Reply With Quote
Yes, and in the recent 11,000, since we came out of the last ice age, it has been warmer than now, at least three times. Deuterium and 18O proxy data is pretty definitive.
Maybe you should research what is known as "The Bond Effect."
I think if someone simply put up a side by side, it would be better evidence they are wrong. Why people still believe this bull is beyond me. It has been proven to be a wrong theory long ago in my view.
Yes, and in the recent 11,000, since we came out of the last ice age, it has been warmer than now, at least three times. Deuterium and 18O proxy data is pretty definitive.
Maybe you should research what is known as "The Bond Effect."
LOL....
Not any similarity what so ever. If you knew what you spoke of, you'd relize how much a joke your words are.
And we also came out of the "Maunder Minima."
Correlation does not equal causation.
Yet, nobody can prove that.
Stop being so moronically simple. We know that. The question becomes this. What empirical evidence is there that the greenhouse effect is as strong as you believe. I say at best, it is about 30% the strength of what the AGW community propagates. I don't think it's that strong, but I will concede that it can be as high as 30%.
Isn't it funny how year after year, more pieces of the puzzle are found, and things like solar and black carbon are assigned more value for their radiative forcing effect? Isn't it ironic that time and time as other numbers are revised upward, CO2 isn't revised downward?
Well.... the temperature didn't magically change with these revised numbers, so from what factor must the numbers be decreased?
Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.
Can you comprehend why we are so different than Venus and why it cannot be used as a comparison, or are you that ignorant?
Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2, ~96.5%. Our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, followed by Oxygen and Argon. None of which are greenhouse gasses and make up 99.96% of our atmosphere. Venus has more than 2500 times CO2 as a concentration.
Do you comprehend such realities?
I could stand for a couple more degrees, like it was about 8,000 years ago:
Stop denying evidence and science...
...that's what makes a wing-nut a wing-nut...
And then there was the Icelandic volcano last year (Eyjafjallajökull) which pumped out more soot, CO2, ash, and sulfur in a week (even though it erupted for several weeks) than humans [combined humanity world over] had over the previous 2 years...
Could that particulate matter from the volcano have effected a climate change of its own?
Wow - are you ing kidding me? That volcano's highest estimate was 300,000 tons of CO2 per day of eruption. On the other hand, Humans add 30 BILLION tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere Even extrapolating that CO2 figure to a full 365 day year you get 11 million tons.
This is the 2nd time recently that you've put straight up false info (the other had to do with the sun's output) and for someone who considers themselves a scientist you should at least do better than a ty chain letter for facts.
Volcanic eruptions can certainly affect short term climate (years) if they're able to put enough particulate into the stratosphere (Mt. Pinitobo did this in the 90s) but the Icelandic volcano was no where near that big of an eruption.
Particulate in the stratosphere lasts much longer so its able to affect climate but stuff in the troposphere doesn't last.
Thanks; didn't know the scale of this last eruption compared to Pinatubo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index
The scale is logarithmic (IE Richter scale) and Pinitubo was a 6. The Icelandic volcano was a 4 or over 100 times smaller.
No, it was designed to convert harmful hydrocarbons to CO2 and water vapor (that's why you see water dripping from your tailpipe). At the time of it's invention, CO2 wasn't seen as a dreadful poison as it is today.
If you went from San Antonio to Miami today, you'd experience about 6000 years worth of global warming.
Funny, how when we started cleaning up our emissions, the temperatures took a rise...
Clearing the atmosphere of reflective emissions allowed more energy to heat the sun. This all started in the 70's, but people want to blame the added CO2.
"when we started cleaning up our emissions, the temperatures took a rise"
human still emit more crap into the atmosphere than they restrict.
"more energy to heat the sun."
I'll bet we emit less "crap" than in the 60's or 70's. Sure, we emit more CO2, but less particulate pollution and toxic gasses than decades back.
OK, I worded that wrong, but you knew what I meant. More energy from the sun makes it to the surface, so the effective greenhouse effect is larger. Is that a better explanation?"more energy to heat the sun."
The emphasis was on soot, and ash... I don't know why I wrote CO2 in there to begin with... fact is, I don't even consider it the pollutant that you, and other AGW proponents consider it to be. Where the Icelandic volcano differentiated itself from its peers was in the emission of iron oxide which I didn't mention (as in large enough amounts to affect the ocean's, pH and it's own absorption of CO2).
As for the solar output... we were at a solar minimum last year... that's all I was saying... the point was that increases in the sun's radiative power are not being given the weight they deserve by those in your camp. If the sun's output increases, so too will Earth's temperature.
No matter what I say, or what we observe for that matter, you will keep believing the anthropogenic climate change farce... considering that every climatic observation is attributed to the theory anyways, regardless of context.
It's "hot"... AGW
It's "cold"... AGW
less snow... AGW
more snow... AGW
less hurricanes... AGW
more hurricanes... AGW
rising sea-level... AGW
falling sea-level... AGW
evidence of pre-industrial warming and cooling periods... IGNORED
See the morphing convenience in this strategy?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-03-2011 at 12:00 PM.
The Year Without a Summer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
The Year Without a Summer (also known as the Poverty Year, Year There Was No Summer and Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death[1]) was 1816, in which severe summer climate abnormalities destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the Northeastern United States and eastern Canada.[2][3] Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F),[4] enough to cause significant agricultural problems around the globe.
Historian John D. Post has called this "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world".[5]
It may be that the climate anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event; the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped off by the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815, the largest known eruption in over 1,600 years.
Interesting.
People should also research the correlation between CO2 and temperature change and compare that with the correlation between factors such as total solar irradiance (TSI) and PDO/AMO.
So the history wasn't rewritten.
Thanks!
If you went from San Antonio to Miami today, you'd experience about 6000 years worth of global warming.
I can tell you exactly why you put CO2 in the first post. You were so overzealous to prove how silly AGW theory is that you either didn't bother to check your facts or you blatantly lied. In the end it doesn't matter because the result is the same in either case: a loss of credibility on the subject.
Instead of simply acknowledging a mistake, you instead continue as if your initial viewpoint actually held a shred of merit because you morph it into an argument over the contributions of ash and soot as well as iron oxide. Why? Because it is not AGW theory that is scrambling to find a way to fit a square into a round hole but you.
The soot and ash would be noteworthy if they were 1) considered a party to increased greenhouse effect (when in fact they are the opposite) or 2) AGW somehow claimed they were a factor in the change in global temperature. Neither are the case and your claim is largely irrelevant.
Your acknowledging of the iron oxide emissions now is amazing. Yes, the volcanic eruption did increase the amount or iron oxide in the atmosphere. Yes, this likely led to a short term increase in the absorption capabilities of the ocean regarding CO2 which would lead to an increase in acidity.
You know what an increase absorption of CO2 by the oceans means? It means a decease in CO2 content in the atmosphere which would be the exact opposite of what you indicated in your initial post.
To further the amazement you say that CO2 isn't a pollutant while claiming that it makes the ocean more acidic. You're stumbling so hard over yourself backtracking that you're making some incredibly stupid contradictions.
You should just acknowledge your initial statement was foolish and had no scientific merit in this discussion. It really is the stuff of chain letters and forwarded emails.
As for the solar claims, you did not simply say we were exiting the solar minimum. You gave specific figures to the increase in solar output over the course of a few years and when challenged to back up the validity of those figures (probably another forwarded email) you ran away and never came back. We just came out of the solar minimum and output has not be increasing for years.
Furthermore, if the rise and fall of temps was dominated by the solar cycle we would see a complete correlation between the global temps and the 11 year solar cycle but of course that is not the case. Claiming that the rise in temps is due to the solar cycle is just about as bad as claims get.
AGW theory does not deny that as the suns output increases the earths temperature does the same.
To finish off your post, you of course puff up your chest and assume the self righteous position you love so much. The problem is that after 3 posts in a row on this subject where you have given contradictory and flat out incorrect information you are the last person that should be typing the words "no matter what I say" as if you're shining some informative light on information that is being ignored.
Its a beautiful strawman to finish off the post but AGW makes simple claims. The first is that the global temp is rising (the data records from many sources confirm this and is fairly undeniable) and that it is caused due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as CO2. You try act as if AGW is about a weather forecast instead and make a ridiculous list that has no basis in fact.
If you want to disprove AGW theory, show the earth is not warming or show a mechanism that is causing the warming and is not related to greenhouse gases. Its that simple.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
