, Leonard, you have to *read* the material!
•• Not your "material" it is all false. If you are
teaching what you post here they would do
better putting worms on hooks down by the
riverside
>
> > And then what, wring your hands, or twiddle your fingers?
> > Or send money to Al Gore to invest in planting trees?
>
> Oh, I vote for planting trees.... because we're going to be cutting a
> lot of them to heat our homes, and maybe fire our power stations as
> well. At least we wont be using fossil fuels :)
•• Without what you call fossil fuels (no fossils at
all) you will freeze fast
>
> > The wiki statement that "the carbon dioxide gas" in
> > the atmosphere "transmits visible light" is funny, who
> > thought that up, as if one molecule of CO2 being bounced
> > around by 2000 molecules of N2 and 500 molecules of
> > O2 could ever be opaque to visible light.
•• The trace gas CO2 and the micro trace gas NO2
are up there for a special purpose having little
or no climate impact. The only GH gas is pure
H2O and it is opaque to visible light. It also
serves to diistribute the fertilzers carbon and
nitrogen in the rain and snow
> > The world has gone mad, with the media and paid
> > TV advertising "teaching" that everybody can get rich
> > playing the stock market, a president that expresses
> > a goal of making the world "free" of nuclear weapons,
> > and a new AGW sucker born every day to bore us
> > telling us how we can go green while video shows
> > women and children painting walls green.
>
> > And what does the future hold, a bunch of
> > green monkeys freezing to death?
•• The various governments and the UN are dishing
out big money to anyone will set up a computer
that will prove the climate is warming. Until the
money runs out nothing will change.
•• When will the money run out, is any one's guess
but I expect a couple of unforecast extreme
weather events close together might do the trick.
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:23:40 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:21:03 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>>> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
>>>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>>> Man, even when you know what's wrong with a paper the way you use it,
>>> you keep using it incorrectly.
>>>
>>>
>> You are free to dissect the paper in this forum, Marvin.
>
> I've done that already. That was my point in THIS post.
>
> The paper rebuts an argument that the greenhouse gas effect EXISTS.
>
> That the greenhouse effect results in about a 30 C increase in mean
> global temperature is accepted fairly well. I don't dispute it at all. It
> is also well known to be due to WATER VAPOR, not carbon dioxide.
There are many greenhouse gases, Marvin, all making contributions
over different wavelengths and more importantly in different ways.
You cannot (can not) accurately compare their affects (H2O, CO2, O3,
CH4, N2O) by their abundances, as you seem to do.
Carbon
> Dioxide has a very small contribution, and human made Carbon dioxide even
> LESS of a contribution, amounting to only 0.03 C, which is down in the
> noise level.
CO2 is a bigger contributor than you are giving credit to. So your
continuing to point out your misconception is invalid.
leona...@gmail.com
>
> I don't thing you made on credible point, Marvin. You routinely confuse
> weather and climate and are very short sighted.
•• Typical bullshitting by an alarmist worm
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow
the logic of what you say. You
have to tell
them what is right in very
simple terms. If
they don't agree, then
you'll never be able
to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say
goes against their
religious belief, they
will cling to that
religious belief even if
it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew
what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
Sam Wormley
> On Sep 27, 2:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't thing you made on credible point, Marvin. You routinely confuse
>> weather and climate and are very short sighted.
>
<snipped the crap>
Leonard, you appear to be having a problem accepting that the earth is
currently experiencing a warming trend as evidenced by melting ice
world-wide.
leona...@gmail.com
•• That is quite understandable, seeing as you only
read the propaganda sites. Anything coming from
NOAA, NASA, etc and those scientists with
Federal funding must pay the piper's tune.
•• It is slowly happening now, but the pace will
accelerate within 5 years. BTW— there is NO
warming trend evidenced by melting ice
world-wide. It is a massive hoax
•• You might remember reading last spring about
the European group that was going to prove
global warming by sledding to the North Pole.
They had to be pulled out after only a few days.
Sam Wormley
>> Leonard, you appear to be having a problem accepting that the earth is
>> currently experiencing a warming trend as evidenced by melting ice
>> world-wide.
> BTW— there is NO warming trend evidenced by melting ice world-wide. It is a massive hoax
>
Massive hoax? Who's coordinating?
Marvin the Martian
You appear to be having a problem accepting that global temperature is
measured by taking the average of temperatures throughout the globe, and
not by mistaking ice flows from melting ice in particular locations.
In other words, you're just lying. The data is the data and just because
the data debunks your preconceived conclusion doesn't mean you get to
choose anecdotal data, and then twist that, to fit your conclusion.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:23:40 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:21:03 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
>>>>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>>>> Man, even when you know what's wrong with a paper the way you use it,
>>>> you keep using it incorrectly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are free to dissect the paper in this forum, Marvin.
>>
>> I've done that already. That was my point in THIS post.
>>
>> The paper rebuts an argument that the greenhouse gas effect EXISTS.
>>
>> That the greenhouse effect results in about a 30 C increase in mean
>> global temperature is accepted fairly well. I don't dispute it at all.
>> It is also well known to be due to WATER VAPOR, not carbon dioxide.
>
> There are many greenhouse gases, Marvin, all making contributions
> over different wavelengths and more importantly in different ways.
> You cannot (can not) accurately compare their affects (H2O, CO2, O3,
> CH4, N2O) by their abundances, as you seem to do.
So, you're also ignorant that water vapor is responsible for about 95% of
the greenhouse effect, and CO2 only about 3-4%.
How droll.
> Carbon
>> Dioxide has a very small contribution, and human made Carbon dioxide
>> even LESS of a contribution, amounting to only 0.03 C, which is down in
>> the noise level.
>
> CO2 is a bigger contributor than you are giving credit to. So your
> continuing to point out your misconception is invalid.
Now there is a self serving fact pulled from your ass. See "Global
warming: are we confusing cause and effect" by Khilyuk and published in
Energy Sources, Vol 25, Issue 4, April 2003. That's where I got the 0.03
C.
Sam Wormley
Marvin, I'll bet you really get steamed up watching this NOVA
Program, titled, "Extreme Ice".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/program.html
"Scientists agree that in the next 50 to 100 years, mountain glaciers
almost everywhere will disappear. Their abrupt collapse raises
disturbing questions about the Earth's biggest tracts of ice, the
polar ice domes of Greenland and Antarctica, as James Balog sees
firsthand in Greenland".
"Over 100 million people live within three feet of sea level—the
very amount that experts expect seas to rise by 2100. Cities will
spend trillions on coastal defenses, low-lying regions such as
Florida and Bangladesh will be devastated, and many island nations
will cease to exist. Overall, the consequences will test our ability
to adapt like never before".
Marvin the Martian
That the ice age is over is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute
that the ice age didn't end because of humans. So, this is irrelevant
gibberish.
What you're trying to prove is that the warming, which stopped in 1998,
is caused by human produced CO2. You can't even show it was produced by
CO2 period, much less human produced CO2. Nor can you even show that
humans are the cause of the CO2 increase.
Now go gibber at someone who cares to listen to your drivel.
Sam Wormley
>
> So, you're also ignorant that water vapor is responsible for about 95% of
> the greenhouse effect, and CO2 only about 3-4%.
Are either of the two green house gases "self regulation"? If
so which one.
Ref: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
It’s been a busy week for water vapor, and I have two recent papers to discuss. The first
is the paper "Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase
temperature in Europe" by Rolf Philipona et al. (GRL, 2005, subscription required for full
text), which has attracted a certain amount of media attention. The overall goal of the
paper is to understand, from a physical standpoint, why European temperatures have been
increasing three times faster than the Northern Hemisphere average. It focuses on the
changes between 1995 and 2002, over which time good surface radiation budget observations
are available. The paper reports some results on the role of large scale circulation
changes (which they conclude are minor) but I’ll concentrate on the results relating to
water vapor.
The most interesting result may be summarized as follows. Measurements from a network of
six Alpine surface budget stations indicate that the primary radiative forcing driving the
increase in surface temperature is an increase of downward clear sky infrared from the
atmosphere to the surface. The annual average increase in this term is nearly 4 Watts per
square meter between 1995 and 2002. Net cloud effects are relatively less important.
Moreover, the increase in downward clear sky infrared is correlated with an increase in
atmospheric temperature, and also an increase in the water vapor content of the surface
layer of the atmosphere. Using a simple radiation model, the authors conclude that about a
third of the increase in downwelling infrared is due to the increase in atmospheric
temperature,and the rest is due primarily to an increase in the water vapor content of the
low level atmosphere. This happens because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so increasing
the water vapor content makes air act more like a perfect blackbody emitter, if the air is
not already opaque to infrared. In this case, increasing water vapor content will make the
air a better absorber and emitter, even if its temperature doesn’t change. From this
result we learn that: (a) observations confirm the expected increase of low level water
vapor content with temperature , and (b) the increase in water vapor accounts for the bulk
of the increase in downward radiation heating the surface.
The authors then subtract off the part of the downward infrared radiation increase
attributable to temperature and water vapor increase, and thus estimate the part due
directly (as opposed to via feedbacks) to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases
such as CO2. They estimate this to be about one third of a Watt per square meter. This is
not in bad agreement with estimates from detailed radiation models run by the authors,
which say that the change in surface radiation due to the 12ppm CO2 increase between 1995
and 2002 should be about one fourth of a Watt per square meter. It is striking that the
changes in the Earth’s surface radiation budget due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases are
so profound that they can be directly observed on a regional scale, over such a short time
period. So far, so good. Physics seems to be working as it should, and climate scientists
seem to be basing their understanding of climate change on rock-solid physical principles.
The authors do not fall into the trap of assuming that water vapor is the root cause of
the observed warming. They understand fully well that water vapor acts as a feedback to
amplify forcing due to CO2 increase, and make this clear in their paper. This paper does
not, however, deal directly with the problem of whether European warming can be attributed
to CO2 increase. It only shows that, whatever mechanism is causing the warming of the
atmosphere in this region, the surface warming is being amplified by low level water vapor
feedbacks.
The accuracy of the media coverage of Phillipona et al. is decidedly mixed. The BBC got
the scientific story straight (warming due to water vapor amplifying anthropogenic
effects, everything working as it should, no worries about the physics, mate.), but their
otherwise sound article was published with the unfortunate sub-header "Water vapour rather
than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main reason why Europe’s climate is warming,
according to a new study." This gives the casual reader the erroneous impression that the
study concludes CO2 is unimportant. It feeds the old, discredited skeptics’ notion that
the water vapor greenhouse effect is so dominant that there’s no need to be concerned
about CO2. National Geographic is a little breathless: " The latest villain on global
warming’s most-wanted list is all wet—and a little surprising. Water vapor, experts say,
is the culprit behind Europe’s rapidly rising temperatures." However, they get the basic
scientific story straight, quoting Philipona as saying "It is an experiment that clearly
shows which factors are driving the higher temperatures. It is not the clouds, not the
sun, not the aerosols. It is the increased greenhouse gases and the strong water vapor
impact." UPI is probably the worst of the bunch. They state "Swiss scientists say Europe’s
recent rapid temperature increase is likely due to an unexpected greenhouse gas: water
vapor." Unexpected? If they were readers of RealClimate, they’d know better.
All of this was relatively harmless, but all the coverage missed the boat in the same way.
Press reports failed to note that the water vapor feedback discussed in Philipona et al.
is not the same water vapor feedback usually discussed in connection with global warming.
It is instead a surface water vapor feedback which adds additional surface warming on top
of the usual things we talk about. The effect is already incorporated in the climate
models used in IPCC forecasts, but the new observational study will be useful as a
reality-check.
Phillipona et al. analyzed trends in the energy budget of the Earth’s surface. While this
is definitely an aspect of climate change, it comes as a surprise to many that the surface
energy budget plays a decidedly secondary role in climate change compared to the
top-of-atmosphere energy budget. The fact is, that even if the diligent Swiss authors of
this paper had found that increasing CO2 contributed nothing to the changes in the surface
budget, this would have in no way contradicted our understanding of the way anthropogenic
greenhouse gases influence climate. For the most part, surface temperature changes are
determined by perturbations to the top-of-atmosphere budget, and the surface budget is
just dragged along, accomodating itself to whatever changes in surface temperature are
demanded in order to be able to satisfy the top of atmosphere budget. It is impossible to
understand the greenhouse effect without thoroughly understanding this point. Even the
authors of Phillipona et al. seem to be a little fuzzy on this matter. They seem to think
they are looking at the same water vapor feedback discussed in various review articles on
the subject (e.g. Held and Soden (Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441– 475. (2000)),
Pierrehumbert et al. ("On the Relative Humidity of the Earth’s Atmosphere" in The General
Circulation, T. Schneider and A. Sobel, eds. Princeton U. Press 2005,) Pierrehumbert
(Subtropical water vapor as a mediator of rapid global climate change. . in Clark PU, Webb
RS and Keigwin LD eds. Mechanisms of global change at millennial time scales. American
Geophysical Union:Washington, D.C. Geophysical Monograph Series 112, 394 pp1999), and the
RealClimate article on the subject). but they are not. I shall try to explain.
In equilibrium, the Earth must lose as much energy out the top of its atmosphere as it
gains by absorption of Solar energy. This is the principle of energy balance that controls
the climate of all Earthlike planets. Currently our planet is out of equilibrium because
the rapid rise of carbon dioxide is more than the slow response time of the oceans can
keep up with; even if CO2 increase were halted today, the planet would continue to warm
for a while as it comes into equilibrium. Planets only have one way of losing energy,
which is by infrared radiation to space, often called "Outgoing Longwave Radiation," or
OLR. The next piece of the story is that convection is always lifting air from the ground
to high altitudes in the troposphere, causing the air to cool by expansion as it rises.
This is the basic reason that temperature goes down with height in the troposphere.
Convection and other dynamical heat transport mechanisms link together all the air in the
troposphere, so that, to a first approximation, the whole troposphere can be considered to
warm and cool as a unit. It doesn’t matter much where you put in or take out heat from the
troposphere.. It is mainly the net energy budget of the troposphere that counts. Now, if
the atmosphere contains a greenhouse gas, the atmosphere will be partly opaque to infrared
trying to escape from the surface. Infrared from the surface will be absorbed before it
gets very far. As a result, the infrared that escapes to space comes more from the higher,
colder parts of the atmosphere. Since infrared radiation increases like the fourth power
of temperature, the radiation from these layers is much feebler than the radiation that
would escape from the ground. On the other hand, the radiation into the ground comes
predominantly from the warm layers nearest the ground.
You need to read the rest, Marvin, with the figures and depth of discussion
about water vapor.
Sam Wormley
So the real question boils down to: You say warming stopped in 1998
and the scientific community says we are going to have accelerated
warming for the next century.
Why is there such a big discrepancy between you and the scientific
community on this issue?
-Sam
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:09:55 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sep 27, 2:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I don't thing you made on credible point, Marvin. You routinely
> >>> confuse weather and climate and are very short sighted.
>
> > <snipped the crap>
>
> > Leonard, you appear to be having a problem accepting that the earth
> > is currently experiencing a warming trend as evidenced by melting ice
> > world-wide.
>
> You appear to be having a problem accepting that global temperature is
> measured by taking the average of temperatures throughout the globe, and
> not by mistaking ice flows from melting ice in particular locations.
>
AGW alarmist trick. You claim a "warming trend as
evidenced by melting ice world-wide".
Then you say "not by mistaking ice flows from
melting ice in particular locations."
••The globe has been cooling for at least 10 years.
Better catch up on your reading.
leona...@gmail.com
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:09:55 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
•• And it is all IPCC bullshit
Sam Wormley
>>> choose anecdotal data, and then twist that, to fit your conclusion.
>> Marvin, I'll bet you really get steamed up watching this NOVA
>> Program, titled, "Extreme Ice".
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/program.html
>>
>> "Scientists agree that in the next 50 to 100 years, mountain glaciers
>> almost everywhere will disappear. Their abrupt collapse raises
>> disturbing questions about the Earth's biggest tracts of ice, the
>> polar ice domes of Greenland and Antarctica, as James Balog sees
>> firsthand in Greenland".
>>
>> "Over 100 million people live within three feet of sea level—the
>> very amount that experts expect seas to rise by 2100. Cities will
>> spend trillions on coastal defenses, low-lying regions such as
>> Florida and Bangladesh will be devastated, and many island nations
>> will cease to exist. Overall, the consequences will test our ability
>> to adapt like never before".
>
> •• And it is all IPCC bullshit
Why do you think it has anything to do with the IPCC and why
do you think it is bullshit, Leonard?
Sam Wormley
> The globe has been cooling for at least 10 years.
> Better catch up on your reading.
>
Are you saying the overall warming trend of the last century
is incorrect or over? What evidence can you cite?
Sam Wormley
> CO2 vs Temperature Correlation Just 0.07
>
> 18 Jul 2009
> The graph below demonstrates virtually NO
> CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature.
>
> R-squared correlation strength of just 0.07.
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/17/ipcc-lead-author-on-global-warming-conclusions-were-not-scientifically-there-yet/
>
Do the same for this graph...
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2sm.gif
leona...@gmail.com
•• Better find better reading matter, it's all over the
web. Don't look for in the MSM They are still
kissing Obama's ass.
•• BTW I don't need to prove that global warming
does not exist, when its proponents fail to prove
that it does.
•• Why more scientists have not yet come out
against global warming? Read this article:
From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into
silence.
by RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 A.M. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane
activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything
from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed
on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural
gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely
discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean
temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public
acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can
it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of
climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle
of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped
by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political
stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research
to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who
puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where
there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate
alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate
research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion
today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind,
hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other
energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists
who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear,
their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges,
scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change
gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and
the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex
underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is
agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly
told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global
temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century;
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the
same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims
are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims
neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's
responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In
fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually
demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them.
It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we
know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that
couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly
policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature
differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less
difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical
storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion.
Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical
storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world
would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy
for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of
evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature
but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for
starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity,
not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this
junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not
merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep.
Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some
of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded
analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and
1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was
based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a
means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so
before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult
because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the
details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann
was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National
Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society
and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that
Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of
intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific
community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al
Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried
to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our
views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific
community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist
Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a
request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were
mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously
labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-
fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk
Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch
Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings
of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s
World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first
head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning
climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and
Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently
losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific
journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about
accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are
commonly refused without review as being without interest. However,
even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with
some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave
under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris
Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased
temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback
sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally,
criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to
which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this
case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared,
claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and
longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as
"discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find
out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S.
National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our
knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council
instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not
whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is
essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists
today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron
triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at
MIT.
Sam Wormley
> On Sep 27, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The globe has been cooling for at least 10 years.
>>> Better catch up on your reading.
>> Are you saying the overall warming trend of the last century
>> is incorrect or over? What evidence can you cite?
>
> •• Better find better reading matter, it's all over the
> web. Don't look for in the MSM They are still
> kissing Obama's ass.
I really disappointed you cannot cite data that supports that
the "globe has been cooling for at least 10 years".
>
> •• BTW I don't need to prove that global warming
> does not exist, when its proponents fail to prove
> that it does.
I simply asked you to cite data that supports that
the "globe has been cooling for at least 10 years".
What is YOUR DATA? Cite Please.
Sam Wormley
> On Sep 27, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The globe has been cooling for at least 10 years.
>>> Better catch up on your reading.
>> Are you saying the overall warming trend of the last century
>> is incorrect or over? What evidence can you cite?
>
> •• Better find better reading matter, it's all over the
> web. Don't look for in the MSM They are still
> kissing Obama's ass.
>
See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/
http://www.realclimate.org/images/KeenlysideFig4.jpg
Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
Filed under: Climate Science Climate modelling — stefan @ 8 May 2008 - () () ()
By Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, David Archer, and
Caspar Ammann
Global cooling appears to be the “flavour of the month”. First, a rather misguided media
discussion erupted on whether global warming had stopped, based on the observed
temperatures of the past 8 years or so (see our post). Now, an entirely new discussion is
capturing the imagination, based on a group of scientists from Germany predicting a pause
in global warming last week in the journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008).
Specifically, they make two forecasts for global temperature, as discussed in the last
paragraphs of their paper and shown in their Figure 4 (see below). The first forecast
concerns the time interval 2000-2010, while the second concerns the interval 2005-2015
(*). For these two 10-year averages, the authors make the following prediction:
“… the initialised prediction indicates a slight cooling relative to 1994-2004 conditions”
Their graph shows this: temperatures in the two forecast intervals (green points shown at
2005 and 2010) are almost the same and are both lower than observed in 1994-2004 (the end
of the red line in their graph).
For the rest of the article including graphs, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/
b0onz
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in
message news:P8Vvm.68981$la3.16488@attbi_s22...
======================================
OK
NCDC�s Own Graph Confirms Decadal Cooling Trend
6 Jan 2009
One of the best things about WUWT is the number
of eyes and minds at work, multiplying the
efforts. This is interesting. Now that the 1998 El
Nino is disappearing off the 10 year scale, things
are looking a bit different
NCDC now has December 2008 in the database. Annual
North American temperature since 1998 (11 years of
data) is falling over the period at a rate of
0.78(F)/decade or 7.8(F)per century.
At this rate we will be in an ice age within 5
decades. If you can get the graphic, the heavy
black like is the average over the century 1901 to
2000.
Here is the graphic from their automated graphics
generator linked to their database:
Source: National Climatic Data Center
Try your own hand at it. The trend will likely
flatten a bit with the removal of 1998 from the 10
year set. Of course you could pick any number of
scales/periods and get different results.
The point being made here is that the last 10
years hasn�t met with some model expectations.
Also I have corrected in the text the reference to
Centigrade when it was actually Fahrenheight, note
the (F). NCDC being an arm of the US government
operates on the English unit system whereas most
other organizations use metric, and thus
Centigrade. I�ve made the mistake myself, so has
NASA, who famously lost a Mars probe when they
botched orbit entry calculations by use of Metric
and English units on different science teams.
To generate the graphic I made:
First navigate here
Leave the �Data Type� field at �Mean Temperature�
Select �Annual� from the �Period� field pull down
Select �1998? as �First Year To Display�
and click the blue �Submit� oval at the below the
data entry form
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
b0onz
b0onz
leona...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley
> <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The globe has been cooling for at least 10
>>> years.
>>> Better catch up on your reading.
>> Are you saying the overall warming trend of
>> the last century
>> is incorrect or over? What evidence can you
>> cite?
>
> �� Better find better reading matter, it's all
> over the
> web. Don't look for in the MSM They are
> still
> kissing Obama's ass.
>
See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/
http://www.realclimate.org/images/KeenlysideFig4.jpg
Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
======================================
Yep ...
b0onz
> On Sep 27, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley
> <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The globe has been cooling for at least 10
>>> years.
>>> Better catch up on your reading.
>> Are you saying the overall warming trend of
>> the last century
>> is incorrect or over? What evidence can you
>> cite?
>
> �� Better find better reading matter, it's all
> over the
> web. Don't look for in the MSM They are
> still
> kissing Obama's ass.
>
See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/
http://www.realclimate.org/images/KeenlysideFig4.jpg
Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
leona...@gmail.com
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 9:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> The globe has been cooling for at least 10 years.
> >>> Better catch up on your reading.
> >> Are you saying the overall warming trend of the last century
> >> is incorrect or over? What evidence can you cite?
>
> > •• Better find better reading matter, it's all over the
> > web. Don't look for in the MSM They are still
> > kissing Obama's ass.
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/images/KeenlysideFig4.jpg
>
> Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
> Filed under: Climate Science Climate modelling — stefan @ 8 May 2008 - () () ()
> By Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, David Archer, and
> Caspar Ammann
>
> Global cooling appears to be the “flavour of the month”. First, a rather misguided media
> discussion erupted on whether global warming had stopped, based on the observed
> temperatures of the past 8 years or so (see our post). Now, an entirely new discussion is
> capturing the imagination, based on a group of scientists from Germany predicting a pause
> in global warming last week in the journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008).
> Specifically, they make two forecasts for global temperature, as discussed in the last
> paragraphs of their paper and shown in their Figure 4 (see below). The first forecast
> concerns the time interval 2000-2010, while the second concerns the interval 2005-2015
> (*). For these two 10-year averages, the authors make the following prediction:
>
> “… the initialised prediction indicates a slight cooling relative to 1994-2004 conditions”
>
> Their graph shows this: temperatures in the two forecast intervals (green points shown at
> 2005 and 2010) are almost the same and are both lower than observed in 1994-2004 (the end
> of the red line in their graph).
>
> For the rest of the article including graphs, see:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/images/KeenlysideFig4.jpg
•• realclimate is as I explained before is an AGW alarmist site
They are real good at cookbook science.
leona...@gmail.com
•• 4 Q -- You have no way to prove global warming
ergo I have nothing to prove.
Sam Wormley
>> the "globe has been cooling for at least 10 years".
>>
>> What is YOUR DATA? Cite Please.
> ======================================
>
> OK
>
>
Thank you Bonzo--From your reference above:
"He has indeed, see below. Try your own hand at it. The trend will
likely flatten a bit with the removal of 1998 from the 10 year set.
Of course you could pick any number of scales/periods and get
different results. The point being made here is that the last 10
years hasn’t met with some model expectations.
"Some folks are erroneously thinking that this graph above represents
a global trend, it does not. Read on".
"Yes we really do need longer data periods to determine climate
trends, 30 years is the climatic standard, but you can also learn
useful information from examining shorter trends and regional trends".
Thanks for sharing this Bonzo.
-Sam
Sam Wormley
>
> You have no way to prove global warming ergo I have nothing to prove.
>
Obviously.
Sam Wormley
Thank you Bonzo--From your reference above:
"He has indeed, see below. Try your own hand at it. The trend will
likely flatten a bit with the removal of 1998 from the 10 year set.
Of course you could pick any number of scales/periods and get
different results. The point being made here is that the last 10
years hasn’t met with some model expectations.
"Some folks are erroneously thinking that this graph above represents
Sam Wormley
>
> •• realclimate is as I explained before is an AGW alarmist site
> They are real good at cookbook science.
Ref: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the
interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing
stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion
here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or
economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except
‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.
leona...@gmail.com
•• So what?? It is a site for AGW alarmists.
I used to subscribe to it but its crap became tedious
leona...@gmail.com
> b0onz wrote:
> > CO2 vs Temperature Correlation Just 0.07
>
> > 18 Jul 2009
> > The graph below demonstrates virtually NO
> > CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature.
•• That is right -- there is NO CORRELATION
between CO2 and temperature.
>
b0onz
======================================
So the 18 years from 1980 to 1998 is also not a
valid trend.
So much for mythical global warming then!
b0onz
======================================
So the 18 years from 1980 to 1998 is also not a
valid trend.
So much for mythical global warming then!
Regards
harry k
> On Sep 25, 10:58 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > Fossil fool flunkies, like James, deny it, but the correlation
> > between CO2 and global mean surface temperatures is
> > quite strong. The statistical relationship is far stronger than
> > for any other cause of the observed warming that the
> > industry pseudo-scientists propose. But then, being a
> > fossil fool flunky means ignoring things like numbers,
> > measurement, and logic.
>
> Liar, liar, pants on fire!
>
> You think that you are so clever you can fool all the rubes out here.
> You aren't. You are just a chip off the old Algore.
>
> Of course there is a correlation betwen Atmospheric CO2 levels and
> global mean surface temperature! Most of the surface of the planet is
> water! And the sea (like soda pop) gives off or takes up CO2
> according to it's mean temperature.
>
> Your (and Academy Award winner Algore's) Big Lie is that this is a
> CAUSAL relationship. You and yours tell the lie over and over that CO2
> CAUSES warming, when in fact it is warming that causes CO2 levels to
> increase. The IR absorption of CO2 is simply not great enough to EVER
> be anything but a very minor cause of "global warming". Water vapor is
> far more plentiful and has the big absorption bands. What's your idea?
> Cover the oceans with plastic?
>
> Idiot.
Whether CO2 causes or not is not the point. The point is that the
records buried in the ice sheets show that if CO2 is hight, so is
temperature. Which lags or leads doesn't matter. CO2 level is a firm
indicator of temperature rise/fall.
Harry K
b0onz
leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> �� realclimate is as I explained before is an
> AGW alarmist site
> They are real good at cookbook science.
Ref:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate
science by working climate scientists for the
interested public and journalists.
======================================
You mean "scientists" like this one???
That's not the "science" I grew up with!
�Scientist� Admits Using Climate Change To Further
His Socialist Agenda
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a �scientist� who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
August 6 2009
Book Review:
Why We Disagree About Climate Change By Mike Hulme
Cambridge University Press, 2009 432 pages,
ISBN-13: 978-0521727327
QUOTE: We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us
QUOTE: socialists like Hulme can frame the global
warming issue to achieve unrelated goals such as
sustainable development, income redistribution,
population control, social justice, and many other
items on the liberal/socialist wishlist.
QUOTE: We will continue to create and tell new
stories about climate change and mobilise them in
support of our projects
QUOTE: These �myths,� he writes, �transcend the
scientific categories of �true� and �false�.� He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
QUOTE: It is troubling to read a prominent
�scientist� who has so clearly lost sight of his
cardinal duty�to be skeptical of all theories and
always open to new data. It is particularly
troubling when this �scientist� endorses lying to
advance his personal political agenda.
More than a few people will be tempted to buy this
book based on the promise, implicit in its title,
that it examines the ideas and motives of both
sides in the global warming debate. But that is
not what this book is about. It is the musings of
a British socialist about how to use global
warming claims as a means of persuading �the
masses� to give up their economic liberties.
That the author, Mike Hulme, is a �scientist� who
helped write the influential reports of the IPCC
and many other government agencies makes this book
even more disturbing.
Narrow-Minded Outlook
Hulme frankly admits his perspective is colored by
his politics��democratic socialist��and it soon
becomes apparent that the only disagreements about
climate change he�s aware of are those occurring
between the left (people who think like him) and
the far left, people he describes as
�eco-anarchists,� �eco-socialists,� and
�eco-authoritarians.�
Opposition from centrists, conservatives,
libertarians, and nonideological scientists who
dispute his alarmist spin on the complicated data
of global warming merit hardly any mention.
Warming Gospel in Doubt
The notion that science can be determined by
government agencies proclaiming to speak on behalf
of entire scientific communities might be
passively accepted in Old Europe, but it is
jarring for an American reader.
Opinion polls show two-thirds of us do not believe
global warming is manmade, and more than 30,000
American scientists (including more than 9,000
with Ph.D.s) have signed a petition saying there
is no convincing scientific evidence that human
activity will cause catastrophic global warming.
A group of scientists called the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has
produced an 880-page rebuttal of the latest IPCC
report containing more than 4,000 references to
peer-reviewed science. I edited that work.
There is a debate taking place about global
warming in America, and it is not the one
described by Hulme as being between those who
favor �cap and trade� and those who favor even
more radical changes in political, social, and
economic behavior.
Rather, it is about how much of the warming of the
late twentieth century was natural and how much
was manmade, whether the consequences of that
warming were on balance positive or negative, and
whether anything should be or could be done to
prevent or delay future warming.
This debate�the real public policy debate�is
entirely missing from Hulme�s book.
Ideological Agenda
Convinced that the scientific debate is over and
he won, Hulme devotes most of his attention to
finding ways to overcome �barriers other than lack
of scientific knowledge to changing the status of
climate change in the minds of
citizens�psychological, emotional, and behavioural
barriers.� He attempts to explain the public�s
failure to respond to his calls for action in
terms of popular theories of irrational group
behavior, such as anchoring, fear of change, and
so on. He lacks the power of introspection that
would have led him to understand the fountains of
his own irrational beliefs.
The real purpose of this book isn�t revealed until
far into it. �The idea of climate change,� Hulme
writes at page 326, �should be seen as an
intellectual resource around which our collective
and personal identities and projects can form and
take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us.�
According to Hulme, climate change can do a lot:
�Because the idea of climate change is so plastic,
it can be deployed across many of our human
projects and can serve many of our psychological,
ethical, and spiritual needs.�
In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame
the global warming issue to achieve unrelated
goals such as sustainable development, income
redistribution, population control, social
justice, and many other items on the
liberal/socialist wishlist.
Knowingly Telling Lies
Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once
said, �We have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between
being effective and being honest,� Hulme writes,
�We will continue to create and tell new stories
about climate change and mobilise them in support
of our projects.�
These �myths,� he writes, �transcend the
scientific categories of �true� and �false�.� He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
It is troubling to read a prominent �scientist�
who has so clearly lost sight of his cardinal
duty�to be skeptical of all theories and always
open to new data. It is particularly troubling
when this �scientist� endorses lying to advance
his personal political agenda.
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a �scientist� who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
Avoid it if you are looking for a book that
explains why we disagree about climate change.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3823
b0onz
>
> �� realclimate is as I explained before is an
> AGW alarmist site
> They are real good at cookbook science.
Ref:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate
science by working climate scientists for the
interested public and journalists.
b0onz
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:829cf5ec-956a-4a34...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
======================================
The site is obviously loaded with "new-age
scientists", just like the following ...
b0onz
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
It matters very much if you try to keep temps from rising by limiting
CO2 output when in fact the temp is driving the CO2 level.
Bill Ward
Perhaps Sam could explain why cross correlation shows the CO2 lags the
temperature by about 800 years. Remember the lag includes both
increasing and decreasing values, so the RealClimate "amplification"
explanation fails.
Bill Ward
> Whether CO2 causes or not is not the point. The point is that the
> records buried in the ice sheets show that if CO2 is hight, so is
> temperature. Which lags or leads doesn't matter. CO2 level is a firm
> indicator of temperature rise/fall.
>
You need to explain how CO2 can cause temperatures to rise and fall 800
years before the CO2 changes. It looks more like rising CO2
concentration is a firm indication that temperature rose about 800 years
earlier. Causes always precede effects.
I M @ good guy
But does less cold translate to "warmer" temperatures?
That is where the idiocy comes in, and where other
factors may have more of an effect than GHGs, and CO2
is not even a gas in the atmosphere.
The temperature one or two meters above the ground
is not a measure, and is not even a proxy for energy content
of the Earth or the biosphere.
Even an inch of snow on the ground can reflect so
much sunlight that the temperature a meter or so above
the ground will be much lower, and that means not as
much water vapor to condense to make the snow as
the cause, in other words, less water vapor, a GHG,
LESS of the most plentiful and most potent GHG,
can cause "warming".
Could this be the real reason why AGW predicts
less AGW effect for the tropics and moderate zones
than for the polar zones?
leona...@gmail.com
•• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out
http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies
leona...@gmail.com
> harry k wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 11:14 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 25, 10:58 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Fossil fool flunkies, like James, deny it, but the correlation
> >>> between CO2 and global mean surface temperatures is
> >>> quite strong. The statistical relationship is far stronger than
> >>> for any other cause of the observed warming that the
> >>> industry pseudo-scientists propose. But then, being a
> >>> fossil fool flunky means ignoring things like numbers,
> >>> measurement, and logic.
•• Roger – When are you going to wake up
> >> Liar, liar, pants on fire!
>
> >> You think that you are so clever you can fool all the rubes out here.
> >> You aren't. You are just a chip off the old Algore.
>
> >> Of course there is a correlation betwen Atmospheric CO2 levels and
> >> global mean surface temperature! Most of the surface of the planet is
> >> water! And the sea (like soda pop) gives off or takes up CO2
> >> according to it's mean temperature.
>
> >> Your (and Academy Award winner Algore's) Big Lie is that this is a
> >> CAUSAL relationship. You and yours tell the lie over and over that CO2
> >> CAUSES warming, when in fact it is warming that causes CO2 levels to
> >> increase. The IR absorption of CO2 is simply not great enough to EVER
> >> be anything but a very minor cause of "global warming". Water vapor is
> >> far more plentiful and has the big absorption bands. What's your idea?
> >> Cover the oceans with plastic?
>
> >> Idiot.
>
> > Whether CO2 causes or not is not the point. The point is that the
> > records buried in the ice sheets show that if CO2 is hight, so is
> > temperature. Which lags or leads doesn't matter. CO2 level is a firm
> > indicator of temperature rise/fall.
•• It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to
limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling
temperature when it is the temperature that
controls CO2
>
> Regulating CO2 to stop "climate change" makes as much sense as
> regulating ice cream sales to lower the crime rate.
•• Too true!!!!
Cwatters
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f60db5ba-ce84-403a...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >�� It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to
> limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling
> temperature when it is the temperature that
> controls CO2
Neither view is correct. It's both!
Bill Ward
> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f60db5ba-ce84-403a-9598-
e60d4c...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 9:49 am, Animal03- <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote:
> >•• It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to
> > limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling temperature when it
> > is the temperature that controls CO2
>
> Neither view is correct. It's both!
How does CO2 control the temperature 800 years earlier? Does it involve
thiotimoline?
Sam Wormley
Subscribe?
leona...@gmail.com
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
•• Bullshit!!!!
Sam Wormley
> On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, "Cwatters"
> <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f60db5ba-ce84-403a...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 28, 9:49 am, Animal03- <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote:
>> >•• It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to
>> > limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling
>> > temperature when it is the temperature that
>> > controls CO2
>>
>> Neither view is correct. It's both!
>
> •• Bullshit!!!!
>
Can you articulate why it is bullshit, Leonard?
Sam Wormley
>
> Perhaps Sam could explain why cross correlation shows the CO2 lags the
> temperature by about 800 years. Remember the lag includes both
> increasing and decreasing values, so the RealClimate "amplification"
> explanation fails.
My pleasure, Bill--
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
years or so.
Here are credible resources:
http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
Sam Wormley
>
> •• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out
> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies
Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard?
leona...@gmail.com
•• Have you ever tried to walk on both sides of as fence at once?
Bill Ward
You apparently failed to read the last sentence of my post. The RC
"explanation" fails to account for the fact the delay also affects
decreases in CO2. Why does the CO2 stay high for 800 years while the
temperature decreases?
Effects always follow causes - they never precede them. Simple chemistry
shows a warming ocean must outgas CO2, and a cooling one must absorb
CO2. See Henry's Law.
RealClimate is not a reliable source for science. Try to think for
yourself rather than posting links you don't understand.
Marvin the Martian
> b0onz wrote:
>> CO2 vs Temperature Correlation Just 0.07
>>
>> 18 Jul 2009
>> The graph below demonstrates virtually NO CORRELATION between CO2 and
>> temperature.
>>
>> R-squared correlation strength of just 0.07.
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/17/ipcc-lead-author-on-global-
warming-conclusions-were-not-scientifically-there-yet/
>>
>>
> Do the same for this graph...
> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/
Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2sm.gif
Idiot. First of all, if you look at that graph, you'll see that warming
leads the CO2 by hundreds of years.
If your argument is that OVER A SPAN OF ALMOST A THOUSAND YEARS, warming
causes CO2, you're there. But if you think that shows that in the period
of decades CO2 causes warming you're a gibbering idiot who doesn't know
what he's looking at.
Marvin the Martian
You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to
support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier
fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and
they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every
single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will
admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory.
You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there.
You haven't shown that the CO2 causes the warming.
And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working theory
and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the past
warming and cooling trends.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:31:15 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:09:55 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 27, 2:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't thing you made on credible point, Marvin. You routinely
>>>>>>> confuse weather and climate and are very short sighted.
>>>>> <snipped the crap>
>>>>>
>>>>> Leonard, you appear to be having a problem accepting that the
>>>>> earth is currently experiencing a warming trend as evidenced by
>>>>> melting ice world-wide.
>>>> You appear to be having a problem accepting that global temperature
>>>> is measured by taking the average of temperatures throughout the
>>>> globe, and not by mistaking ice flows from melting ice in particular
>>>> locations.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you're just lying. The data is the data and just
>>>> because the data debunks your preconceived conclusion doesn't mean
>>>> you get to choose anecdotal data, and then twist that, to fit your
>>>> conclusion.
>>> Marvin, I'll bet you really get steamed up watching this NOVA
>>> Program, titled, "Extreme Ice".
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/program.html
>>>
>>> "Scientists agree that in the next 50 to 100 years, mountain
>>> glaciers almost everywhere will disappear. Their abrupt collapse
>>> raises disturbing questions about the Earth's biggest tracts of
>>> ice, the polar ice domes of Greenland and Antarctica, as James
>>> Balog sees firsthand in Greenland".
>>>
>>> "Over 100 million people live within three feet of sea level—the
>>> very amount that experts expect seas to rise by 2100. Cities will
>>> spend trillions on coastal defenses, low-lying regions such as
>>> Florida and Bangladesh will be devastated, and many island nations
>>> will cease to exist. Overall, the consequences will test our
>>> ability to adapt like never before".
>>
>> That the ice age is over is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute
>> that the ice age didn't end because of humans. So, this is irrelevant
>> gibberish.
>>
>> What you're trying to prove is that the warming, which stopped in 1998,
>> is caused by human produced CO2. You can't even show it was produced by
>> CO2 period, much less human produced CO2. Nor can you even show that
>> humans are the cause of the CO2 increase.
>>
>> Now go gibber at someone who cares to listen to your drivel.
>
> So the real question boils down to: You say warming stopped in 1998
> and the scientific community says we are going to have accelerated
> warming for the next century.
University of East Anglia, 2006.
If you mean by "scientific community" Jones, he's discredited as either
an incompetent or a liar over his "hockey stick" temperature increase
that never was.
If you mean "scientific community" that loony Hanson guy who wants to put
all the "deniers" in prison for crimes against humanity, he too is
discredited.
So your "scientific community", yet ANOTHER bandwagon fallacy you're
making, (you just don't learn! Rapping this dog in the nose with a rolled
up newspaper just doesn't work!) isn't even based on something true.
Yes, some of the "scientific community" provide very different
temperature numbers, especially since 1998, when the warming stopped.
Generally, those who got caught lying before have the higher numbers.
> Why is there such a big discrepancy between you and the scientific
> community on this issue?
>
> -Sam
Marvin the Martian
> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> You have no way to prove global warming ergo I have nothing to prove.
>>
>>
> Obviously.
LOL! In Wormley science, they can spout bullshit and it isn't up to him
to prove his "science", everyone else has to "disprove" his BS to HIS
satisfaction, which cannot be done.
You really believe you don't have to prove GW and it's up to others to
disprove it, don't you?
Unumnunum
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> •• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out
>>> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>>> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies
>> Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard?
>
> You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to
> support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier
> fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and
> they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every
> single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will
> admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory.
Marvin seems to think that trashtalk convinces people he is right.
> You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there.
> You haven't shown that the CO2 causes the warming.
I think he did in fact show both of those, but if not I will.
> And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working theory
> and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the past
> warming and cooling trends.
Rebuttal of Svensmark here;
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark
"While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way
from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world
climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues
put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces."
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> •• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out
>>>> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>>>> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies
>>> Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard?
>>
>> You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to
>> support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier
>> fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and
>> they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every
>> single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will
>> admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory.
>
> Marvin seems to think that trashtalk convinces people he is right
Trash talk is so a moron like you would know that I disagree with you.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell.
I tried being nice, but when morons try to appeal to their own authority,
the only alternative is to disrespect them in the extreme. That at least
gets them to stop appealing to their own authority.
I'm sure to load it with science content, so jackasses like you can
ignore it and focus on the fact you were (rightfully and fully
justifiably) insulted.
>> You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there. You haven't shown that the
>> CO2 causes the warming.
>
> I think he did in fact show both of those, but if not I will.
You don't think at all. You don't even have any idea what it would take
to prove that humans put the CO2 there, or that the CO2 caused the
warming.
Hint: when the CO2 changes LAG temperature by 800 years, CO2 is NOT
driving the temperature, but following it. Follow means "after".
>> And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working
>> theory and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the
>> past warming and cooling trends.
>
> Rebuttal of Svensmark here;
> http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/
henrik-svensmark
>
> "While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way
> from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real
> world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and
> colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces."
And you're too stupid to realize that's empty minded bullshit.
Svensmark predicted the last decade. Svensmark's theory fits all known
climate data. In the real world, when a theory works that well it's
accepted. Only morons and frauds claim that a theory that works is bogus,
and a theory that failed to predict is good.
leona...@gmail.com
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
> >>> •• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out
> >>> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
> >>> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies
> >> Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard?
>
> > You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to
> > support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier
> > fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and
> > they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every
> > single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will
> > admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory.
>
> Marvin seems to think that trashtalk convinces people he is right.
•• Sorry Bud, you are wrong as usual and Marvin is right.
> > You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there.
> > You haven't shown that the CO2 causes the warming.
>
> I think he did in fact show both of those, but if not I will.
•• Bullshit
> > And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working theory
> > and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the past
> > warming and cooling trends.
>
> Rebuttal of Svensmark here;http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/hen...
•• There is some of that trash around. Alarmists have
too much at stake to surrender easily but that too
will come.
Unumnunum
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:19:39 -0500, Unumnunum wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> •• Worms et al, Coppock too, would do well to check out
>>>>> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>>>>> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies
>>>> Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard?
>>> You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to
>>> support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier
>>> fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and
>>> they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every
>>> single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will
>>> admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory.
>> Marvin seems to think that trashtalk convinces people he is right
>
> Trash talk is so a moron like you would know that I disagree with you.
> Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell.
Wow it has been so hard to tell!
> You don't think at all. You don't even have any idea what it would take
> to prove that humans put the CO2 there, or that the CO2 caused the
> warming.
Obviously it would take more to prove any of this than you would
ever accept, hence the term "denialist".
> Hint: when the CO2 changes LAG temperature by 800 years, CO2 is NOT
> driving the temperature, but following it. Follow means "after".
Except in the situation we now find ourselves in.
>>> And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working
>>> theory and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the
>>> past warming and cooling trends.
>> Rebuttal of Svensmark here;
>> http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/
> henrik-svensmark
>> "While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way
>> from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real
>> world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that and
>> colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces."
>
> And you're too stupid to realize that's empty minded bullshit.
Shrill barking doesn't convince. Svensmark has been thoroughly debunked.
Unumnunum
> On Sep 28, 9:19 pm, Unumnunum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:50:49 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>>>>> It shows many of the IPCC's fallacies
>>>> Can you articulate why you think so, Leonard?
>>> You're a riot wormley. You make dumb argument after dumb argument to
>>> support your false claims: bandwagon fallacies, red herring glacier
>>> fallacies, appeals to authority fallacies that are not even true; and
>>> they all get batted down and you STILL think that the game is every
>>> single one of your dumb arguments must be batted down before you will
>>> admit you're backing a bullshit fraud theory.
>> Marvin seems to think that trashtalk convinces people he is right.
>
>
>>> You haven't shown that we put the CO2 there.
>>> You haven't shown that the CO2 causes the warming.
>> I think he did in fact show both of those, but if not I will.
>
>
>>> And you ignore that Svensmark explained it with a useful, working theory
>>> and CO2 isn't involved, and it's a natural event, just like the past
>>> warming and cooling trends.
>> Rebuttal of Svensmark here;http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/hen...
>
> too much at stake to surrender easily but that too
> will come.
Leonard "Last Post" and Marvin the Martian make a good pair.
Sam Wormley
Time will tell, Marvin.
Sam Wormley
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Oceans — group @ 7 June 2005 - ()
Contributed by Corinne Le Quéré, University of East Anglia.
This question keeps coming back, although we know the answer very well: all of the recent
CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human activities, in spite of the fact that both
the oceans and the land biosphere respond to global warming. There is a lot of evidence to
support this statement which has been explained in a previous posting here and in a letter
in Physics Today . However, the most convincing arguments for scientists (based on
isotopes and oxygen decreases in the atmosphere) may be hard to understand for the general
public because they require a high level of scientific knowledge. I present simpler
evidence of the same statement based on ocean observations, and I explain how we know that
not only part of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human activities, but all of it.
On time-scales of ~100 years, there are only two reservoirs that can naturally exchange
large quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere: the oceans and the land biosphere (forests
and soils). The mass of carbon (carbon is the “C” in CO2) must be conserved. If the
atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans or
the land, we would measure a carbon decrease in these two reservoirs.
Number of observations of carbon decreasing in the global oceans: zero.
Number of observations of carbon increasing in the global oceans: more than 20 published
studies using 6 independent methods.
The methods are:
(1) direct observations of the partial pressure of CO2 at the ocean surface (Takahashi et
al. 2002),
(2) observations of the spatial distribution of atmospheric CO2 which show how much carbon
goes in and out of the different oceanic regions (Bousquet et al. 2000),
(3) observations of carbon, oxygen, nutrients and CFCs combined to remove the mean imprint
of biological processes (Sabine et al. 2004),
(4) observations of carbon and alkalinity for two time-periods combined with an estimate
of water age based on CFCs (McNeil et al. 2002), and the simultaneous observations of
atmospheric CO2 increase and the decrease in (5) oxygen (Keeling et al. 1996), and (6)
carbon 13 (Ciais et al. 1995) in the atmosphere.
The principle of the last two methods is that both fossil fuel burning and biospheric
respiration consume oxygen and reduce carbon 13 as they produce CO2, but the exchange of
CO2 with the oceans has only a small impact on atmospheric oxygen and carbon 13. The
measure of atmospheric CO2 increase together with oxygen or carbon 13 decrease gives the
distribution between the different reservoirs.
All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC
every year (current burning of fossil fuel is ~7 PgC per year). One method is able to go
back in time and shows that the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC
in the last 200 years. There is some uncertainty about the exact amount that the oceans
have taken up, but not about the direction of the change. The oceans cannot be a source of
carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere.
What about the land biosphere? We know that deforestation has contributed to the increase
in atmospheric CO2. Yet because carbon needs to be conserved, observations of the carbon
increase in the atmosphere and the oceans combined with estimates of fossil fuel burning
tell us that deforestation has been largely compensated by enhanced growth by the land
biosphere. For example, during 1980 to 1999, fossil fuel burning was 117±5 PgC, and the
carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans were 65±1 and 37±8 PgC, respectively.
Thus that leaves 15±9 PgC that has been taken up by the land. This 15±9 PgC includes
deforestation (and other land-use changes) which reduced the land biosphere by 24±12 PgC,
and an additional land uptake of 39±18 PgC in response to elevated CO2 and climate changes
(Sabine et al. 2004). Here also there is some uncertainty about the exact amount, but
there is no uncertainty that the land biosphere has taken up a quantity of CO2 that is
roughly equivalent to the deforestation.
Why are the ocean and land taking up carbon, when we know that warming of the oceans
reduces the solubility of CO2 and warming of the land accelerates bacterial degradation of
the soils? The answer is that warming is not the only process that influences the oceans
and land biosphere. The dominant process in the oceans is the response to increasing
atmospheric CO2 itself. If the oceans had not warmed, they might have taken up even more
carbon, although we cannot say for sure because warming may have other impacts, for
example on marine biota. On land, bacterial degradation of the soils may have increased in
response to warming, but for the moment this effect is smaller than the land response to
other processes (for example fertilization by CO2 and nitrogen, changes in precipitation,
etc).
Is this consistent with what we know of the glaciations? Yes. During glaciations, the
balance of processes was very different. Cooling and other climate changes occurred first.
The response of the oceans and land biosphere to climate caused the atmospheric CO2 to
decrease, which caused more cooling (more on the feedbacks between temperature and CO2 can
be found here). During glaciations, there were no external changes in atmospheric CO2 and
the oceans and land biosphere responded primarily to climate change. In the last 200
years, there have been large changes in atmospheric CO2 as a result of human activities,
and the oceans and land biosphere respond primarily to rising CO2.
In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel
burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon
content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after
deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they
would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their
response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.
More on the carbon budget can be found in the last IPCC report here, which includes
budgets and uncertainties for different time periods and additional numbers for the small
contribution of volcanoes and other geological reservoirs.
References:
Bousquet et al. (2000), Regional changes of CO2 fluxes over land and oceans since 1980,
Science, Vol 290, 1342-1346.
Ciais et al. (1995), A Large Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial CO2 Sink Indicated by the
13C/12C Ratio of atmospheric CO2, Science, Vol 269, pp. 1098-1102.
Keeling, Piper and Heimann (1996), Global and hemispheric CO2 sinks deduced from changes
in atmospheric O2 concentration, Nature, Vol 381, 218-221.
McNeil et al. (2003), Anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean based on the global
chlorofluorocarbon data set, Science, Vol 299, 235-239.
Takahashi et al. (2002), Global sea-air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean
pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects, Deep Sea Research, Vol 49, 1601-1622.
Sam Wormley
>
> Effects always follow causes - they never precede them. Simple chemistry
> shows a warming ocean must outgas CO2, and a cooling one must absorb
> CO2. See Henry's Law.
>
Ref:
Surfer
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>The entire IPCC argument is nothing more than one big "correlation proves
>causation" argument.
>
There is more to it than that.
1) Experiments with CO2 prove it has a capacity to cause a greenhouse
effect.
2) The effects on climate have been modeled using computers.
3) Independent groups have made independent predictions.
The following differ in degree of warming, but all show warming.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions_png
>
> 2) the correlation went negative in 1998,
> so the fallacy isn't even based on anything true!
>
The time from 1998 to present isn't long enough to come to that
conclusion.
For global temperature the average trend is still upward.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures_png
Also see:
Recent sea level rise
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png
Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
Bill Ward
Specifically what in the above is relevant to the fact CO2 lags
temperature in the ice cores? Do you ever understand any of the links
you post? Try thinking for yourself for a change rather than buying into
every hare-brained idea that comes along.
John M.
Silly Bilbo. Here's what it says above:
"Is this consistent with what we know of the glaciations? Yes. During
glaciations, the
balance of processes was very different. Cooling and other climate
changes occurred first.
The response of the oceans and land biosphere to climate caused the
atmospheric CO2 to
decrease, which caused more cooling (more on the feedbacks between
temperature and CO2 can
be found here). During glaciations, there were no external changes in
atmospheric CO2 and
the oceans and land biosphere responded primarily to climate change.
In the last 200
years, there have been large changes in atmospheric CO2 as a result of
human activities,
and the oceans and land biosphere respond primarily to rising CO2.
Do you ever understand any of the links"
> you post? Try thinking for yourself for a change rather than buying into
> every hare-brained idea that comes along.
Or do what Bilbo does - dream up your own hare-brained ideas.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:32:17 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >The entire IPCC argument is nothing more than one big "correlation proves
> >causation" argument.
>
> There is more to it than that.
>
> 1) Experiments with CO2 prove it has a capacity to cause a greenhouse
> effect.
•• Watch out Surfer, you might drown in your own bullshit
> 2) The effects on climate have been modeled using computers.
•• BSI = BSO
>
> 3) Independent groups have made independent predictions.
> The following differ in degree of warming, but all show warming.http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions_png
>
•• ROTFLMAO -- Great kook site
>
> > 2) the correlation went negative in 1998,
> > so the fallacy isn't even based on anything true!
>
> The time from 1998 to present isn't long enough to come to that
> conclusion.
•• Bullshit
>
> For global temperature the average trend is still upward.http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures_png
•• Not at all true ~~ Kook site
>
> Recent sea level risehttp://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png
•• Did NOT happen
> Time-lapse proof of extreme ice losshttp://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_...
•• Bullshit
leona...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:58:30 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Bill Ward wrote:
>
> >> Effects always follow causes - they never precede them. Simple
> >> chemistry shows a warming ocean must outgas CO2, and a cooling one must
> >> absorb CO2. See Henry's Law.
>
> > Ref:
> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-
> >recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
ROTFLMAO - - - great AGW kook site
>
> Specifically what in the above is relevant to the fact CO2 lags
> temperature in the ice cores? Do you ever understand any of the links
> you post? Try thinking for yourself for a change rather than buying into
> every hare-brained idea that comes along.
–– ––
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
•• More kook bullshit
> On Sep 29, 8:45 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > > Bill Ward wrote:
> > >> Effects always follow causes - they never precede them. Simple
> > >> chemistry shows a warming ocean must outgas CO2, and a cooling one must
> > >> absorb CO2. See Henry's Law.
> > you post? Try thinking for yourself for a change rather than buying into
> > every hare-brained idea that comes along.
>
–– ––
leona...@gmail.com
> > don't shine. It doesn't matter what IPCC, NASA,
> > Hadley, or NOAA say, it is all fascist political junk.
>
> <smiling>
>
> My, my, Leonard, can you articulate any reason why you hold
> such hostility toward the people and organization you noted
> above?
•• Nnaaahh! I'm not hostile. I just hold them in contempt
just like I hold jackasses like you in contempt.
John M.
>
> e60d4c5d6...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 28, 9:49 am, Animal03- <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote:
> > >•• It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to
> > > limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling temperature when it
> > > is the temperature that controls CO2
>
> > Neither view is correct. It's both!
>
It doesn't, as well you know. Temperature increase, driven by a
hotter part of the solar cycle, causes outgassing of CO2 from the
oceans to restore equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. This eventually
raises the temperature of the planet even further causing a further re-
adjustment of CO2. When the sun enters a cool phase, CO2 re-enters the
ocean to return the original equilibrium. But this scenario depends on
an approx. fixed amount of carbon in the ecosphere carbon cycle.
Does it involve
> thiotimoline?
I would snip this orphan line, but Bilbo will be on my case like a ton
of bricks, claiming it was vital thread content.
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sep 28, 9:37 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:34:31 +0100, Cwatters wrote:
> > > <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f60db5ba-ce84-403a-9598-
>
> > e60d4c5d6...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Sep 28, 9:49 am, Animal03- <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote:
> > > >•• It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to
> > > > limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling temperature when it
> > > > is the temperature that controls CO2
>
> > > Neither view is correct. It's both!
>
> > How does CO2 control the temperature 800 years earlier?
>
> It doesn't, as well you know. Temperature increase, driven by a
> hotter part of the solar cycle, causes outgassing of CO2 from the
> oceans to restore equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. This eventually
> raises the temperature of the planet even further causing a further re-
> adjustment of CO2. When the sun enters a cool phase, CO2 re-enters the
> ocean to return the original equilibrium. But this scenario depends on
> an approx. fixed amount of carbon in the ecosphere carbon cycle.
•• Morgan is a good fantasy writer. The warm
tropical and sub tropical waters evaporate
carrying CO2 with it to the clouds. When it rains
or snows it carries the CO2 and nitrogen with it
to fertilize plant growth via photosynthesis.
Photosynthetic organisms convert around
100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into biomass
per year.
Cwatters
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f00c2552-66c0-438f...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, "Cwatters"
> On Sep 28, 9:49 am, Animal03- <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote:
> >�� It does matter a lot because the alarmists want to
> > limit CO2 emissions as a means of controlling
> > temperature when it is the temperature that
> > controls CO2
>
> Neither view is correct. It's both!
�� Bullshit!!!!
yeah that causes it as well.
Sam Wormley
>
> The warm tropical and sub tropical waters evaporate
> carrying CO2 with it to the clouds. When it rains
> or snows it carries the CO2 and nitrogen with it
> to fertilize plant growth via photosynthesis.
>
<laughing>
Almost split a gut.
Pathetic.
Bill Ward
What's the pH of unpolluted rainwater? Why?
Sam Wormley
No... it's th first sentence: "The warm tropical and sub tropical
waters evaporate carrying CO2 with it to the clouds"!
Uncle Al
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:32:17 -0500, Marvin the Martian
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >The entire IPCC argument is nothing more than one big "correlation proves
> >causation" argument.
> >
> There is more to it than that.
>
> 1) Experiments with CO2 prove it has a capacity to cause a greenhouse
> effect.
>
> 2) The effects on climate have been modeled using computers.
>
> 3) Independent groups have made independent predictions.
> The following differ in degree of warming, but all show warming.
> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions_png
[snip]
Terrible! Did you ever take a science class? A = (epsilon)bc is only
valid to modest concentration. After a spectral window saturates
incremental addition of more absorber does not increment total
absorption linearly in kind, NOT NEARLY.
Pull a "CRC Handbook", e.g., 88th edition, 14-26. Doubling CO2
concentration would make little difference in integated IR absorption
- 30% more, maximum. Adding 40 ppm, about 10% relative, would make no
meaningful difference at all.
The major IR absorber is water, with HDO having a prominent isolated
absorption line in an otherwise open spectral window. Save the Earth
by manufacturing and storing heavy water!
Are ya goona cover the oceans with polyethylene film and impose the
Breath and Sweat Tax on everybody?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2