billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote
CO2 at the start of 1998 was 365. At the end of 2010 it was 389.69, a 6.76% increase.
A paper by Joe D'Aleo (submitted to SPPI) shows correlation factors between temperature and possible 'drivers' (higher fraction is a better match between temp and 'driver'). Soares has published a paper in IJG supporting it:
CO2 shows an r-squared correlation of .44 with temperature.
TSI (solar irradiance) shows an r-squared correlation of .57 with temperature.
PDO+AMO (ocean currents) shows an r-squared correlation of .83 with temperature.
Yet, you cling to the story of CO2 being the driver and dismiss skeptics of knowing 'sweet FA' about the subject.
SPPI and IJG are not reputable peer reviewed journals. The D'Aleo paper contains so many glaring omissions it isn't even worth commenting on.
Just out of curiosity, how much of a change in anomaly would you expect for a 10% change in CO2, say from 380 to 390ppm?
mnealtx 0
QuoteSPPI and IJG are not reputable peer reviewed journals.
Of course they aren't - only consensus-approved journals are allowed to be reputable.
QuoteThe D'Aleo paper contains so many glaring omissions it isn't even worth commenting on.
Comment anyway - prove it wrong. Then you can show where Soares is wrong.
QuoteJust out of curiosity, how much of a change in anomaly would you expect for a 10% change in CO2, say from 380 to 390ppm?
Given that CO2 is claimed to be 'the thermstat', how do you explain the decrease in the anomaly, period?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,132
>Given that CO2 is claimed to be 'the thermstat'
?? CO2 isn't a thermstat (or a thermostat.) It's just one forcing term in a complex system. CO2 has no simple negative feedback mechanism WRT temperature, so describing it as a thermostat makes little sense.
Now, if CO2 became less of a greenhouse gas at higher temperatures, it could indeed be described that way. But it doesn't.
?? CO2 isn't a thermstat (or a thermostat.) It's just one forcing term in a complex system. CO2 has no simple negative feedback mechanism WRT temperature, so describing it as a thermostat makes little sense.
Now, if CO2 became less of a greenhouse gas at higher temperatures, it could indeed be described that way. But it doesn't.
mnealtx 0
Amazon 7
QuoteQuote
Attacking the OP is always an option when rushmc has nothing else to say.
I had plenty to say
As for an attack?
You usually claim that when your bs is called out
Marc// I really feel bad for you not having an avatar...
Here... you can use this one... it is perfect.
brenthutch 444
Quote2010 ties 2005 for warmest and wettest year on record.
Nothing to worry about.
The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA's James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F). "It's not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record," Hansen admitted on January 13. According to NASA
billvon 3,132
>The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree
>difference between years.
Yep. Keep in mind that even the worst case global warming scenarios involve changes (on the average) of only a few degrees.
>"It's not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the
>hottest year on record,"
That's definitely true. What's important is that ON AVERAGE things are warming up.
>difference between years.
Yep. Keep in mind that even the worst case global warming scenarios involve changes (on the average) of only a few degrees.
>"It's not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the
>hottest year on record,"
That's definitely true. What's important is that ON AVERAGE things are warming up.
mnealtx 0
QuoteThat's definitely true. What's important is that ON AVERAGE things are warming up.
Except for the last dozen years.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,132
>>That's definitely true. What's important is that ON AVERAGE things are warming up.
>Except for the last dozen years.
====================
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
=====================
>Except for the last dozen years.
====================
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
=====================
mnealtx 0
Quote>>That's definitely true. What's important is that ON AVERAGE things are warming up.
>Except for the last dozen years.
====================
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
=====================
1998 average anomaly (GISS): +0.528
2010 average anomaly (GISS): +0.485 (-8.13%)
CO2, start of 1998: 365
CO2, end of 2010: 389.7 (+6.76%)
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DanG 1
If you ever come back to the States, I recommend settling in Florida. Your cherry picking skills are excellent, and would likely put many migrant workers out of a job.
- Dan G
- Dan G
mnealtx 0
QuoteIf you ever come back to the States, I recommend settling in Florida. Your cherry picking skills are excellent, and would likely put many migrant workers out of a job.
As usual, playing the player instead of the ball - maybe you should get a job with the MSM.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,132
>1998 average anomaly (GISS): +0.528
>2010 average anomaly (GISS): +0.485 (-8.13%)
2010: tied for hottest year, ever.
