Global cooling hits Al Gore's home

[Shastafarian]

Not at all. I'm just not going to look and look. I went strait to NASA because I know they have good data.

Yet this data doesn't support your assertion that anthropogenic global "warming" is a hoax.

I'll just keep it simple that you believe in the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax.

Some parts

That would take some serious research. All I know for certain is that 30,000 people have not stood up together proclaiming man is causing global warming. I cannot recall 3,000, or even 300. Can you show me 300?

Quick google search says!
"Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

I don't know where that data would be. I have listened to interviews bot at least two people who were initially on the IPCC science council, then left. One said he had to threaten a lawsuit to get his name removed. In the end, only a handful of climatologists did the final editing. The hundreds they claim is bull because most only had a had in compiling data.

listened where?

Does that matter?

Dem jews are smart dey are.

I say bull . I say you can't.

I can't, won't, and don't want to because as I said earlier, I have no problems with that article.

Black Carbon is mostly anthropogenic. Like I explained earlier, I agree with that. My claim is that it has the 2nd greatest global warming effect, behind solar irradiation changes. CO2 changes are probably in 3rd place.

According to that article you posted, CO2 is leading the race.

Care to elaborate?

I don't like using averages when you're trying to describe an intricate and massive system such as the one we're dealing with.

Quantifying it is tricky, but understanding the effect isn't. Quantifying CO2 is next to impossible for several reasons. The primary on in my opinion is the nature of the spectral absorption. Quantifying solar heat is simple linear math, and little remains when you account for it. The heat collected by black carbon is also linear. Thing with CO2 is what ever warming effect you get at 20 ppm, you don't double the heating until you reach about 400 ppm. The math is logarithmic, still mathematically simple, but again. Quantifying it isn't. Understanding it's nature has a simple truth. Doubling CO2 amounts to less than a 20% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2. Thing with the alarmists, is they ignore other factors and focus on CO2. The see the effect of a 0.7 C increase since the 1700's and attribute all of it to CO2. First of all, that would require CO2 to either have more than 26% of the greenhouse effect, or that there was only 240 ppm in 1700. So many other paleoclimate science facts they flat out ignore to make CO2 the culprit.

See I have to take your word on things like "quantifying solar heat is simple linear math". I don't have the breadth of knowledge to know the exact process of deducing the history of solar heat. That's why I was asking where you're getting this data.

Everyone, even the alarmists agree, CO2 is logarithmic. I simply apply the formula to different stated opinions of the levels. It's just simple algebra.

I was talking about each datum themselves.

[Shastafarian]

I actually made a minor mistake comparing the two graphs. Can you spot it?

Can't stay long but the first thing I see is you didn't take into account the square of meters.

[Wild Cobra]

Can't stay long but the first thing I see is you didn't take into account the square of meters.

I mean beyond a typo. I mean a factual error. It's minor enough I overlooked it myself. It's not important enough to fix right away, especially if you don't see it.

[Wild Cobra]

Quick google search says!
"Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

Opinions. Did it ask how many of that 82% who agreed actually did research on the subject? Forget the 97% climatologists. That's part of what they are taught! How about the last paragraph:

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.

Very few people do understand the long term. Climatologists sure don't. They're just glorified meteorologists!

listened where?

One of the several talk radio programs I listen to. It may have been on the Roger Hedge show. I forget where exactly which program, but it was one of the shows that is in the evening here.

According to that article you posted, CO2 is leading the race.

I don't care what others say. I look at the data in articles. I use my own mind, not others.

I don't like using averages when you're trying to describe an intricate and massive system such as the one we're dealing with.

I'm not sure what averages you mean. Again, care to elaborate?

See I have to take your word on things like "quantifying solar heat is simple linear math". I don't have the breadth of knowledge to know the exact process of deducing the history of solar heat. That's why I was asking where you're getting this data.

If you learned chemistry and physics, you know that heat is linear. Period. It's only not linear when there is a state change involved like solid to liquid, or liquid to gas.

I was talking about each datum themselves.

Explained in the wiki link where I quoted the 9% to 26%.

[Shastafarian]

Opinions. Did it ask how many of that 82% who agreed actually did research on the subject? Forget the 97% climatologists. That's part of what they are taught! How about the last paragraph:Very few people do understand the long term. Climatologists sure don't. They're just glorified meteorologists!

"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

I don't care what others say.

clearly

I look at the data in articles. I use my own mind, not others.

Usually this is a good thing. Unless the other people involved are scientific experts. Then I usually at least listen to what they have to say.

I'm not sure what averages you mean. Again, care to elaborate?

Well for starters, you're using mean global temperature are you not?

If you learned chemistry and physics, you know that heat is linear. Period. It's only not linear when there is a state change involved like solid to liquid, or liquid to gas.

Ah right. I did know that. It's been a couple years since physics but it eventually comes back. How do they measure levels of solar heat from the past?

[Yonivore]

Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?

That theory was only posited when it became clear the theory saying anthropogenic CO2 wasn't actually warming the planet.

Other than the IPCC political consensus, there are no peer-reviewed scientifically-based and published conclusions on which to base either theory. Just a bunch of assumption-based modeling.

[Wild Cobra]

"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

So you dismiss them out of hand. You see, those with those areas of expertise have done far more studying of the various geosciences than a climatologist does. They are the real experts, but since they studied fields that give them money from energy industries, you dismiss them. I dismiss climatologists because to get a BS in climatology requires only one course more than getting a BS in meteorology.

Usually this is a good thing. Unless the other people involved are scientific experts. Then I usually at least listen to what they have to say.

But they are not experts in the geosciences. Just one aspect of it.

Well for starters, you're using mean global temperature are you not?

Yes, and if you break it down by la ude and terrain, there's alot of variation. I'm simply using the same indicator the alarmists use.

I contend that most of the variation in the 9% to 26% figure has to do with temperature. More specifically, blackbody radiation. The spectra of the blackbody radiation changes with heat. As this happens, the percentage of the spectra that CO2 is capable of influencing changes. Near the 26% end, it is so cold, there is almost no influence anyway. In the desert, CO2 is about 9%, at a high power level. My best estimate is that the global average for calculation proposes is between 10% and 15%. I personally settle for 12%, but cannot be certain.

Ah right. I did know that. It's been a couple years since physics but it eventually comes back. How do they measure levels of solar heat from the past?

There are several ways that they do it. There is isotopic records in the ice and plant life. Dendrochronology is one of several biological methods. Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10 are common isotopes measured.

You ask how I know about solar activity. Data from several sources. Here's a mathematical representation of solar activity that fits past events, going into the future:



I found this graph also, captured it from a previous thread:



Notice that sunspots roughly correspond to Carbon 14 production. There is an approximate 60 year smoothing in the carbon 14 data because it takes that long for it to fall out of the atmosphere and be absorbed into organic matter.

NOAA has data that I placed in excel and came up with this:



I extended the last 11 years represented as the current non-existant trend. You see, we still are in essence missing the sunspot cycle we should be in. From the SOHO Satellite: