billvon 3,119
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
QuoteSo your answer is no. That's fine. You may now return to bashing liberals.
Just how the hell you read this into what I said is beyond comprehension
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,119
>Just how the hell you read this into what I said is beyond comprehension.
I asked you four times for a science based question. Four times you refused. Instead, four times you responded with a political comment. Your answer is pretty clear.
I asked you four times for a science based question. Four times you refused. Instead, four times you responded with a political comment. Your answer is pretty clear.
rushmc 23
Quote>Just how the hell you read this into what I said is beyond comprehension.
I asked you four times for a science based question. Four times you refused. Instead, four times you responded with a political comment. Your answer is pretty clear.
Yours sure is
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote>I have done it.
No, you haven't. You have posted political diatribes from Newsmax. You have posted articles you don't seem to understand, and then you ask "what about THAT?" You have said how much you dislike various science organizations.
But what you have not done is TALK ABOUT THE SCIENCE.
You don't seem to understand the difference so here are some examples:
"I hate those IPCC guys" - political
"I don't think the assumptions concerning well-mixed greenhouse gases when analyzing atmospheric columns is valid" - science
"Too bad the LOSER LIBS dont want to accept the FACTS in this artrcle!" - political
"Insolation has increased from 1355 to 1358 w/m^2 over the past 10 years; I think that accounts for most of the warming" - science
Do you see a difference?
>I disagree with your conclusions and data grathering and final conclusions.
Then list your disagreements and why you disagree with them - again, in your own words. "Because liberals suck" or "because I hate the IPCC" are not really science based agreements, and "I posted them before but now I forget them all" isn't really an answer either.
Or simply state that your objection is political. That's fine as well. There's no requirement that people here base their opinions on - well, anything at all.
LOL
Bill - you do the exact same thing. You're pretty comfortable throwing out the denier label. Or making claims that "the science has been settled", but when pressed you bring up the science about Global Warming, not ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming.... or when someone questions AGW you try to make it about overal Global Warming.
Yeah, you can try acting like Rush is all political and that your behavior is above board, but your post history tells a different story.
billvon 3,119
>or when someone questions AGW you try to make it about overal Global Warming.
Then I will make the same challenge to you. Ask a question about the SCIENCE of climate change minus the usual political attacks.
Then I will make the same challenge to you. Ask a question about the SCIENCE of climate change minus the usual political attacks.
Quote>or when someone questions AGW you try to make it about overal Global Warming.
Then I will make the same challenge to you. Ask a question about the SCIENCE of climate change minus the usual political attacks.
If rising CO2 levels have a direct effect on global temperatures, why did we experience a cooling trend from the early 40s through the late 70s, while CO2 levels constantly rose?
Considering CO2 levels are continuing to rise, why have global temps remained at the same levels since 2001? Why have not not exceeded the 1998 high?
Looking at the temperature peaks in the long term record, why did they drop, while CO2 levels continued to rise for 800 years?
billvon 3,119
>If rising CO2 levels have a direct effect on global temperatures, why did
>we experience a cooling trend from the early 40s through the late 70s,
>while CO2 levels constantly rose?
Because things other than CO2 influence our climate, like high altitude aerosols, volcanic activity etc. In the future there will be short cooling trends that are unrelated to overall warming; there will be short warming trends unrelated to the overall warming. The problem is the _average_ is going up.
>Considering CO2 levels are continuing to rise, why have global temps
> remained at the same levels since 2001? Why have not not exceeded the
>1998 high?
2005 exceeded the 1998 high.
==================
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
Image displaying the five warmest years in the past century. Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
====================
Hottest years on record:
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
>Looking at the temperature peaks in the long term record, why did they
>drop, while CO2 levels continued to rise for 800 years?
Because things other than CO2 can influence our climate. It's like asking "why did the temperature go down even though the heater is on?" Well, the windows were open. Doesn't mean the heater doesn't work - but it does mean that other factors influence temperature in a room.
>we experience a cooling trend from the early 40s through the late 70s,
>while CO2 levels constantly rose?
Because things other than CO2 influence our climate, like high altitude aerosols, volcanic activity etc. In the future there will be short cooling trends that are unrelated to overall warming; there will be short warming trends unrelated to the overall warming. The problem is the _average_ is going up.
>Considering CO2 levels are continuing to rise, why have global temps
> remained at the same levels since 2001? Why have not not exceeded the
>1998 high?
2005 exceeded the 1998 high.
==================
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
Image displaying the five warmest years in the past century. Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
====================
Hottest years on record:
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
>Looking at the temperature peaks in the long term record, why did they
>drop, while CO2 levels continued to rise for 800 years?
Because things other than CO2 can influence our climate. It's like asking "why did the temperature go down even though the heater is on?" Well, the windows were open. Doesn't mean the heater doesn't work - but it does mean that other factors influence temperature in a room.
Do you have a source explaining what specifically caused temps to drop during that 30+ year period.Quote>If rising CO2 levels have a direct effect on global temperatures, why did
>we experience a cooling trend from the early 40s through the late 70s,
>while CO2 levels constantly rose?
Because things other than CO2 influence our climate, like high altitude aerosols, volcanic activity etc. In the future there will be short cooling trends that are unrelated to overall warming; there will be short warming trends unrelated to the overall warming. The problem is the _average_ is going up.
You mean it was warmer before we started pumping loads of manmade CO2 into the air?Quote>Considering CO2 levels are continuing to rise, why have global temps
> remained at the same levels since 2001? Why have not not exceeded the
>1998 high?
2005 exceeded the 1998 high.
==================
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
Image displaying the five warmest years in the past century. Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
====================
Hottest years on record:
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
Here's another link, stating 2005 did not surpass 1998. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1216-weather.html
Quote>Looking at the temperature peaks in the long term record, why did they
>drop, while CO2 levels continued to rise for 800 years?
Because things other than CO2 can influence our climate. It's like asking "why did the temperature go down even though the heater is on?" Well, the windows were open. Doesn't mean the heater doesn't work - but it does mean that other factors influence temperature in a room.
Nice scientific explanation.
I'm not really interested in generalities. Saying "well, there are other factors" doesn't really explain why a specific phenomenon occurred.
billvon 3,119
>Do you have a source explaining what specifically caused temps to
>drop during that 30+ year period.
New Scientist:
--------------------------
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.
Climate models that take into account only natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not reproduce 20th century temperatures very well. If, however, the models include human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.
How aerosols will influence the climate over the coming century is unclear. While aerosol emissions have fallen in Europe and the US (and in the former Soviet Union after 1991), they are now rising rapidly in China and India.
The picture is complicated because different kinds of aerosols can have different effects: black carbon or soot has warming rather than a cooling effect, for instance. Then there is the question of how all the different aerosols affect clouds. Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding.
-------------------------------------
Some peer reviewed works:
http://crgd.atmos.uiuc.edu/publications/Causes_of_dT.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5499/2133
>You mean it was warmer before we started pumping loads of manmade
>CO2 into the air?
No, it was cooler. See attached.
>I'm not really interested in generalities. Saying "well, there are other
>factors" doesn't really explain why a specific phenomenon occurred.
Often we just plain don't know. When you go back 2 million years, it's hard to say exactly what happened when. We know what COULD have caused temperatures to rise (or fall) and indeed we often see things like iridium signatures (indicating a very big meteor hit nearby) associated with major climactic excursions around the same time.
But at those scales "around the same time" covers quite a large time span. If we are 99.99% accurate, that's still off by 200 years - and that's about the amount of time we've seen serious anthropogenic CO2 warming begin.
>drop during that 30+ year period.
New Scientist:
--------------------------
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.
Climate models that take into account only natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not reproduce 20th century temperatures very well. If, however, the models include human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.
How aerosols will influence the climate over the coming century is unclear. While aerosol emissions have fallen in Europe and the US (and in the former Soviet Union after 1991), they are now rising rapidly in China and India.
The picture is complicated because different kinds of aerosols can have different effects: black carbon or soot has warming rather than a cooling effect, for instance. Then there is the question of how all the different aerosols affect clouds. Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding.
-------------------------------------
Some peer reviewed works:
http://crgd.atmos.uiuc.edu/publications/Causes_of_dT.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5499/2133
>You mean it was warmer before we started pumping loads of manmade
>CO2 into the air?
No, it was cooler. See attached.
>I'm not really interested in generalities. Saying "well, there are other
>factors" doesn't really explain why a specific phenomenon occurred.
Often we just plain don't know. When you go back 2 million years, it's hard to say exactly what happened when. We know what COULD have caused temperatures to rise (or fall) and indeed we often see things like iridium signatures (indicating a very big meteor hit nearby) associated with major climactic excursions around the same time.
But at those scales "around the same time" covers quite a large time span. If we are 99.99% accurate, that's still off by 200 years - and that's about the amount of time we've seen serious anthropogenic CO2 warming begin.
wmw999 2,589
Well DUH Bill -- problem solved! More hairdos=more hairspray, and more aerosolsQuoteThe mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions
If we make it stinky with sulfur that'll be even better, right?
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
azdiver 0
in the last 100 years temp have risen but today it is still way cooler than it has been in the past for example 2 thousand years ago it was up during the roman climate optimum and 1100 years ago during the medieval warm period. going back farther you have the holocene climate optimum when it was even warmer then. and yet if you look at the co2 levels for those times it was low but yet the temp went up dramatically and there was very little Anthropogenic co2 emissions compared to todays.As for the science the IPCC uses, on June 22, 2006, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences presented the results of its directed study of the science behind the infamous “hockey stick.” Published by Michael Mann and colleagues, the hockey stick study — which statistically interpreted tree ring data as demonstrating unprecedented current warming relative to the past 1,000 years — failed to capture and denied the existence of the “medieval climate optimum,” a warming event beginning 1,100 years ago. The hockey stick was the basis for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s statement that “there is discernible human impact on climate.”
light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak
Royd 0
mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big hair rocks!QuoteWell DUH Bill -- problem solved! More hairdos=more hairspray, and more aerosols
If we make it stinky with sulfur that'll be even better, right?
QuoteQuoteYou mean it was warmer before we started pumping loads of manmade CO2 into the air?
No, it was cooler. See attached.
Wait a sec. Previously you posted a story claiming:
QuoteThe year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world....
2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists.
Your graph seems to indicate current temps are well above any period in the 1800s. So, which is it?
Also, I noticed to didn't say anything about my link showing that 2005 temps did not surpass 1998 levels. Hmm.
How about going back 1/16th of that???QuoteQuoteI'm not really interested in generalities. Saying "well, there are other factors" doesn't really explain why a specific phenomenon occurred.
Often we just plain don't know. When you go back 2 million years, it's hard to say exactly what happened when.
QuoteWe know what COULD have caused temperatures to rise (or fall) and indeed we often see things like iridium signatures (indicating a very big meteor hit nearby) associated with major climactic excursions around the same time.
Again... generalities.
QuoteBut at those scales "around the same time" covers quite a large time span. If we are 99.99% accurate, that's still off by 200 years - and that's about the amount of time we've seen serious anthropogenic CO2 warming begin.
None of this explains why/how temps could fall for 800 years, while CO2 levels continued to rise.
Wasn't it yesterday you made a bullshit crack about me being evasive most of the time?
How ironic.
On the upside, you did fully address one of my questions.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou mean it was warmer before we started pumping loads of manmade CO2 into the air?
No, it was cooler. See attached.
Wait a sec. Previously you posted a story claiming:QuoteThe year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world....
2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists.
Your graph seems to indicate current temps are well above any period in the 1800s. So, which is it?
Also, I noticed to didn't say anything about my link showing that 2005 temps did not surpass 1998 levels. Hmm.How about going back 1/16th of that???QuoteQuoteI'm not really interested in generalities. Saying "well, there are other factors" doesn't really explain why a specific phenomenon occurred.
Often we just plain don't know. When you go back 2 million years, it's hard to say exactly what happened when.QuoteWe know what COULD have caused temperatures to rise (or fall) and indeed we often see things like iridium signatures (indicating a very big meteor hit nearby) associated with major climactic excursions around the same time.
Again... generalities.QuoteBut at those scales "around the same time" covers quite a large time span. If we are 99.99% accurate, that's still off by 200 years - and that's about the amount of time we've seen serious anthropogenic CO2 warming begin.
None of this explains why/how temps could fall for 800 years, while CO2 levels continued to rise.
Wasn't it yesterday you made a bullshit crack about me being evasive most of the time?
How ironic.
On the upside, you did fully address one of my questions.
You may want to save this thread because I believe it will not be too long and you will be acused of being only political in your comments and posts
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites