 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / February 2009{OT} Global 'warming' glitch.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY  SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY So does that completely disprove the overall case? BTW, the problem was discovered by one of the people who know that manmade global warming is a big problem, not by friends of Rush Limbaugh. Why would they want to help him in doing so? > Scott in Florida wrote: >> >> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY > > So does that completely disprove the overall case? No, but when you add up all of the "Ooops!" it kind of pales it a little bit, doesn't it? > BTW, the problem was discovered by one of the people who know that > manmade global warming is a big problem, not by friends of Rush > Limbaugh. Why would they want to help him in doing so? One of the people that "knows"? No one "knows", at this point it's a theory. Hasn't been proved yet. > > Scott in Florida wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, but when you add up all of the "Ooops!" it kind of pales it a little > bit, doesn't it? No. I'm sure they use at least one spare thermometer. > > BTW, the problem was discovered by one of the people who knowz that > > manmade global warming is a big problem, not by friends of Rush [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No one "knows", at this point it's a theory. Hasn't been proved yet. Cite good evidence that it's only a theory like Intelligent Design and not a theory like evolution. >> > BTW, the problem was discovered by one of the people who knowz that >> > manmade global warming is a big problem, not by friends of Rush [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cite good evidence that it's only a theory like Intelligent Design and > not a theory like evolution. You're kidding, right? It's not like you to ask stupid questions. Don't start now. > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY > > Scott in Florida Once again, an article you posted doesn't coincide correctly with the subject line of your message. You were really on a roll yesterday. Keep up the good work. You're the poster boy for: - Reading comprehension problems - The horrific effects of overmedication > "Scott in Florida" <Mov...@outa.here> wrote in messagenews:mkq5q41f8s4kh6v29qh20bn9kt87600foj@4ax.com... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - The horrific effects of overmedication Over-medication using too much booze and hillbilly heroin. Combine that with sot' low intelligence and he is doing the trifecta of stupidity. >> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - The horrific effects of overmedication Huh? At least, if Scott is medicated, it's at a Doctor's direction, and not self medicated like you seem to be: Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site. After years of telling us Arctic sea ice is shrinking, they come up with an 'ooops!'. I guess that means GW isn't as bad as they thought. But, I've been saying that right along... >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > After years of telling us Arctic sea ice is shrinking, they come up with > an 'ooops!'. I guess that means GW isn't as bad as they thought. An oops that applies to about a month's worth of raw data ("early January" to "mid-February"). And you neglected to quote this: The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said. > But, I've been saying that right along... >> After years of telling us Arctic sea ice is shrinking, they come up with >> an 'ooops!'. I guess that means GW isn't as bad as they thought. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change > findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said. Hmmm...the cap retreated to it's lowest level in 2007. This is 2009. If it's 'lowest extent' was in 2007, that must mean it's growing again, eh? Especially when you see where it says 'second lowest annual minimum'. Must mean it's been growing since it's 'first' lowest annual minimum. If 'the recent error doesn't change findings...' then I guess they better have another look. They just said 'lowest extent' was 2007. Sounds like double-talk to me. There's more K00L-Aid at the trough... >>> After years of telling us Arctic sea ice is shrinking, they come up with >>> an 'ooops!'. I guess that means GW isn't as bad as they thought. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > There's more K00L-Aid at the trough... So apparently they never taught you about seasons in grade school. >>>> After years of telling us Arctic sea ice is shrinking, they come up with >>>> an 'ooops!'. I guess that means GW isn't as bad as they thought. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So apparently they never taught you about seasons in grade school. Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, what does that mean? >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, > what does that mean? Ask your imaginary geologist buddies. >>>> There's more K00L-Aid at the trough... >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ask your imaginary geologist buddies. I don't have to. I have real Geologists to talk to. And they aren't Politicians who *think* they know something... > >>>> There's more K00L-Aid at the trough... > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And they aren't Politicians who *think* they know something... Is jsb trying to convince you to buy into the global warming scam? Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >>>> There's more K00L-Aid at the trough... >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is jsb trying to convince you to buy into the global warming scam? Yeah. Good Luck with that... > >> >>>> There's more K00L-Aid at the trough... > >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yeah. Good Luck with that... Now I see gore and his presentation has been disposed of by the scientific organization he quoted in his speech. <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of- disaster-trends/> Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >> >>>> There's more K00L-Aid at the trough... >> >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of- > disaster-trends/> Yeah, I heard this today. For some reason, there was a slide missing from his presentation. I think it contained some actual, factual data and had to be removed. Meanwhile, the K00L-Aid drinkers must be getting insatiable thirsts the way they're lining up at the troughs. If you didn't see my answer to Lucius, I took this up with yet another Geologist at UMASS today. Poke through to see what his response was... ;) >>>>> After years of telling us Arctic sea ice is shrinking, they come up with >>>>> an 'ooops!'. I guess that means GW isn't as bad as they thought. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, > what does that mean? It means that after the summer of 2007 came the winter of 2008, during which the sea ice extent increased as it does every winter. Then came the summer of 2008 in which the second lowest sea ice extent on record was measured: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html Here's a handy graph: http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png Surely you're not going to try to use one data point (which still falls far below average, and even far below the trend) to attempt to disprove a long-term trend? From the linked article: The 2008 season strongly reinforces the thirty-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent. The 2008 September low was 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 and only 9% greater than the 2007 record (Figure 2). Because the 2008 low was so far below the September average, the negative trend in September extent has been pulled downward, from –10.7 % per decade to –11.7 % per decade (Figure 3). NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “When you look at the sharp decline that we’ve seen over the past thirty years, a ‘recovery’ from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all. Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous.” >> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then came the summer of 2008 in which the second lowest sea ice > extent on record was measured: Which means that it's growing again... This could mean that 2007 was the peak year for ice loss, with the ice mass beginning to grow again. This has been suggested before, and now there seems to be data coming in to prove it! Thanks! >>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This has been suggested before, and now there seems to be data coming in > to prove it! Thanks! You're trying to disprove a long-term trend with one data point? One data point that significantly strengthens that trend? I suppose I should have expected no less from you. Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession is over! Let's celebrate! > Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession > is over! Let's celebrate! So algore told lucius that global warming is dooming the earth, LOL and he believed him, that is even more scary. Now lucius is quoting science, LOL, that is even more funny. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > believed him, that is even more scary. Now lucius is quoting science, > LOL, that is even more funny. I don't suppose that you'd like to try "quoting science" in order to add something meaningful to the exchange rather than your usual ad hominem response? >>> Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > in order to add something meaningful to the exchange > rather than your usual ad hominem response? It wasn't even a GOOD ad hominem response. Pay close attention to dbu's posts and the time of day he posts them. Do this for a few days. Tell me if you see what I see. > >>> Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ wrote: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Pay close attention to dbu's posts and the time of day he posts them. Do > this for a few days. Tell me if you see what I see. That's because unlike you I have been busy with more important things than posting rubbish on the Toyota NG. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >>> Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ wrote: >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > That's because unlike you I have been busy with more important things > than posting rubbish on the Toyota NG. What is because? I haven't even mentioned the observation that Lucius may also spot. >>>> Hachiroku ããã㯠wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Pay close attention to dbu's posts and the time of day he posts them. Do > this for a few days. Tell me if you see what I see. He has his drinks after dinner, whereas you have them before breakfast? > >> Hachiroku ãŸ?ãŸ?ãŸ-ã’¯ wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > in order to add something meaningful to the exchange > rather than your usual ad hominem response? You are a funny person. You like to tell everyone about global warming an how bad it will be for us, LOL. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > in order to add something meaningful to the exchange > rather than your usual ad hominem response? Oooh! Oooh! I will! Here's dat that somehow appeared on the IPCC's web site for only a few weeks and then disappeared: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif Have a good look:you'll see the earth has a period of warming just before the beginning of an ice age. You'll also see the earth has gotten a lot warmer than it is now on some occasions. What most people seem to miss is, according to this chart, temperature variation *precedes* CO2 Concentration. What this means is the temperature rise occurs *prior* to a rise in CO2. That puts a real wrench in Gore's 'theory', and shoots the IPCC down in flames. No wonder the chart disappeared so rapidly. > http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That puts a real wrench in Gore's 'theory', and shoots the IPCC down in > flames. No wonder the chart disappeared so rapidly. Gore's views are in line with those of conventional science. OTOH many political people and oversimplifiers, who exist in both the Gore and anti-Gore camps but mostly the latter, are practicing what Richard Feynman called "cargo cult science". >> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and anti-Gore camps but mostly the latter, are practicing what Richard > Feynman called "cargo cult science". Feynman would have a field day with people like Hachiroku and their belief in pseudoscience. BTW, his paper on "cargo cult science" can be seen at "http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html". >>> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Feynman would have a field day with people like Hachiroku and their > belief in pseudoscience. LOL! I wonder who is practicing the 'pseudoscience' here. It's easy to agree with a Politician when your grants are at stake. > BTW, his paper on "cargo cult science" can be seen at > "http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html". >> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and anti-Gore camps but mostly the latter, are practicing what Richard > Feynman called "cargo cult science". I'll pass this along to a couple of Geologists at UMASS studying Global Warming who say it's a bunch of hooey. They even put up a giant poster with a moose saying "Don't bet on it". Oh, but Gore's views are in line with a bunch of PC alarmists who have 70 years worth of data. Woweeee! >>>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > That puts a real wrench in Gore's 'theory', and shoots the IPCC down in > flames. No wonder the chart disappeared so rapidly. You keep trotting this out, but it's actually detrimental to your argument. Look, due to the basic properties of CO2 with respect to visible light and infrared, it's very clear that increasing CO2 can result in increasing temperature. What your chart shows is that increasing temperature can also lead to increasing CO2 levels - thus forming a feedback loop. We've been through all this before and I don't really have the time or patience to go through it again, so you can reread our previous exchange if you're interested: http://cardealerforums.com/alt-autos-toyota/t176487-re-ray-o-how-much-gas-can-i- save-tune-up-properly-inflated-tires-11.html >> Oooh! Oooh! I will! >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > respect to visible light and infrared, it's very clear that > increasing CO2 can result in increasing temperature. Yes, I will keep trotting it out, because it shows you are wrong. If you knew how to read charts, you'd see what it's telling you. Keep listening to Al Gore. Meanwhile, I again had the opportunity to talk to a Geologist at UMASS today. Let me see if you can guess what he said. (OTher than he hopes you have a lot of insulation and warm clothes, that is). Not everyone believes a Politician. >> Hachiroku ããã㯠wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > So algore told lucius that global warming is dooming the earth, LOL and he > believed him, that is even more scary. Now lucius is quoting science, With a whole thirty years' worth of data, no less! > LOL, that is even more funny. You betcha! >>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > One data point that significantly strengthens that trend? I > suppose I should have expected no less from you. Huh? "Long Term Trend"? Thirty years does not make a "long term trend" in Geologic history. Three hundred years does not make a "long term trend" in Geologic history. 10,000 years makes a "long term trend", and Geologic history shows there's an Ice Age every 10,000 years. The last one was...oh, 10,000 years ago. Recent data shows there were periods of warming just prior to the start of an Ice Age. In fact, every time, and higher than the warming experienced now. When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a Politician with 30 years of faulty data. But, that requires actually knowing something about Geology and not drinking some Politician's K00L-Aid. > Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession is over! > Let's celebrate! Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock Market? Ask Joe. >>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Geologic history. Three hundred years does not make a "long term trend" in > Geologic history. That's 30 years of satellite data on top of another 70 or so years of ground-based observation, along with millennia of indirect evidence of ice cover. Additionally, 30 years of data can be indicative of a long-term trend when it comes to anthropogenic warming since the time scales are of a similar magnitude. > 10,000 years makes a "long term trend", and Geologic history shows there's > an Ice Age every 10,000 years. The last one was...oh, 10,000 years ago. We've been through this before about 6 months ago. First, the time scale for ice ages is tens of millions of years; what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial periods. Second, the periodicity of those is on average about 50,000 years, but the "on average" is very important as it varies greatly. Third, what you meant to say is that the average interglacial period is about 12,000 years, and that we've been in the current interglacial for about 12,000 years. That would have been sort of close to being almost right. 12,000 years used to be considered to be the rough average for recent interglacials, and the last glacial period ended between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago. But there's quite a bit of variation in length of interglacials. Here's an interesting paper for you to read: http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf > Recent data shows there were periods of warming just prior to the start of > an Ice Age. In fact, every time, and higher than the warming experienced > now. Uh, yeah, those periods of warming are called interglacials. And, typically, the temperature spikes coming out of the preceeding glacial period (not going into the next) and then slowly declines over the next few thousand years until the beginning of the next glacial. We're not seeing that slow decline, so your belief in an imminent glacial period seems unfounded. > When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made > themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock > Market? Ask Joe. >>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > anthropogenic warming since the time scales are of a similar > magnitude. Just blew right past the chart I gave you, eh? Seventy years is nothing. >> 10,000 years makes a "long term trend", and Geologic history shows there's >> an Ice Age every 10,000 years. The last one was...oh, 10,000 years ago. > > We've been through this before about 6 months ago. First, > the time scale for ice ages is tens of millions of years; Wrong. 10-12,000 years. Don't read charts very well, do you? > what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial > periods. Gee...WTF do you think a "glacial period" is? > Second, the periodicity of those is on average > about 50,000 years, but the "on average" is very important [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > there's quite a bit of variation in length of interglacials. > Here's an interesting paper for you to read: Yeah yeah yeah. I read it before. > http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > decline, so your belief in an imminent glacial period seems > unfounded. Huh? Even GW alarmists are now saying it peaked in 1997. You need to keep up. Oh, and I asked a Geologist at UMASS today what he thinks about this conversation. He said you're all wet and hopes you have a lot of insulation and warm clothes. >> When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made >> themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock >> Market? Ask Joe. >>>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Just blew right past the chart I gave you, eh? No, I looked at it. As I explained elsewhere, it doesn't show what you think it does. > Seventy years is nothing. 30 + 70 + millennia != Seventy. >>> 10,000 years makes a "long term trend", and Geologic history shows there's >>> an Ice Age every 10,000 years. The last one was...oh, 10,000 years ago. >> We've been through this before about 6 months ago. First, >> the time scale for ice ages is tens of millions of years; > > Wrong. 10-12,000 years. Don't read charts very well, do you? You really need to cut the condescension. It doesn't look good on you, especially coming hot on the heels of your recent misadventure with percentages. What that showed, in addition to your obvious deficiencies in arithmetic, was your lack of the cognitive skills to actually evaluate data and update your working hypothesis accordingly. Had you paused for an instant to reevaluate your stance, by simply thinking about it for a second, it should have been clear that you were wrong. >> what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial >> periods. > > Gee...WTF do you think a "glacial period" is? Technically, a glacial period is not the same as an ice age. The most recent ice age began about 2.5 million years ago, and has not yet ended. Within that ice age, there have been cooler and warmer periods called, respectively, glacials and interglacials. We're currently in an interglacial period that began between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago. >> Second, the periodicity of those is on average >> about 50,000 years, but the "on average" is very important [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yeah yeah yeah. I read it before. But did you understand it? >> http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Huh? Even GW alarmists are now saying it peaked in 1997. > You need to keep up. That's 1998. Perhaps you need to keep up. 1998 was a bit of an outlier due to the very strong El Niño that year. However, 2005 was either slightly warmer (according to NASA) or almost as warm (according to CRU) as 1998, without the benefit of El Niño: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html > Oh, and I asked a Geologist at UMASS today what he thinks about this > conversation. > > He said you're all wet and hopes you have a lot of insulation and warm > clothes. Yeah, right. You don't understand the points that I'm making, so I doubt that even if your UMass geologist exists, you were able to summarize what I said accurately. I would be interested to hear more about your geologist's work. Has he written any papers on this imminent glacial period that you could point me to? You might also want to talk to Rob DeConto or one of the other paleoclimatologists at UMass, the next time you visit. >>> When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made >>> themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a >>> Politician with 30 years of faulty data. >>> >>> But, that requires actually knowing something about Geology and not >>> drinking some Politician's K00L-Aid. I know a fair amount about geology; quite a bit more than you based on the evidence you've presented. And in this field, I evaluate politicians based on their science, rather than scientists based on their politics, as you seem to do. >>>> Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession is over! >>>> Let's celebrate! >>> Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock >>> Market? Ask Joe. >>>>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > No, I looked at it. As I explained elsewhere, it doesn't > show what you think it does. Huh? It shows warming on the blue line, and CO2 levels on the red line. The blue line leads the red line, so temperature leads CO2. If you look at the graph, how much more cyclical can it get? >> Seventy years is nothing. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > for a second, it should have been clear that you were > wrong. If you look at the graph, how much more cyclical can it get? >>> what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial >>> periods. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > period that began between 11,000 and 12,000 years > ago. OK. He does understand. What does the chart tell you is happening? >>> Second, the periodicity of those is on average >>> about 50,000 years, but the "on average" is very important [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But did you understand it? Um...well...yeah. But he's all wet. >>> http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > written any papers on this imminent glacial period that you > could point me to? I speak to many of them. They almost all say the same thing. > You might also want to talk to Rob DeConto or one of the > other paleoclimatologists at UMass, the next time you visit. I have. He sits on the fence sort of. He believes as a whole the Earth's temperature is rising, but in the short run we're due for some serious chill. He also doesn't think the planet's going to burn to a cinder anytime soon. While this is all well and good, there's one overriding factor here: the entire universe is trying to reach a temperature stasis, and that temperature is very, very cold. >>>> When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made >>>> themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I evaluate politicians based on their science, rather than > scientists based on their politics, as you seem to do. And you don't think Gore is at least a little overboard? If you knew more about Geology than I do, you'd see we're not going to be reduced to ashes. You'd also know we're heading for a cold period. There's also something else no one is taking into account. There hasn't been a real good Vesuvius or Krakatoa for a while. Think all the volcanoes are dormant? All it takes is one good stack-blowing to blow all these theories into the weeds. >>>>> Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession is over! >>>>> Let's celebrate! >>>> Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock >>>> Market? Ask Joe. You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or down, not the other way around as the true earth scientists have been saying all along. That would indicate natural event, like changes in sun spots, increased volcanic active and tectonic plate movements, are what is leading to the higher CO2 levels, as the true earth scientists have been saying all along. . If man is not the cause then they can not tax "Carbon" like BO and the Dims are want to do. That will raise the cost of everything you buy, every day. The environuts are now running the country and the folks better soon wise up LOL >>>>> "Long Term Trend"? Thirty years does not make a "long term trend" in >>>>> Geologic history. Three hundred years does not make a "long term [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] >>>>> Stock >>>>> Market? Ask Joe. > You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or > down, not the other way around as the true earth scientists have been saying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > day. The environuts are now running the country and the folks better > soon wise up LOL Except that the evidence is overwhelming that increased CO2 causes increased temperature. You're grasping at straws. Jeff >> You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or >> down, not the other way around as the true earth scientists have been saying [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jeff Thirty whole years' worth! Whooo-Hoooo! Except the chart I posted shows temperature *leads* CO2, but then, you've been told that before and choose to ignore it. DUH! What part of the record listed shows, CO2 levels follow the temperature up or down, not the other way around, as the true earth scientists have been saying all along, did you not understand? LOL On Feb 26, 6:52 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up > or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > day. The environuts are now running the country and the folks better > soon wise up LOL Except that the evidence is overwhelming that increased CO2 causes increased temperature. You're grasping at straws. Jeff > DUH! What part of the record listed shows, CO2 levels follow the temperature > up or down, not the other way around, as the true earth scientists have been > saying all along, did you not understand? LOL James Hansen disagrees with you. Do you know more about this subject than he does, or can you cite scientists who do? I didn't think so. You'll probably mention some third-rate dissidents who are highly political and are paid by oil, natural gas, or coal interests. >> DUH! What part of the record listed shows, CO2 levels follow the temperature >> up or down, not the other way around, as the true earth scientists have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You'll probably mention some third-rate dissidents who are highly > political and are paid by oil, natural gas, or coal interests. You mean, as opposed to hacks that are paid by political grants? No, the people I talk to are on University salaries from UMASS and Amherst College, and aren't paid to think certain ways. In article <5290a1f4-ebdc-4c13-a111-b0edb9742f08@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > DUH! What part of the record listed shows, CO2 levels follow the temperature > > up or down, not the other way around, as the true earth scientists have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You'll probably mention some third-rate dissidents who are highly > political and are paid by oil, natural gas, or coal interests. Those what you called "third-rate dissidents" are not receiving grants. Those that receive grants are bound to drink the kool-aid or lose the money. Get it? I didn't think so. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra Who is James Hansen and why would he disagrees with a response to a post that shows that it is proven scientific fact that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or down, not the other way around, as the true earth scientists have been saying all along? >> DUH! What part of the record listed shows, CO2 levels follow the >> temperature [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You'll probably mention some third-rate dissidents who are highly > political and are paid by oil, natural gas, or coal interests. > DUH! What part of the record listed shows, CO2 levels follow the temperature > up or down, not the other way around, as the true earth scientists have been [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Jeff Thirty whole years' worth. OK...gotcha. For such a small sample, it's near impossible to tell if the CO2 is causing the temperature rise, or if the temperature rise is raising CO2 levels. It takes hundreds to thousands of years worth of data to be significant. And when we start looking at thousands of years worth, we find temperature precedes CO2 levels. How about that?! > You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or > down, not the other way around as the true earth scientists have been saying > all along. Probably why the IPCC took the chart off their web site. Kinda looked like egg on their face. > That would indicate natural event, like changes in sun spots, increased > volcanic active and tectonic plate movements, are what is leading to the > higher CO2 levels, as the true earth scientists have been saying all along. Imagine that! The Earth warming and cooling in cycles! Who would have ever thought? (HINT: his initials aren't A-L G-O-R-E) > . > > If man is not the cause then they can not tax "Carbon" like BO and the Dims > are want to do. That will raise the cost of everything you buy, every > day. The environuts are now running the country and the folks better > soon wise up LOL Yup. Even better. I wonder how much money Al Gore has tied up in cap and trade. If it were to come out the whole thing was a farce, it would all fall right flat on it's face and the scam would be exposed. >>>>>> "Long Term Trend"? Thirty years does not make a "long term trend" in >>>>>> Geologic history. Three hundred years does not make a "long term [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] >>>>>> Stock >>>>>> Market? Ask Joe. > > You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or > > down, not the other way around as the true earth scientists have been saying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Imagine that! The Earth warming and cooling in cycles! Who would have ever > thought? (HINT: his initials aren't A-L G-O-R-E) Actually they are, because Gore has always acknowledged the cyclic nature of our climate, as do all climate scientists. Frankly you're practicing the same junk science and lack of integrity that the advocates of Intelligent Design do when they try to argue against Darwinism. >> > You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or >> > down, not the other way around as the true earth scientists have been saying [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > advocates of Intelligent Design do when they try to argue against > Darwinism. Um, I think you have that just a bit...BACKWARDS!! >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Um, I think you have that just a bit...BACKWARDS!! Whiney Joe Besser has it Bass Ackwards, as usual. Sir Charles THE Curmudgeon, KS > Imagine that! The Earth warming and cooling in cycles! Who would have > ever thought? (HINT: his initials aren't A-L