georgeob1 wrote: Poor Thomas sounds a bit hung over.
So I might have misread his post and he wasn't today but yesterday evening in the biergarten? :wink:
(I mean, his company is sometimes similar ...
)
Walter Hinteler wrote:So I might have misread his post and he wasn't today but yesterday evening in the biergarten?
No, you didn't misread me, it was today. As a Republican, George is probably a Flat Earther who assumes it's morning in Germany when it's morning in California. Hence the misunderstanding.
georgeob1 wrote:Here is the complete paragraph (and thought) that Steve edited. The answer to his point was contained in the phrases that followed. They are more or less what Thomas said above.
georgeob1 wrote:
The eagerness with which many people embrace the AGW matter, and the blindness with which they presume its supposed effects are so much more imminent and dangerous than many others of equal or greater effect & likelihood, arouses my very strong suspicions. When I then see them then arguing for the swift imposition of authoritarian controls (of their own favored design) on the way other people live their lives, my suspicions become much deeper. History is to a large degree the record of human folly -- particularly on matters involving how others should live. I do not believe that we have yet seen the end of either history or folly.
Steve - We disagree on several things, however - for a Brit - you are OK. Perhaps you too have noticed the nit opicking tendencies of the Germans on this thread. Thomas is getting more like Walter every day. Why can't you guys be even-tempered, wise, and reasonable like us Americans?
now I think you are playing off the Brits against the Germans...but it wont do George...our friendship goes back a long way...
Actually confession time. I didnt edit your post..I just didnt read most of it and therefore probably took something out of context.
Thomas wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:So I might have misread his post and he wasn't today but yesterday evening in the biergarten?
No, you didn't misread me, it was today. As a Republican, George is probably a Flat Earther who assumes it's morning in Germany when it's morning in California. Hence the misunderstanding.
Is there any other possibility??
Steve 41oo wrote:
now I think you are playing off the Brits against the Germans...but it wont do George...our friendship goes back a long way...
Actually confession time. I didnt edit your post..I just didnt read most of it and therefore probably took something out of context.
It figures ! You just read untill you got opissed off and then stopped.
You did find me out on the divide & hassle bit though.
I have been trying to be very politically correct in my jibes - an equal shot for everyone!
Well you certainly can't be blamed if some make better targets than others.
I do wish (the rhetorical) we could discuss the different concepts raised though instead of partitioning most of the discussion into "See?!" or "My side is the only right one" or "You suck".
April average for Mid-troposphere up a whopping .08 degrees C above the average, +0.24 in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.08 in the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html
None of the recorded averages reach that of the record highs of 1998, now almost 10 years after that occurred. I am sure Gore must be praying fervently the curves in those graphs do not begin to subside. Maybe that is why he is doing all he can to keep the trend going, more jetsetting, more homes, more waste, more CO2 ?
So how come the temperatures were rising even before much of the increase in industry and the existence of most of the evil automobiles, Walter? What caused the beginning of this rise?
Well, my question would be at first why YOU post a quote from a well-respected source with temperatures of the Mid-troposphere.
Do you live there?
okie wrote:So how come the temperatures were rising even before much of the increase in industry and the existence of most of the evil automobiles, Walter? What caused the beginning of this rise?
No idea. I'm neither an academic meteorologist nor specialist in history of the weather.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, my question would be at first why YOU post a quote from a well-respected source with temperatures of the Mid-troposphere.
Do you live there?
I like the source, Walter, and I like to watch the graphs unfold each month. Isn't that what this thread is about? I live on earth, so I am interested in the temperatures surrounding the earth. I am trying to figure out this whole mess of a controversy everybody is worked up over, fearing for their very lives.
It's pretty much co-incident with the huge increase in industry, which started roughly in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, and really hit its stride post WWI.
Walter Hinteler wrote:okie wrote:So how come the temperatures were rising even before much of the increase in industry and the existence of most of the evil automobiles, Walter? What caused the beginning of this rise?
No idea. I'm neither an academic meteorologist nor specialist in history of the weather.
Maybe you should consider the possible answers to that question, as it might be pertinent to the controversy of what is causing global warming?
username wrote:It's pretty much co-incident with the huge increase in industry, which started roughly in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, and really hit its stride post WWI.
Also pretty much co-incident with this graph:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
georgeob1 wrote:It figures ! You just read untill you got opissed off and then stopped.
Yep works for me every time.... there ya go just did it again
Actually its not true. If I agree I read it all. Maybe twice
And if I wrote it I read it three times.
Walter Hinteler wrote:okie wrote:So how come the temperatures were rising even before much of the increase in industry and the existence of most of the evil automobiles, Walter? What caused the beginning of this rise?
No idea. I'm neither an academic meteorologist nor specialist in history of the weather.
And this is why I take a somewhat flippant line in this thread. I'm not qualified to give an expert judgement either, but there are plenty of people around who are, and they overwhelmingly warn of the dangers of AGW. Meanwhile there are amateur commentators here who are quite certain the experts have it all wrong.
okie wrote:So how come the temperatures were rising even before much of the increase in industry and the existence of most of the evil automobiles, Walter? What caused the beginning of this rise?
Were they? Temperatures started their rise in the mid eighteenhundreds. Although there were no automobiles at the time, there was plenty of heavy industry, an exploding number of people who burned coal for heating, and other major emittors of greenhouse gasses.
Steve 41oo wrote:georgeob1 wrote:It figures ! You just read untill you got opissed off and then stopped.
Yep works for me every time.... there ya go just did it again
Actually its not true. If I agree I read it all. Maybe twice
And if I wrote it I read it three times.
Despite a host of nutty ideas - not to mention the outrage of his persistent disagreements with me - Steve is an honest man.
Thomas is just playiing around. The temperature rise in the mid 18th and early 19th centuries, at least empiraclly involved the restoration of previously normal temperaature and climactic conditions following the decidedly abnormal 'little ice age' that started in the 14th century. We can't exclude other anthromorphic factors, however the geological record shows rather continuous variation of the order of magnitude forecast by climatologists today.
I'm off to Washington and New York this morning. Very early flight at an unseemly hour - having a second cup of coffee to get going. Airports; the ennui of contemporary travel; too busy to work out yesterday; ... a bit grumpy. Perhaps I'll sleep on the plane.
georgeob1 wrote: The temperature rise in the mid 18th and early 19th centuries, at least empiraclly involved the restoration of previously normal temperaature and climactic conditions following the decidedly abnormal 'little ice age' that started in the 14th century. We can't exclude other anthromorphic factors, however the geological record shows rather continuous variation of the order of magnitude forecast by climatologists today.
Well,
the Met Office has some graphics online.
Southern Ocean Loaded With Carbon Dioxide
By Deborah Zabarenko
Reuters
WASHINGTON (May 19) - The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported on Thursday.
Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere, who called the finding very alarming.
The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain.
"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this really quite alarming."
The Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon, known as a carbon sink. When carbon is in a sink -- whether it's an ocean or a forest, both of which can lock up carbon dioxide -- it stays out of the atmosphere and does not contribute to global warming .
The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s.
This is significant because the Southern Ocean accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink, Le Quere said.
Global Warming Spurs Winds
Increased winds over the last half-century are to blame for the change, Le Quere said. These winds blend the carbon dioxide throughout the Southern Ocean, mixing the naturally occurring carbon that usually stays deep down with the human-caused carbon.
When natural carbon is brought up to the surface by the winds, it is harder for the Southern Ocean to accommodate more human-generated carbon, which comes from factories, coal-fired power plants and petroleum-powered motor vehicle exhaust.
The winds themselves are caused by two separate human factors.
First, the human-spawned ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere over the Southern Ocean has created large changes in temperature throughout the atmosphere, Le Quere said.
Second, the uneven nature of global warming has produced higher temperatures in the northern parts of the world than in the south, which has also made the winds accelerate in the Southern Ocean.
"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons (500 billion tons) of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans," Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement.
"The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean -- the strongest ocean sink -- is weakening is a cause for concern," Rapley said.
Another sign of warming in the Antarctic was reported on Tuesday by NASA , which found vast areas of snow melted on the southern continent in 2005 in a process that may accelerate invisible melting deep beneath the surface.
