Reply With Quote
I don't know where you are to answer the question "why is it so ing cold".
Not sure what you mean or what data set you base your statement that "temperatures have remained fairly stable since 98.
You suck at posing questions.
Hey, RG; why is it so ing cold? And, if CO2 keeps rising, why have temperatures remained fairly stable since '98?
Just asking.
I don't know where you are to answer the question "why is it so ing cold".
Not sure what you mean or what data set you base your statement that "temperatures have remained fairly stable since 98.
You suck at posing questions.
Is cold weather inconsistant with man made climate change?
You don't even understand the theory you are criticizing.
Because it keeps ing changing, like the weather. In fact, I think the theory adequately describes what's been going on for -- well -- ever. They call it weather.
Not three years ago, Al Gore was telling us the glaciers were irreversibly receding and that they'd be gone by 2025. Now that they're growing, he says, of course, that's perfectly in line with what scientists predicted.
It's all a ing farce and you're so invested you can't admit it.
20 ppm increase in 3,000 years. (+1 ppm per 150 years)
70 ppm in 50 years. (+1 ppm per 8.5 months) (1960 to 2010)
That is a rate of increase more than 210 times faster.
Can you find any similar es in the data available?
Only if I use a computer model that turns a random signal into "hockey stick" shaped graphs.
The proxy data is limited to what is on the graph. To extend the graph would be to splice in other sources.
The proxy data shown is not in dispute with your side. So I ask, why is our temperature and rate of change unprecedented?
I think it is safe to assume, by your evasiveness, the answer is "no".Can you find any similar es in atmospheric CO2 in the data available?
If you can't find any other similar es in CO2 concentration over such short periods of time, then I guess "unprecedented change" seems to be a fair statement.
I misunderstood. I thought you were asking me if I could find temperature es that correlated with the CO2 es. My bad.
One of the hallmarks of good science is that theories will change as new data is collected.
That's how real science works, as opposed to bull dogma. You're so invested in that ideologically-based bull dogma, you can't admit it.
We were talking a bit past each other, an understandable mix-up. I could have been a bit more clear.
For CO2, and not temperature:
Assuming mild growth in emissions, we will emit as much CO2 in the next 24 years or so as we have in the previous 100.
It seems pretty obvious that our activities have been responsible for a pretty good run-up in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution really kicked off around 1900 or so.
WC, probably won't even want to accede that, but the ice core data he provided seems to show that the equilibrium concentration of CO2 was about 260-300 ppm for the last 12000 years or so.
Correlation is not causation but provides a reasonable basis to put together some testable hypotheses. The testing that has been done so far to test the thesis that our activities have been responsible for the run up seems to confirm that.
If this is the case, as we double, and re-double our emissions, that concentration should keep going up.
People who are skeptics about global warming may be able to quibble now, but if there is a man-caused overall warming, that will become more and more marked, snit fits over proxy data or no. We won't need proxy data.
LOL....
It's the AGW theory as presented that's bull dogma.
Why do you think that? I know that is essentially true.
Not true. Not all factors are taken into account, or can be. The modeling is difficult, and as I have repeatably pointed out, new information over the years shows that solar and soot cause more warming than thought of in the past.
I ask you this. With this revised upward forcing due to solar and soot, why where have they removed forcing to make the end results match?
Sure it will, but rather gradually. We probably have a 9 GtC GtC is still under 5% of the total CO2 sourcing to the atmosphere. The sinks will absorb more, so don't expect the atmospheric rise to double as emissions do.
I have never stated otherwise. we just disagree on the source.
Source = soot (black carbon) as the largest man made AGW effect.
Gradually, like 20 ppm increase in 3,000 years. (+1 ppm per 150 years)
(you know the one you attributed to ancient Egyption SUV's)
or gradually like 70 ppm in 50 years? (+1 ppm per 8.5 months) (1960 to 2010)
??
Sure mankind's emissions of CO2 are small compared to what nature does. If the system was in a rough equilibrium before, and you add more CO2 than the climate system can absorb, is it not logical that the extra CO2 will simply stick around?
No one has ever claimed that doubling our emissions will double CO2 concentration. I certainly don't.
Define "gradually". What concentration do you posit we will be at in 25 years when we have likely doubled our total emissions yet again?
Please outline a test for this hypothesis.
LOL... Please outline their hypothesis...
How can I do what the best scientists cannot?
They cannot test the theory which supports the IPCC claim of 1.6 watts of warming for CO2 during the period the AR4 covers. Since the AR4, even the IPCC has agreed that both black carbon warming and solar are more than previous said. They have no reasonable way to measure or test CO2 warming. It is simply educated guess work by the results of the leftover numbers in math. They have modeled numbers to give to CO2 warming, but constantly revise them lower, and lower, and lower.
Why is it that you guys include feedback to CO2 warming, which is a feedback of solar radiation, then refuse to give other variables a feedback? Have you ever really thought about the different arguments?
So you do not understand their arguments yet you espouse them?
I can imagine it has something to do with the absorption of solarradiation and the thermodynamic properties of carbon, the surface area of said carbon and the same traits of a control.
You are a minion.
WC doesn't know what Spectroscopy is?
Idiot.
You know better. You simply don't understand how complex it can get.
Remember these:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