G-O-R-E) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Whiney Joe Besser has it Bass Ackwards, as usual. Wow. I've been insulted by a 50-year-old virgin who admited to hating women and wanting to murder innocent people just because they supported Obama. It's like being scolded by a saint. Why did you, Charles R. Fregeau of 21 Kristen Drive, Apartment 106, Schaumburg, IL, 60195, threaten to machine gun people to death? > > Imagine that! The Earth warming and cooling in cycles! Who would have ever > > thought? (HINT: his initials aren't A-L G-O-R-E) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Um, I think you have that just a bit...BACKWARDS!! No, I don't, Hach, and you're being political, rather than serious, if you think otherwise. >> > Imagine that! The Earth warming and cooling in cycles! Who would have ever >> > thought? (HINT: his initials aren't A-L G-O-R-E) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, I don't, Hach, and you're being political, rather than serious, if > you think otherwise. I'm not being political at all. Just the opposite. I'm not letting politics shade most of the facts. Does CO2 add to the effect? Certainly. I just don't think as much as those with agendas are saying. Do others notice that our friend Larry is ALWAYS on the goofy, kook side of every discussion? LOL >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Um, I think you have that just a bit...BACKWARDS!! What is Darwinism? . Hachiroku ???? wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:52:49 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Imagine that! The Earth warming and cooling in cycles! Who would have ever > thought? (HINT: his initials aren't A-L G-O-R-E) Actually they are, because Gore has always acknowledged the cyclic nature of our climate, as do all climate scientists. Frankly you're practicing the same junk science and lack of integrity that the advocates of Intelligent Design do when they try to argue against Darwinism. > You are NOT supposed to notice that CO2 levels follow the temperature up or > down, not the other way around as the true earth scientists have been saying [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > volcanic active and tectonic plate movements, are what is leading to the > higher CO2 levels, as the true earth scientists have been saying all along. At 383 ppm (as of January 2007), there are currently about 3x10^12 metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels, releases about 26.8x10^9 metric tons per year (2003). That's about 0.89% of the atmospheric total, and would result in an annual increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 3.4ppm. We're actually seeing an annual increase of about 1.9ppm, so the rest of the CO2 is being absorbed by other sinks. So, if the increasing CO2 levels are being caused by "natural event", just where is the CO2 that we're producing going? And what natural event is responsible for the CO2 increase? By the way, global volcanic activity accounts for about 200x10^6 metric tons of CO2 annually, or about 0.75% of that released from burning fossil fuels. (For the arithmetically challenged, that's 3/4 of 1%, not 75%.) It would also help your argument if you accounted for the coincidence of your "natural event" with the industrial revolution. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been relatively constant for the last 10,000 years, up until the time we started burning large amounts of fossil fuels. > If man is not the cause then they can not tax "Carbon" like BO and the Dims > are want to do. That will raise the cost of everything you buy, every [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] >>>>>> Stock >>>>>> Market? Ask Joe. >>>>>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > If you look at the graph, how much more cyclical can it get? Yeah, it's cyclical, but that's not the point you're trying to make. You're claiming that warming causes an increase in CO2, not the other way around. And I'm agreeing that yes, warming can cause an increase in CO2, but increased CO2 can also cause more warming, thus amplifying the effect. The problem is that you don't understand what a feedback loop is. >>> Seventy years is nothing. >> 30 + 70 + millennia != Seventy. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > If you look at the graph, how much more cyclical can it get? It's cyclical, but it's not clockwork. There's quite a bit of variation in the lengths of both the glacial and the interglacial periods. >>>> what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial >>>> periods. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > OK. He does understand. What does the chart tell you is happening? It tells me that we're in the midst of what has been a very stable interglacial. There is no indication that that interglacial is about to end. >>>> Second, the periodicity of those is on average >>>> about 50,000 years, but the "on average" is very important [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Um...well...yeah. But he's all wet. Would you care to expand upon that? Where did he go wrong? >>>> http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > temperature is rising, but in the short run we're due for some serious > chill. Short run, as in "this has been a rather cold winter"? Or short run, as in, "look out, here comes the next glacial period!"? I'd believe the former. If you're claiming the latter, then my bet is that you've either seriously misunderstood what he said, or he was pulling your leg. > He also doesn't think the planet's going to burn to a cinder anytime soon. No one thinks the planet is going ro burn to a cinder anytime soon. > While this is all well and good, there's one overriding factor here: the > entire universe is trying to reach a temperature stasis, and that > temperature is very, very cold. That's irrelevant to this discussion. Long before the heat death of the universe, the sun will become a red giant and really burn the earth to a cinder. But that's still about 5 billion years off, so it too is irrelevant. >>>>> When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made >>>>> themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And you don't think Gore is at least a little overboard? Actually, no, not really. I saw the movie shortly after it came out (interestingly enough, with a group of post-docs and grad students, mostly geology, atmosphere, climate, and physical oceanography), and while he oversimplified here and there, and glossed over a few things, I thought that, overall, his was a pretty good presentation for a lay audience. > If you knew more about Geology than I do, you'd see we're not going to be > reduced to ashes. You'd also know we're heading for a cold period. No one is claiming we're going to be reduced to ashes; there's no need for straw men here. As for your imminent ice age, what mechanism do you propose? What is going to trigger it? A solar minimum? Orbital variation? Oh, right, it's all that CO2 in the atmosphere. Somehow we've gotten the easily measured, basic physical properties of the molecule all wrong, and it actually causes cooling, not warming after all. Yeah, that's it! > There's also something else no one is taking into account. There hasn't > been a real good Vesuvius or Krakatoa for a while. Think all the volcanoes > are dormant? All it takes is one good stack-blowing to blow all these > theories into the weeds. Volcanoes have a relatively short term effect, on the order of a year or so. And the amount of CO2 they spew is relatively minor compared to that generated by burning fossil fuels. Look at the Keeling Curve - no significant bump for either Mount Saint Helens or Pinatubo. >>>>>> Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession is over! >>>>>> Let's celebrate! >>>>> Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock >>>>> Market? Ask Joe. >>>>>>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > amplifying the effect. The problem is that you don't > understand what a feedback loop is. Of course I do. But the chart does not tell us that. The chart shows warming preceding CO2 in every case. There is no proof this time is any different. A lot of conjecture, but no proof. >>>> Seventy years is nothing. >>> 30 + 70 + millennia != Seventy. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > bit of variation in the lengths of both the glacial and > the interglacial periods. It's damn near clockwork. In geological terms, you could almost set your clock by it. 10-15,000 year intervals. In the grand scheme of things (billions of years) that is relatively a few seconds. >>>>> what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial >>>>> periods. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > very stable interglacial. There is no indication that > that interglacial is about to end. There isn't? See where the temperature is rising? Now, look back through time in the chart and tell me, what happened right before a major drop in temperature. I can't see why people are so ignorant to this. >>>>> Second, the periodicity of those is on average >>>>> about 50,000 years, but the "on average" is very important [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Would you care to expand upon that? Where did he go > wrong? I'll have to read it again. If I remember, he was dealing in absolutes, and there are no absolutes. Especially when the evidence is mounting to prove my point. >>>>> http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > is that you've either seriously misunderstood what he said, or he > was pulling your leg. Not at all. He said there is a glacial period coming. They all say there is a glacial period coming. >> He also doesn't think the planet's going to burn to a cinder anytime soon. > > No one thinks the planet is going ro burn to a cinder anytime > soon. Better have a talk with Al Gore. We're going to fry any second now, according to him. >> While this is all well and good, there's one overriding factor here: the >> entire universe is trying to reach a temperature stasis, and that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the earth to a cinder. But that's still about 5 billion years > off, so it too is irrelevant. Not at all. All it takes is a 'wobble' in the orbit of the Earth of a few thousand miles to make a substantial change in temperature. >>>>>> When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made >>>>>> themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > glossed over a few things, I thought that, overall, his was a > pretty good presentation for a lay audience. Yes, a lay audience. Hopefully, the post-docs and grad students were laughing their a.ses off. >> If you knew more about Geology than I do, you'd see we're not going to be >> reduced to ashes. You'd also know we're heading for a cold period. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > physical properties of the molecule all wrong, and it actually > causes cooling, not warming after all. Yeah, that's it! That's what they thought 50 years ago. What changed? The Earth started getting warmer, and CO2 levels were rising. Again, I don't believe there is any real proof. And, as I stated above, all it takes is a small wobble in the orbit of the Earth to cause temp changes. When I first saw a chart similar to the one I posted, it occurred to me that is exactly what's happening. Maybe some day they can prove it. Maybe they don't want to, since so many have bought into Global Warming that they don't want to have egg on their faces. And, notice the term has been changed to Climate Change. Wonder why that is? >> There's also something else no one is taking into account. There hasn't >> been a real good Vesuvius or Krakatoa for a while. Think all the volcanoes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Keeling Curve - no significant bump for either Mount Saint Helens > or Pinatubo. There was for Pinatubo. One of the heaviest snow seasons recorded in the Northeast in decades. >>>>>>> Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession is over! >>>>>>> Let's celebrate! >>>>>> Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock >>>>>> Market? Ask Joe. >>>>>>>>>>> Stop being a dumbass. I know you're not. If the 'lowest extent' was 2007, >>>>>>>>>>> what does that mean? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Of course I do. Well, you're not showing any evidence of such knowledge. > But the chart does not tell us that. The chart shows warming preceding CO2 > in every case. You're still not understanding what I'm saying. Look at the chart again and stop and think for a second. Here's the chart: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/globalclimate/IceCores1.gif Rather than dig back through this thread, I did a quick google search. The URL is different, but I'm pretty it's the same chart. If not, let me know your URL. Anyway, let's pick the latest temperature/CO2 increase as an example. The resolution of the chart is fairly low, but it looks like it began about 17,000 years ago, when the CO2 level had dropped to a minimum of about 180ppm, and temperature was about -8°C relative to now. Over the next 7,000 years, until about 10,000 years ago, temperature rose pretty close to current levels and CO2 rose to about 260ppm. You insist that temperature rose before CO2, and while I think the resolution of the chart is too low to make that claim definitively, I'd certainly be willing to say that it's possible, even probable, that temperature began to rise before CO2 began to rise. But independent of which started it, throughout most of that 7,000 year period, both were rising steeply and simultaneously. Look, we know there's a very simple well-understood mechanism by which rising CO2 can cause rising temperatures. It's a simple, easily measured property of CO2. We also know of ways that warming might release additional CO2 into the atmosphere. So, it's not as simple as one causing the other. An increase in either one can result in an increase in the other, leading to a positive feedback loop. > There is no proof this time is any different. A lot of conjecture, but no > proof. So let me try to understand your point. You're claiming that the increase we're seeing in atmospheric CO2 is being caused somehow by the increasing temperature, not by all the CO2 that we're releasing by burning fossil fuels? Look at the chart:current temperature is lower than it has been in four temperature spikes in the past 420,000 years. In each of those spikes, CO2 levels never got much above 300ppm. The current CO2 level is 385ppm. If temperature is responsible for the current increase, why don't we see similarly elevated CO2 levels in the past? >>>>> Seventy years is nothing. >>>> 30 + 70 + millennia != Seventy. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > clock by it. 10-15,000 year intervals. In the grand scheme of things > (billions of years) that is relatively a few seconds. Look at the chart. How many cycles do you see in 420,000 years? I count somewhere between 4 and 4.5. Looks like an average of about 100,000 year intervals to me. Temperature peaks look like an easily identified marker, so lets measure between those: 1st: 410,000 - 323,000 = 87,000 2nd: 323,000 - 238,000 = 85,000 3rd: 238,000 - 129,000 = 109,000 4th: 129,000 - 8,000 = 121,000 If you can identify anything in that chart with a periodicity of 10-15,000 years, you're more imaginative than I. >>>>>> what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial >>>>>> periods. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > time in the chart and tell me, what happened right before a major drop in > temperature. Yeah, temperature and CO2 are strongly correlated. We all know that. Temperature and CO2 peak about the same time, and then decline at similar rates. You know the saying, "it's always darkest just before the dawn"? Well, it's not the darkness that's causing the dawn. > I can't see why people are so ignorant to this. Okay, I'll give it a shot. Explain to me how increasing CO2 might cause a precipitous drop in temperature. Give me a mechanism that makes sense. >>>>>> Second, the periodicity of those is on average >>>>>> about 50,000 years, but the "on average" is very important [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and there are no absolutes. Especially when the evidence is mounting to > prove my point. Yeah, you will need to read it again because your memory of it is quite wrong. There were no absolutes in the paper. The author suggests, based on the evidence of Antarctic ice cores dating back 740,000 years, that the current interglacial period resembles an interglacial period about 430,000 years ago that lasted about 28,000 years. No absolutes. He compares interglacials and presents evidence that shows similarities between two of those interglacials, and concludes that, if the comparison holds, our current interglacial may last for quite a bit longer. As for the mounting evidence that proves your point, I'd sure like to see it. So far, all you've done is to trot out your little chart over and over again. Each time you post that chart is not more evidence, especially since the chart does nothing to back up your claim. All it does is show a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, and possibly show that increasing temperature might act as a triggering event. >>>>>> http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Not at all. He said there is a glacial period coming. They all say there > is a glacial period coming. If they're all telling you that there's a glacial period coming in the near future, then they're all pulling your leg. Even in the '70s, when everyone was supposed to be predicting a coming ice age, hardly anyone really was. >>> He also doesn't think the planet's going to burn to a cinder anytime soon. >> No one thinks the planet is going ro burn to a cinder anytime >> soon. > > Better have a talk with Al Gore. We're going to fry any second now, > according to him. That's nonsense. Gore has made no such claim. >>> While this is all well and good, there's one overriding factor here: the >>> entire universe is trying to reach a temperature stasis, and that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not at all. All it takes is a 'wobble' in the orbit of the Earth of a few > thousand miles to make a substantial change in temperature. The earth orbits the sun at an average distance of about 93 million miles. A wobble of a few thousand miles would have negligible effect on temperature. Also, orbital mechanics are very well understood and the earth's orbit, tilt, and spin are quite predictable. Solar cycles are another matter. They're quite a bit less predictable. But the variance between solar minimum and solar maximum produces a difference in radiative forcing of well under half a Watt/m2. The radiative forcing effect of the additional greenhouse gases (additional above pre-Industrial Revolution levels) in the atmosphere is just over 2.6 Watts/m2. So any effect due to solar variation is swamped by the effects of greenhouse gases. >>>>>>> When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made >>>>>>> themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Yes, a lay audience. Hopefully, the post-docs and grad students were > laughing their a.ses off. Nope. Their opinion was quite similar to mine. There was a bit of grousing from a few of them that Gore had overlooked the work that had been done within their field - "how could he have left out the work we've done on the effects of high atmosphere aerosols in cloud formation?" - that sort of thing. But overall, they thought he did a pretty good job. >>> If you knew more about Geology than I do, you'd see we're not going to be >>> reduced to ashes. You'd also know we're heading for a cold period. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > getting warmer, and CO2 levels were rising. Again, I don't believe there > is any real proof. Actually, hardly anyone thought that 50 years ago, or even 30-40 years ago (the claim is usually "but in the '70s, they were predicting an imminent ice"). Here's an interesting paper from the American Meteorological Society: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf > And, as I stated above, all it takes is a small wobble in the orbit of the > Earth to cause temp changes. If that's the case, then the additional CO2 should be causing very significant temperature increases, since the radiative forcing effect of the additional CO2 is far greater than any effect you'd get from a small wobble. > When I first saw a chart similar to the one I posted, it occurred to > me that is exactly what's happening. Maybe some day they can prove it. So based upon nothing other than your faulty reading of this chart, you've decided that high levels of CO2 trigger a drop in temperature. No other evidence. No proposed mechanism. Not a very convincing argument you've got there. > Maybe they don't want to, since so many have bought into Global Warming > that they don't want to have egg on their faces. > > And, notice the term has been changed to Climate Change. Wonder why that > is? Both terms have been in use for quite a while, but have slightly different meanings. Here's the explanation: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html >>> There's also something else no one is taking into account. There hasn't >>> been a real good Vesuvius or Krakatoa for a while. Think all the volcanoes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There was for Pinatubo. One of the heaviest snow seasons recorded in the > Northeast in decades. Right, short-term effect due to atmospheric aerosols. But, as I said, no significant bump in atmospheric CO2 levels. >>>>>>>> Hey everyone, the stock market went up today! The recession is over! >>>>>>>> Let's celebrate! >>>>>>> Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock >>>>>>> Market? Ask Joe. >> But the chart does not tell us that. The chart shows warming preceding CO2 >> in every case. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > increase, why don't we see similarly elevated CO2 levels > in the past? There are, as evidenced by the ice core samples. Of course, Man has added to this. But I don't think the effect is going to be as dramatic as politicians would have us believe. >>>>>> Seventy years is nothing. >>>>> 30 + 70 + millennia != Seventy. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > If you can identify anything in that chart with a periodicity > of 10-15,000 years, you're more imaginative than I. While looking around, I found this: http://www.nexialinstitute.com/tempglac.jpg The Earth is actually cooling, according to this chart. Not only that, but glacial periods are getting closer together. Here's another interesting chart, which shows methane levels at the Vostok Ice Core. While the temperature has been steadily rising, methane levels are falling. What's interesting about this chart is that methane levels precede temperature levels: when methane levels rise, temperature rises, and when methane levels fall, temperature falls: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/image/Image49.gif This chart also fortifies temperature preceding CO2, but not as clearly as the other chart. Of course, you can't make much out of this chart, since we are at the point where the temperature appears to be reaching a zenith: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7e/Milankovitch_Variations.png And a 'glacial period' is not the trough, it starts on the downward slope of temperature. Using this chart: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/Nyheder/billeder/geo/epica-temp-curve-350.jpg/ the troughs indicate periods when glaciers cover the Earth. About every 10-15,000 years. The warming is coming to an end. There is absolutely *nothing* that will stop the cooling once it starts. Why is that so hard to understand? >>>>>>> what you're talking about are the glacial/interglacial >>>>>>> periods. [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > the '70s, when everyone was supposed to be predicting a coming > ice age, hardly anyone really was. Gee, he looked pretty serious to me. He also said he doesn't believe politicians, either. >>>> He also doesn't think the planet's going to burn to a cinder anytime soon. >>> No one thinks the planet is going ro burn to a cinder anytime [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's nonsense. Gore has made no such claim. But there's such a sense of urgency! The earth is running a temperature! >>>> While this is all well and good, there's one overriding factor here: the >>>> entire universe is trying to reach a temperature stasis, and that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > atmosphere is just over 2.6 Watts/m2. So any effect due to > solar variation is swamped by the effects of greenhouse gases. Where did you copy this from? >>>>>>>> When it comes to Geologic history, I'll follow trends that have made >>>>>>>> themselves apparent over 650,000 years over a 'trend' advance by a [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > in temperature. No other evidence. No proposed mechanism. > Not a very convincing argument you've got there. Perhaps faulty in your opinion. It quite clearly shows temperature (blue) preceding CO2 (red). By a bit of a margin. >> Maybe they don't want to, since so many have bought into Global Warming >> that they don't want to have egg on their faces. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>>>>>>> Don't you know? What one person says or does has *no* effect on the Stock >>>>>>>> Market? Ask Joe. This is getting excessively long, so I'm going to trim it a bit and address some of the core issues. >>> Not at all. All it takes is a 'wobble' in the orbit of the Earth of a few >>> thousand miles to make a substantial change in temperature. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Where did you copy this from? Copy it from? Out of my head. Except for the GHG radiative forcing number, which I looked up on an EPA website to verify that I had remembered it correctly (I recalled the value as about 2.5, the EPA site listed it as 2.64). Radiative forcing, in case you don't know (surely you do, though, as it's a very important concept in understanding this topic, and you do like to pass yourself off as an expert) is the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation. A positive number means more energy is flowing in, a negative number means more is flowing out. Oh, here's the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html >>> When I first saw a chart similar to the one I posted, it occurred to >>> me that is exactly what's happening. Maybe some day they can prove it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perhaps faulty in your opinion. It quite clearly shows temperature (blue) > preceding CO2 (red). By a bit of a margin. Okay, the problem is finally beginning to dawn on me. We need to step back a bit here. I've got a couple exercises for you that involve a little bit of math, but don't worry, nothing beyond simple grade school stuff. Get out a piece of blank paper. Get out a ruler, too, to help you draw straight lines. Draw X and Y axes on the paper which meet at the lower left corner at (0,0). Pick a convenient scale, say 1 unit = 1 cm and label your axes. Now, in blue, plot this equation on your graph, for 0 <= x <= 4, and label it "T": y = 5x + 1 Now, plot this one in red, also for 0 <= x <= 4, and label it "C": y = 5x The resulting graph should look like a very simple version of one of the periods of increasing temperature and CO2 on your graph - even the colors are the same. Now, a question for you: which one goes up first - T or C? Another exercise. Look closely at your chart: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/globalclimate/IceCores1.gif Look at the left axis. It runs from 180 to 380. Now imagine the graph if it had been drawn with that axis running instead from 140 to 340. The temperature (blue) line is unaffected by our change since its values are on the unchanged right axis. The CO2 (red) line, though, is shifted upward by 20% of the height of the graph. The data hasn't changed at all, we just altered a purely arbitrary decision on how to label an axis, but imagine what the two lines now look like with respect to each other. Think about what you would see in that graph if you made that very simple transformation. > http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > all. Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of > the decline are enormous." Do you really think 30 years worth of sketchy data represents a "long term trend" for a planet that is 4 Billion years old? Or even over the course of "modern" human history (maybe 4000 years)? People trying to sell an idea often carefully pick their data to make a point. This is just another case of people using partial data to sell something. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Or in this case, people trying to sell their pet theory only present supporting data. Ed >> http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ed What if 30 years worth is all we have? Should it be ignored? Totally separate question: How many years worth of data do YOU think is appropriate before taking action? >>> http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > What if 30 years worth is all we have? Should it be ignored? Wishful thinking. There's millenia worth of data. The Alarmists are choosing to ignore it. > Totally separate question: > > How many years worth of data do YOU think is appropriate before taking > action? Taking action to stop an Ice Age? Good luck! The last one covered about 2/3 of the US to below the Mason Dixon line. Florida was like upper Vermont. Oh. You mean as far as Global Warming! Accurate data would be nice. So far there have been numerous reports of tainted data; the accurate data seems to be missing somewhere. Am I saying we should ignore so-called "Greenhouse Gasses"? Nah. Just stop the K00L-Aid drinking, the gum flapping, the Al Gore do as I say not as I do crap, and get SERIOUS about it. It certainly won't hurt. Like I said, in my area the K00Ks gather on the common to protest something or other every Saturday; either the war or foreign oil, and yet when a company wanted to put up a wind farm in a nearby town, Oh, NO!!! Not Here!!!! Typical. Talk is cheap. Liberal K00K talk is worthless. >>>> http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png >>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Talk is cheap. Liberal K00K talk is worthless. I see you have multiple identities. You are also C.E. White. >>>>> http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > I see you have multiple identities. You are also C.E. White. How do you figure that? Don't know how to read headers? I can't help it if Ed is as smart as I am. Or as cynical when it comes to k00ks pushing the GW alarm. You're 0 for two today. Want to continue? > An oops that applies to about a month's worth of raw data ("early > January" to "mid-February"). And you neglected to quote this: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn't change > findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said. Lowest extent "ever" or lowest extent since someone has been trying to measure it, or lowest extent according to someone trying to push their particualr pet theory? Since the earth was much warmer in the past, I suspect the latter. This is one of the problems with the eviromental wackos. They think that the Earth's enviroment, as they preceived it to be when they were five, is the way it always was and always should be. This of course is silly. If in the next ten years it appears that the climate is significantly cooling, will we be encouraged to buy SUVs so that we can release more CO2 to fight global cooling? Ed >> An oops that applies to about a month's worth of raw data ("early >> January" to "mid-February"). And you neglected to quote this: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ed Yeah, I love this school of 'thought'. Well, there's THIRTY YEARS of data!! Yeah, there's also about a half-million years of data that says just the opposite of what we're currently being fed, but that either doesn't count, or has been disproved by 'scientists' with agendas, and probably government grants. Every Geologist I have ever spoken to in the past 35 years says there's a 'cooling cycle' (er, Ice Age, or Glacial period) every 12,000 or so years, now one k00k comes out with a paper and it's Gospel. Why? It helps them maintain their stance so they don't look like K00L-Aid drinking fools. Oh, and *EVERY* Geologist I have ever spoken to, even in the past two years, says there is a Glacial period coming at us like a freight train, and nothing is going to stop it. Even the ones that really believe in Global Warming. > >> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Huh? At least, if Scott is medicated, it's at a Doctor's direction, and > not self medicated like you seem to be: Scott gets his medication from Octo-mom's fertility doctor. >> >> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Scott gets his medication from Octo-mom's fertility doctor. STOP! I don't wanna hear it! You've done it now. Planted a seed that I hope I can remove... That article says that warming is worse than expected. The sensors failed and reported that there was more ice than there really is. > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.