Reply With Quote
Nothing else known can cause the warming? Really? How did we get the Medieval Warm Period?
AGW "Godfather" James Hansen getting arrested for 3rd time.
Yes, it causes some temperature change.
Bull .
Long term solar changes have an effect.
Soot changes the albedo of snow and ice, melting it faster.
The melting of arctic ice cause it to retreat more than normal and creates a large change in immediate area albedo.
Been there, done that.
Yes, the classes still teach climatology wrong, placing the blame solely on CO2, when the geosciences are vast, and the total earth system plays a role in the global temperature.
You mean like the IPCCC?
And very little we can do about natural warming. the anthropogenic portion is very small, and I'll bet mostly from soot.
There is no denial of climate change from most skeptics. Stop lying.
Nothing else known can cause the warming? Really? How did we get the Medieval Warm Period?
AGW "Godfather" James Hansen getting arrested for 3rd time.
WMO: 2011 Is Warmest La Niña Year on Record and Science “Proves Unequivocally” It’s “Due to Human Activities”
Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest.
“Our role is to provide the scientific knowledge to inform action by decision makers,” said [World Meteorological Organization] Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities,” he said.
“Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new highs. They are very rapidly approaching levels consistent with a 2-2.4 degree Centigrade rise in average global temperatures which scientists believe could trigger far reaching and irreversible changes in our Earth, biosphere and oceans,” he said.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...an-activities/
Maybe they do and I just don't hear about it, but why does the Alex Jones tinfoil hat crowd obsess over stuff like fluoride but never say anything about global warming?
I didn't see this the first time, but you should learn how to ing read. I didn't say anything else couldn't cause warming. I said you have to show that something else is causing the warming. So if its not the CO2, then what is it this time, Darrin? The sun's output is decreasing, so thats out. Its not the orbit. What is it?
Do you guys really think that scientists out there have not thought to eliminate sources outside of GHG increases? You don't think that if there was research that proved it was anything else, someone wouldn't publish it? I mean what conspiracy theories are you swallowing to think that some scientist wouldn't step up and take the notoriety that would come with simply proving that it was something else outside of GHG?
We have an agent known to cause warming and we have the absence of any other agent capable of producing the warming so just what in the do you think it is???
Thats great. I see once again you don't understand what I posted. THIS is why you got the votes you did in the "awards" thread.
AGW "Godfather" James Hansen getting arrested for 3rd time.
I saw that graphic a while ago and my only wish is that they broke it up into a 3 catagories: La Nina, Neutral, and El Nino.
I think there is a very strong possibility (80%+) that the next moderate or greater El Nino will produce the hottest year on record across all major temperature records.
I'm glad we have you around to elucidate these things for us.
Drop in CO2 Levels Led to Antarctic Ice Sheet, Study Finds
A drop in carbon dioxide appears to be the driving force that led to the Antarctic ice sheet’s formation, according to a recent study led by scientists at Yale and Purdue universities of molecules from ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples.The key role of the greenhouse gas in one of the biggest climate events in Earth’s history supports carbon dioxide’s importance in past climate change and implicates it as a significant force in present and future climate….
“The evidence falls in line with what we would expect if carbon dioxide is the main dial that governs global climate; if we crank it up or down there are dramatic changes,” [co-author Matthew} Huber said. "We went from a warm world without ice to a cooler world with an ice sheet overnight, in geologic terms, because of fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels."
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...e-sheet-study/
LOL...Drop in CO2 Levels Led to Antarctic Ice Sheet, Study Finds
A drop in carbon dioxide appears to be the driving force that led to the Antarctic ice sheet’s formation, according to a recent study led by scientists at Yale and Purdue universities of molecules from ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples.The key role of the greenhouse gas in one of the biggest climate events in Earth’s history supports carbon dioxide’s importance in past climate change and implicates it as a significant force in present and future climate….
“The evidence falls in line with what we would expect if carbon dioxide is the main dial that governs global climate; if we crank it up or down there are dramatic changes,” [co-author Matthew} Huber said. "We went from a warm world without ice to a cooler world with an ice sheet overnight, in geologic terms, because of fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels."
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...e-sheet-study/
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
We are talking about ice sheets. If the surface water is at freezing or below (salinity reduces freezing point) ice can form and more CO2 is absorbed into the water out of the atmosphere.
I don't have access to the study, but I'll lay odds it doesn't eliminate the effect of the oceans absorbing more CO2 because the temperature decreases, rather than the temperature decreasing due to CO2 levels lowering.
One can get a pretty good idea, if increases in CO2 aways precede temperature increases.
Not conclusive, but certainly compelling.
Either way we are in the test tube. We will double our ulative emissions in the next 25 years or less, with certain increases in CO2 concentration.
The evidence to what exactly CO2 does will become much more solid one way or the other.
The people who study it though allude to a certain amount of "inertia" to the process, so if it really is adverse, it will be much harder to stop it by then.
Bit of a penalty to pay for your hubris, don't you think?
I'm thinking living through a time of extremely LOW C02 would suck FAR harder than what we are going through now.
I support AGW.
ooooow.
That was a painfully stupid thing to have to read. A little warning next time, eh?
I will remind you that ice core proxies show that CO2 changes lag temperature changes.
I would like to see more detain on that. Could they mean the average 800 year lag we see from the circulation of the oceans?
I just wish AGW was real to the extent claimed. Then we could make a better planet.
LOL....
How can you reference such a hack job?
Sure China and India have less per capita emissions. However, for the number of people they have served by industry, they have more emissions. remember, most their population is still living an agrarian style life. As these people come into the 20th century, then 21st century way of life... Nobody will pollute more than Asia.
I say there is no sense at all in agreeing to emission standards better than we have been working on since the EPA was formed, until other nations agree to meet or beat our existing standards.
The funny thing is that the overall economic costs for the developing countries is MUCH lower than our is.
We would have to abandon existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure, causing a lot of economic disruption as our economy shifts a bit.
They don't.
If we set the standards, they can simply plan ahead a bit and meet that, making their economies FAR less dependent on the price swings of rapidly depleting fossil fuels.
We will be locked into things for decades based on the decisions we make now.
I don't think we should base our decisions on what they decide. The thing is that they are the ones who will bear most of what is estimated to be the costs of the emissions, and they know that.
I would like to see more detain on that. Could they mean the average 800 year lag we see from the circulation of the oceans?[/QUOTE]
You can remind me of your layman's opinion about what the data shows all you want, and when it conflicts with that of people who study for a living, I will weigh it accordingly.
Your own arguments work against your proposed solution, i.e. the status quo.
"We don't know for certain what affect we are having, because the science isn't firm enough" isn't an argument for continuing to have a potential affect on something we don't understand, it is an argument for paring things back until we DO understand what we are doing.
Honestly this argument reminds me of a bad science fiction movie.
Open scene:
Two men stumble upon a crashed spacecraft. They enter through a functioning hatch to see a bewildering amount of controls and unknown technology.
One man starts pressing buttons.
"Dude, quit pressing buttons, we don't know what any of this does."
"We just don't understand this spacecraft or its systems, nothing has happened so far, and you can't know for certain what I am doing is actually going to DO anything, so I am going to keep pressing buttons, its fun."
topical relevance. not my own soap box, but posted to revive the conversation.How can you reference such a hack job?
[/QUOTE]
Here is one quick example I knew where to find.
In the graph, the best fit data for this ice core sample is when the CO2 year sample is decreased by 1073 years for the best linear fit.
E. MEASURING AND MODELING THE LAG IN THE CO2 DATA
By convention, the Greek tau (t for time) stands for lag. The relation between correlation and tau is the correlation function. Auto–correlation is correlation of a record with itself, and cross–correlation is the correlation between two different records. Figure 10 contains the cross–correlation function of CO2 and temperature for the entire Vostok record of 400,000 years. (The graph is more dense on the left because of an intentional computational artifact. Sample intervals increase exponentially to simplify the computation load. The correlation method wraps the data on itself, analogous to a 420,000–year long tape loop.)
Zooming in by a factor of 100 shows the fine structure in the near term. This is Figure 11.
Three or four nearly equivalent peaks appear where carbon dioxide has the greatest correlation with temperature. The fact that the correlation is relatively poor at zero temperature offset emphasizes that the lag is real, and that any model should account for the lag. Subsequent analysis is offset to the nearest local peak in the correlation at 1073 years. As already stated, the correlation shift has no effect on the qualitative result, namely that CO2 is not responsible for but is a response to global temperature. Applying the lag to the model does improve the accuracy of the results by a few percent.
F. LAG–COMPENSATED CO2 RECORD
Offsetting the CO2 trace by 1073 years has the scientifically desirable effect of sharpening or flattening the constellation of data. This is an improvement in signal to noise ratio. It makes the curvature more apparent, as shown in Figure 12.
Again dropping the sample paths and representing the CO2 concentration in percentage produces the new constellation of ice core data, offset for maximum correlation, shown in Figure 13.
The best fit straight line through these points shows that the average variation of CO2 concentration is 3.49% per degree Centigrade, shown in Figure 14. The complementary, catastrophe straight line fit is 21.8ºC per 100% change in CO2 concentration, or 0.218ºC/%, included in Figure 15.
The offset for lag increased the slope from 3.42%/ºC to 3.49%/ºC with temperature as the independent variable, and the catastrophe slope from 0.216 ºC/% to 0.218 ºC/% CO2 with the greenhouse gas as the independent variable. The 1073 year offset slightly changes the operating point on the solubility curve. The product of the two slopes, r^2, is 0.7609, and r is thus increased from 0.860 to 0.872. (Computation of correlation by the straight line fit method does not involved data wrapping.)
For several reasons, the catastrophic fit can be put to rest. Carbon dioxide is dependent on temperature, and not the reverse. The reason is not just the fact that concentration lags temperature changes, but because it is a physical consequence of the ocean temperature distribution.
And, I'd like to see a completely separate and independent group of climate scientists reach the same "consensus" as those who informed the IPCC farcical findings.
What’s Going on Behind the Curtain? Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity
While all of these e-mails paint a troubling betrayal of the scientific method, the last two are particularly troubling to me. The pursuit of knowledge through science can’t proceed if scientists refuse to share data and methods. In defense of their refusal to share data, suppress its release or even destroy it, climate scientists have claimed that because those asking for the data are skeptics, they will only use the data to try and undermine their results. So what? Either the data and methods stand up to scrutiny and the results are robust or they are not. Either way, the skeptics have done the world a service. If the skeptics’ attempts to recreate the results end up confirming the results, then the findings are on more solid ground and the public can lend the work greater credence. If, on the other hand, skeptics do find flaws in the data, methods or results, then from the point of view of knowledge, the world is still better off. Rather than continuing down a blind path, or worse, making policy based on flawed research, scientists can reassess where the original research went wrong and determine if it can be corrected or if an entirely new hypothesis, or research methodology, is called for.
That's no surprise. The weight of ice keeps it compressed.
melting ice presumably accounts for the change in compression, what accounts for the melting of the ice?
The lag of the movement of temperature. The oceans started absorbing more solar heat in the 1700's when the sun turned up it's heat. The sun is now about 0.18% hotter than it was 300 years ago. That may not seem like much, but is makes a difference. The ocean currents of the various oceans (my shaky memory) move at a rate of about 600 to 1400 years for a complete circulation. Heat is never lost, and the circulation takes this extra energy and moves it. When the warmer oceans from the past finally make it northward, there is more heat in the water to melt the ice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