>2010 average anomaly (GISS): +0.485 (-8.13%)
2010: tied for hottest year, ever.
mnealtx 0
Quote>1998 average anomaly (GISS): +0.528
>2010 average anomaly (GISS): +0.485 (-8.13%)
2010: tied for hottest year, ever.
I guess Hansen's been busy "adding value" to the measurements again. No wonder the ecochondriacs have so many problems with their data.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,132
>I guess Hansen's been busy "adding value" to the measurements again.
So now you deny that 2010 is tied for the warmest year ever? Yet you just posted numbers from the same dataset to prove your point.
If you're going to deny any evidence that disproves your point, you should probably be consistent about it.
So now you deny that 2010 is tied for the warmest year ever? Yet you just posted numbers from the same dataset to prove your point.
If you're going to deny any evidence that disproves your point, you should probably be consistent about it.
mnealtx 0
Quote>I guess Hansen's been busy "adding value" to the measurements again.
So now you deny that 2010 is tied for the warmest year ever? Yet you just posted numbers from the same dataset to prove your point.
If you're going to deny any evidence that disproves your point, you should probably be consistent about it.
When the historical numbers change from week to week, how can you prove or disprove anything (except warming, of course).
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,132
>When the historical numbers change from week to week, how can you prove or
>disprove anything (except warming, of course).
Hmm. So now you're saying the historical data you're posting isn't valid? In that case you may want to listen a bit more to people with access to better data.
>disprove anything (except warming, of course).
Hmm. So now you're saying the historical data you're posting isn't valid? In that case you may want to listen a bit more to people with access to better data.
Lindsey 0
When it was 108 for a month straight here in S. Arkansas (and I only have about 40 years to compare it to), those are some of the hottest days EVER! It's a no-brainer. Don't need any table to say, "this is HOT!"
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
mnealtx 0
Quote>When the historical numbers change from week to week, how can you prove or
>disprove anything (except warming, of course).
Hmm. So now you're saying the historical data you're posting isn't valid? In that case you may want to listen a bit more to people with access to better data.
They were pulled from GISS data - is that 'better data' enough for you, bill?
Way to play the player instead of the ball.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhen it was 108 for a month straight here in S. Arkansas (and I only have about 40 years to compare it to), those are some of the hottest days EVER! It's a no-brainer. Don't need any table to say, "this is HOT!"
That's a non-sequitur. Skeptics aren't saying there's been no warming, regardless of how bill and others keep trying to frame the argument that way. We're disagreeing over the CAUSE.
NASA and others are saying that CO2 is the main driver of the 'climate change'. CO2 has risen almost 7% since the 1998 temperature peak.
CRU shows as essentially flat over the decade for both adjusted and unadjusted global mean temps.
Satellite readings, as well as ocean temps support a flat trend of temps.
However, GISS suddenly shows 2006 and 2010 as being as warm as 1998 - how did that happen?
Bill and the others use GISS as their source because it confirms their belief in warming - other datasets don't. GISS has had to correct things due to errors discovered by 'deniers' in the past.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,132
>They were pulled from GISS data - is that 'better data' enough for you, bill?
Sure, GISS works. Let's look at the anomaly data (land/sea, yearly average)
1998 +.598C
2005 +.618C
2010 +.617C
Sure, GISS works. Let's look at the anomaly data (land/sea, yearly average)
1998 +.598C
2005 +.618C
2010 +.617C
mnealtx 0
Quote>They were pulled from GISS data - is that 'better data' enough for you, bill?
Sure, GISS works. Let's look at the anomaly data (land/sea, yearly average)
1998 +.598C
2005 +.618C
2010 +.617C
And last week, the 2010 average was +.485
Garbage in, garbage out.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
>decreased 10-20% since recorded history.
Yeah, it's been up and down quite a bit - but the peaks and valleys don't correlate with temperature.
You may be thinking of the Danish study, which claimed that magnetic fields influenced climate like so:
-Magnetic field decreases
-More galactic cosmic radiation (really 'galactic wind' - ionized atomic nuclei) penetrates to the upper atmosphere
-Collisions in the upper atmosphere cause nucleation particles for clouds
-Increased clouds retain more heat
Three problems with this theory:
1) There's no shortage of upper atmosphere nucleation particles, between volcanic activity and manmade pollution
2) In tests, the nucleation particles created were too small to see any clouds
3) Clouds both block and retain heat. If more are formed on the sunward side the planet cools; if more are formed on the night side, the planet warms.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites