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

So... are does Leadville's distance above sea level ever change? Does the distance of Leadville from the center of the earth change?

It may! I don't know. It's in the Rocky Mountains so it probably did change when the Rocky Mountains grew. Maybe it has even changed within the last 100 years.

While Leadville's air pressure changes it doesn't mean that Leadville is getting farther from the center of the earth, does it ican?

Correct!

If Leadville DID get farther from the center of the earth what would happen to it's relative air pressure compared to sea level?

It's average atmospheric pressure relative to that of standard sea level would decrease!

Compare the air pressure over a year at Atlanta to that at Leadville. Can you tell that Leadville is higher than Atlanta because of the average air pressure?

The elvation above sea level of William B. Hartfield Atlanta Internationalis is about 1,000 feet above standard sea level. I bet the average relative atmospheric pressure of Atlanta is about 9 inches greater than the relative atmospheric pressure of Leadville, which is about 10,000 feet above standard sea level. So from those pressure differences, one can tell Leadville's airport is about 9,000 feet higher than Atlanta's.

UV Index: 0 Low
Wind: From NNW at 12 mph
Humidity: 18%
Pressure: 30.50 in.
Dew Point: 16°F
Visibility: 5.0 miles

UV Index: 0 Low
Wind: CALM
Humidity: 70%
Pressure: 29.99 in.
Dew Point: 67°F
Visibility: 9.0 miles

A lot of people can't see the trees for the forest. Don't you realise you are being lied to.

You will notice, I only had to ignore the other variables to make my conclusion ican. That is what YOU do when you misuse the temperature and CO2 data to claim CO2 can't be the cause of any temperature changes.

LOL.. so.. in order to show that Leadville is HIGHER than Atlanta, you have to CHANGE the numbers. Interesting ican. As I stated, using JUST the number as listed and NOTHING else, I proved that Leadville is lower in elevation than Atlanta. You admit that in order to make it have meaning you have to adjust the numbers for other factors. Yet, when it comes to CO2, you fail to adjust for other factors. That is PRECISELY the point I was making about your lack of logic ican. If you don't include other factors than your conclusion is wrong.

When it comes to CO2 atmospheric density, I simply reported what is alleged by others to be the 100 year history of average annual CO2 density in the atmosphere. I also reported the alleged average annual global temperatures over the same period. I also reported the alleged average annual solar irradiance over the same period.

I didn't change the numbers. I simply reported the numbers. I used the OFFICIAL numbers. You changed them FROM the official numbers by adding for elevation. (How they are calculated doesn't matter since it is just the numbers.)

Quote:
When it comes to CO2 atmospheric density, I simply reported what is alleged by others to be the 100 year history of average annual CO2 density in the atmosphere. I also reported the alleged average annual global temperatures over the same period. I also reported the alleged average annual solar irradiance over the same period.Let's see what you didn't include.. you didn't include the fact that the solar irradiance is currently in a downward trend, when you claimed CO2 doesn't affect temperature. You didn't include the SOI in the same numbers. You didn't include the fact that temperature varies over both of the cycles that you didn't include. Then while ignoring the cycles downward trend you claimed that it shows something about CO2.

Thank you! You are correct! I didn't in my previous post include the fact that the solar irradiance is currently in a downward trend. I also didn't include the fact that the current average annual global temperature is also in a downward trend. But I did mention that the density of CO2 in the atmosphere currently continues to increase.

I suppose you don't listen to your Dr when it comes to medical treatments after all, he is only the specialist compared to youwho can wake up and realize things without needing science or facts.

There are heaps of scientist who don't believe for one second that man made CO2 is causing global temperature increases.

As for the forest and the trees, it works both ways if you think about it.

Yes, and the fact that the solar cycle and SOI are on a downward trend doesn't negate the effect of CO2. It only means that as they turn and trend up we will get new highs again.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
305
Climatologist Dr. David R. Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist and the Director, Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, has authored or coauthored 45 peer-reviewed scientific studies. Legates also expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "Scientific debate continues regarding the extent to which human activities contribute to global warming and what the potential impact on the environment might be. Importantly, much of the scientific evidence contradicts assertions that substantial global warming is likely to occur soon and that the predicted warming will harm the Earth's biosphere," Legates wrote in a May 15, 2007 study entitled "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts." "Sea levels have been rising - in fact, they have been rising since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago - but there is no evidence of an accelerating trend. The complexity of the climate and the limitations of data and computer models mean projections of future climate change are unreliable at best. In sum, the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change," Legates concluded. Legates has also served as Coordinator of the National Geographic sponsored Delaware Geographic Alliance and served as the Associate Director for the NASA sponsored Delaware Space Grant Consortium. (LINK) Legates has also clashed with the Governor of Delaware in 2007 because of the Governor disagreed with his skeptical views on global warming. (LINK)

In either case, the rate at which humans cause CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere has not been shown to be a significant factor in either of the following:
(1) CO2 density in the atmosphere;
(2) Average Annual Global Temperature.

If my Dr tells me I need my liver removed I don't go and find 3 meteorologists that tell me I will be fine without surgery so that I can claim "heaps of scientists" think the Dr is wrong.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
306
Meteorologists Andre and Sally Bernier of WJW-TV, in Cleveland, Ohio, both reject climate fears. "As two degreed and seasoned meteorologists, we will not be selling our snowblower anytime soon or tempted to try planting a palm tree in our front lawn," the Berniers, who were formerly of The Weather Channel, wrote to EPW on May 21, 2007. "There is simply far too little evidence to support entertaining the notion of anthropogenic causes for any climate shift. The focus has been to unearth as much evidence as possible all the while ignoring any evidence that is contrary to the theory the likes of which is far too significant to cast off," the Berniers explained. "Additionally, to rely and act on computer models which do not even come close to accurately capture the infinitely complex climate system of Earth is nothing short of reckless and irresponsible," they explained. "Thirty years ago headlines frightened everyone with an in imminent ice age. We suspect that fifty years from now, real science will have cast off and forgotten these claims similar to the realization that Galileo was right after all," the Berniers concluded.

Ah!, so what you are saying is your scientists are better than my scientists .

Parados, I think you are ignoring much of the science and making false statements.