Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

At least I can offer support for my beliefs based on science and history.

All you can present is skepticism littered with ignorance.

You're full of "Boondoggle."

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

At least I can offer support for my beliefs based on science and history.

All you can present is skepticism littered with ignorance.

You're full of "Boondoggle."

T
K
O

Malarky! You've misinterpreted much of what you claim supports your beliefs.

I have provided you far more real data on which I base my beliefs. Here are some examples:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Quote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F)

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/ghgtime.JPG

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.pdf
>>1958 -2007 Atmospheric CO2
(rotate counterclockwise, and fit page)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
Human Life Expectancy at Birth (All Races, Both Sexes)

1976-2007 % Increases:
Global Temperature up 0.66K from 286.95K to 287.61K = 0.23%
o 13.79C to 14.45C = 4.8%
o 56.82F to 58.01F = 2.1%
USA Life Expectancy up 1.1 years from 77.9 years to 79 years = 1.4%
Global Atmosphere CO2 up 53 ppm from 330 ppm to 383 ppm = 16%

What's causing it? Which is causing what?

0 Replies

Cherry-picker. Non-scientist. Fool. Get educated, and begin looking at ALL the data.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Be careful who you call a fool, diest.

I just noticed mid-troposphere comes in at -0.12 lower than average since 1978 for January, 2008, and both Northern and Southern hemispheres are below average.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS-m.html

One of the things that is obvious about all of this, that if temperature change is directly proportional to CO2, then the climate graphs would mirror the steady rise, but they obviously don't, so we obviously have other factors at work here, mostly very poorly understood. To repeat, by far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, and we have little or no data on this over any significant amount of time.

The best correlation that I've seen to date is the sun, when plotted with climate.

By the way, icann's graph seems to show the climate has warmed about 0.65 to 0.70 C since 1880, and the trend seems to have flattened out again recently. Who knows where it will go from here.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

[1976-2007 % Increases:
Global Temperature up 0.66K from 286.95K to 287.61K = 0.23%
o 13.79C to 14.45C = 4.8%
o 56.82F to 58.01F = 2.1%
USA Life Expectancy up 1.1 years from 77.9 years to 79 years = 1.4%
Global Atmosphere CO2 up 53 ppm from 330 ppm to 383 ppm = 16%

What's causing it? Which is causing what?

That has to be some of the silliest use of statistics I have ever seen.

Maybe if we make up a temperature system that makes 1976 1 degree and 2007 2 degrees we could then claim the temperate is up 100%. Rolling Eyes

We know that for 100s of years prior to 1850 the CO2 in the atmosphere was fairly constant. We know that since 1850 the CO2 content has increased dramatically. We know that humans have pumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We have no evidence of anything else changing in the CO2 process. If you have some other possible cause for the increase in CO2 by all means present it. Simply claiming you don't know the cause doesn't make the most likely cause, human activity, disappear.

Listing increases in US life expectancy doesn't mean there is a cause and effect. Hell, there isn't even evidence of a correlation. You have to show a link which you have not done. Just your usual silly **** throwing.

0 Replies

We also know that CO2 was much much higher in ancient history than they are now.

0 Replies

Is there a graph somewhere of average ocean temperatures going back over a hundred years or so? This one only goes to 1978, which shows the temp is now about what it was almost 30 years ago.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean.html

This site shows sea temps south and east of Newfoundland for about the last 100 years, and certainly no distinct warming trend there.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?id=7971&aid=2342

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Be careful who you call a fool, diest.

I just noticed mid-troposphere comes in at -0.12 lower than average since 1978 for January, 2008, and both Northern and Southern hemispheres are below average.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS-m.html

I am curious where you got the data for January 2008 since it doesn't appear to be released yet. it certainly isn't listed in the cites on junkscience.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Cherry-picker. Non-scientist. Fool. Get educated, and begin looking at ALL the data.

T
K
O

So you want more data, ay!

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
1880 thru 2007 The Annual Global (land and ocean combined) Anomalies (degrees C)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity
Solar activity
Sunspots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Solar Activity Proxies

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Monthly Mean Measurements Atmospheric CO2

Note: The 2007 human life expectancy (all races, both sexes) was estimated from 2002, 2003, and 2004 life expectancies.

ican "fool" credentials = BSEE, MSEE, 30 years research and development and 5 years public school board--3 years president, MBA, CFII, SEL, MEL, ATP, LEARJET, 10,000+ hours PIC.

What are your credentials, kid?

0 Replies

I don't want more data, I want it all.

You are making a conclusion and seeking the data to support it.

Kid's credentials - BSAE, Lockheed Martin Company, 8 years Wellness Educator, and lot's of other irrellevant details similar to any number of flight hours. I'm pretty good dancer too. Rolling Eyes

It looks like I stand corrected. You are a scientist, a poor one. Any good person of science would have a better understanding of the relavance of the "maybes" and "suggests" and "probably" which exist in the IPCC reports.

I don't know what the standards were back in your day old man, but I'm not impressed.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Is there a graph somewhere of average ocean temperatures going back over a hundred years or so? This one only goes to 1978, which shows the temp is now about what it was almost 30 years ago.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean.html

This site shows sea temps south and east of Newfoundland for about the last 100 years, and certainly no distinct warming trend there.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?id=7971&aid=2342

Okie, Is this what you want?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/dec/glob-jan-dec-pg.gif

Graphs 1880-2005 Land & Ocean; Ocean; Land

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't want more data, I want it all.

You are making a conclusion and seeking the data to support it.
...
T
K
O

No! I made what in the olden days was called a hypothesis. Then I began gathering data which so far neither refutes nor adequately supports that hypothesis.

What have you been doing, kid?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...
Listing increases in US life expectancy doesn't mean there is a cause and effect. Hell, there isn't even evidence of a correlation. You have to show a link which you have not done. Just your usual silly **** throwing.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
Life Expectancy at Birth by All Races-Both Sexes, Race and Sex

Note: I estimated 2007 data from 2002, 2003, and 2004 data.

0 Replies

Looks like you let go of your old standards old man. I'm fine with the theory of AGW/CC. I'm sure you're quite convinced you've moved form theory to Law. You seem to have an afinity for absolute language.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't want more data, I want it all.
...
T
K
O

I'll check with God. Maybe God will help you get it ALL.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
Listing increases in US life expectancy doesn't mean there is a cause and effect. Hell, there isn't even evidence of a correlation. You have to show a link which you have not done. Just your usual silly **** throwing.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
Life Expectancy at Birth by All Races-Both Sexes, Race and Sex

Note: I estimated 2007 data from 2002, 2003, and 2004 data.

A link between the data. Rolling Eyes

Ican got older from 1976 to 2007. US citizens got more obese from 1976 to 2007.

Just spouting facts about what happened from 1976 to 2007 doesn't show a correlation. You have to show that there is somehow a link.
CO2 and warming shows a link because of the simple little thing called science. CO2 atoms have been shown to absorb infrared. More CO2 means more infrared is absorbed. Simple and straight forward. A cause and effect that is readily shown by experiments a kid in HS can do.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Looks like you let go of your old standards old man. I'm fine with the theory of AGW/CC.
...
T
K
O

As I already said, I made an hypothesis.
hpothesis=a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical and/or impirical consequences.

Why are you fine with the theory of AGW/CC? Is it because you are drawn to think that what you theorize (or others theorize for you) is law?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Looks like you let go of your old standards old man. I'm fine with the theory of AGW/CC.
...
T
K
O

As I already said, I made an hypothesis.
hpothesis=a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical and/or impirical consequences.

Why are you fine with the theory of AGW/CC? Is it because you are drawn to think that what you theorize (or others theorize for you) is law?

Because changing the balance of a closed system has effects. There's no doubt that this is true. It's only debatable how much of an effect actions have.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:

...
Listing increases in US life expectancy doesn't mean there is a cause and effect. Hell, there isn't even evidence of a correlation. You have to show a link which you have not done. Just your usual silly **** throwing.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
Life Expectancy at Birth by All Races-Both Sexes, Race and Sex

Note: I estimated 2007 data from 2002, 2003, and 2004 data.

A link between the data.

Ican got older from 1976 to 2007. US citizens got more obese from 1976 to 2007.

Just spouting facts about what happened from 1976 to 2007 doesn't show a correlation. You have to show that there is somehow a link.
CO2 and warming shows a link because of the simple little thing called science. CO2 atoms have been shown to absorb infrared. More CO2 means more infrared is absorbed. Simple and straight forward. A cause and effect that is readily shown by experiments a kid in HS can do.

You do not have a cause and effect shown by experiments. All you have is a possible correlation shown by experiments. But currently it looks like it is a weak correlation because the temperature increased at a much slower rate 1976-2007 than did the CO2 in the atmosphere during the same period.

Also, do not forget, correlation alone does not prove cause.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

You do not have a cause and effect shown by experiments. All you have is a possible correlation shown by experiments. But currently it looks like it is a weak correlation because the temperature increased at a much slower rate 1976-2007 than did the CO2 in the atmosphere during the same period.
Also, do not forget, correlation alone does not prove cause.

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by
Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94,
273-85.

Tyndall, John (1863). "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere."
Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 25: 200-206.

Tyndall, John (1863). "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous
Vapor." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.

Tyndall, John (1873). Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain
of Radiant Heat. New York: Appleton.

Tyndall, John (1873). "Further Researches on the Absorption and
Radiation of Heat by Gaseous Matter (1862)." In Contributions to
Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat pp. 69-121. New York:
Appleton.

The link between gas heating and the composition of the gas has been known for 150 years. You have bull **** when you claim there is nothing more than "correlation". There is a very real DIRECT relation. The problem is not that there isn't a direct relation. The problem is in modeling all the other factors that also affect temperature.

You also don't know **** about what "direct relation" means. X = 10Y is a direct relation. X = Y^2 is also a direct relation. A direct relation in no way means that X and Y have to increase at the same rate. It only means that as one increases then the other would also increase. This is something that is quite clear from the graphs. Your statement highlighted in red is nothing but bull **** and pretty poor bull **** at that.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know