Antarctic Sea Ice Sets New Record...

[code1211]

Then why do you keep making posts questioning whether temperature increases are real or not?

I thought that was established already, and you go and question it, then post that it is real.

Are you using an etch-a-sketch or something?

Presenting actual data from three of the leading climate research centers on the planet is not just questioning, it's demonstrating that there is a serious flaw in your reasoning.

That is not opinion. It's not spin. It's not misleading.

That is real, unadulterated science.

 

[Gary]

You and I arguing about how we will change the direction of the Earth is like a couple fleas arguing which way the dog should run today.

I know how to give a dog a flea bath and I have big dogs. Fleas on dogs and the minds of foolish humans are two different subjects.

 

[Gary]

Again, you need to demonstrate that there has been any connection in the first place.

Connect the reality that residence time doesn't mean the amount of a gas is going away. It only means the average atom of that gas is going away.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Presenting actual data from three of the leading climate research centers on the planet is not just questioning, it's demonstrating that there is a serious flaw in your reasoning.

That is not opinion. It's not spin. It's not misleading.

That is real, unadulterated science.

Umm.. sure. So, what is your opinion du jour?

The Earth is getting warmer currently, or
The Earth is not getting warmer currently?

 

[code1211]

I've have already proceeded in post #532 referenced here.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1060966048

Please explain why these scientists are wrong in their assessment that CO2 is causing the rise in temperature.

You may proceed.

Explaining why somebody is wrong is not the issue.Whether or not they are right is the issue.

James Hanson made a prediction based on this "science" and his predictions, all of them, were wrong. It would benefit him to understand why he was wrong. It only benefits me to understand that he was wrong.

Predicting future temperature increase is most accurately accomplished by reviewing what happened in the last 50 years and extending that into the next few years. If Hanson had done this instead of his complex bag of CO2 science, he would have nailed the prediction.

He would have nailed the prediction if he had used that technique in 1880.

 

[code1211]

Connect the reality that residence time doesn't mean the amount of a gas is going away. It only means the average atom of that gas is going away.

You seem to know allot about something that doesn't seem to have any impact on the climate.

 

[Gary]

What do the temperature measurements from the Argo Array reveal for you?

Get this through your head! Temperature is a proxy of the warming of a planet. Earth doesn't have an asshole where we can take it's temperature. We've searched through Texas and couldn't find one.

 

[code1211]

Umm.. sure. So, what is your opinion du jour?

The Earth is getting warmer currently, or
The Earth is not getting warmer currently?

According to Hadcrut and RSS, the data showed cooling. According to UAH, that data showed warming across the last decade. Why is this difficult to understand?

 

[EagleAye]

View attachment 67135450

It was this point that finally nailed it for me. Its when I found this was happening that my initial mild cynicism about AGW turned to outright skepticism a few years back

Here's an explanation for why the IPCC estimates are different...(bold is mine)

"A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10)."
CO2 has a short residence time

I would also note that Tom Segalstad (the producer of this chart) has never published CO2 related findings in any scientific journal
"The researchers went through Segalstad's points and gave counterarguments, concluding that he had used "incorrect interpretations of laws and geochemical data, in addition to a complete neglect of published measurements". They also repeatedly mentioned that Segalstad has yet to publish his CO2 research in any "recognized scientific journal".[12][13]"
Tom Segalstad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[code1211]

Get this through your head! Temperature is a proxy of the warming of a planet. Earth doesn't have an asshole where we can take it's temperature. We've searched through Texas and couldn't find one.

Again with the anger.

 

[EagleAye]

Explaining why somebody is wrong is not the issue.Whether or not they are right is the issue.

James Hanson made a prediction based on this "science" and his predictions, all of them, were wrong. It would benefit him to understand why he was wrong. It only benefits me to understand that he was wrong.

Predicting future temperature increase is most accurately accomplished by reviewing what happened in the last 50 years and extending that into the next few years. If Hanson had done this instead of his complex bag of CO2 science, he would have nailed the prediction.

He would have nailed the prediction if he had used that technique in 1880.

My post in #532 discusses how CO2 is trapping heat in the Earth. Human activity increasing CO2 concentrations will trap more heat and thereby AGW is shown to be active. The post does not refer to predictions, climate models, or James Hansen. These are amusing tangents but they do nothing to refute the facts I have provided. Would you care to try again?

 

[Dittohead not!]

According to Hadcrut and RSS, the data showed cooling. According to UAH, that data showed warming across the last decade. Why is this difficult to understand?

You posted that temperature increases were real. Does that mean you agree with UAH as opposed to the other two? Why is that?

 

[flogger]

Here's an explanation for why the IPCC estimates are different...(bold is mine)

"A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10)."
CO2 has a short residence time

There are few (if any) studies supporting such assertions by the IPCC hence my continued skepticism. Our cartoonist SKS friend is obviously going to ignore inconvenient contradictory published studies in his blog in favour of such assertions. The IPCC is a political body not a scientific one after all. As I've already mentioned earlier its what gets omitted from IPCC modelling thats the main problem with this whole hypothesis and clearly none of these made the cut

I would also note that Tom Segalstad (the producer of this chart) has never published CO2 related findings in any scientific journal
"The researchers went through Segalstad's points and gave counterarguments, concluding that he had used "incorrect interpretations of laws and geochemical data, in addition to a complete neglect of published measurements". They also repeatedly mentioned that Segalstad has yet to publish his CO2 research in any "recognized scientific journal".[12][13]"
Tom Segalstad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The multi authored studies Segalstad cites do exist and I have read a number of them ,so attempts at diminishing the impact of what they are saying by attacks on his integrity are wasted on me. :roll:

 

[Gary]

You seem to know allot about something that doesn't seem to have any impact on the climate.

I seem to know a lot about spelling allot, too, but let's forget that!

Originally Posted by Gary

Connect the reality that residence time doesn't mean the amount of a gas is going away. It only means the average atom of that gas is going away.

Only Denialistas make the claim that residence time means something. Since when has our Earth cared about an individual atom of hydrogen, oxygen or carbon? It takes about two weeks for a gas to circumnavigate the globe. Within a year the Northern and Southern Hemispheres can exchange atmospheric information. I seriously doubt if anyone on Earth doesn't contain an atom that came off the sweat of my ass or anyone's ass who lived a long life. My atoms only have a residence time in your body, but they are going to be around for a few year, so enjoy every fart I've taken! If you don't like those atoms, give them back!

 

[Gary]

Again with the anger.

This is what was said and how you dismiss it:

Originally Posted by Gary

Get this through your head! Temperature is a proxy of the warming of a planet. Earth doesn't have an asshole where we can take it's temperature. We've searched through Texas and couldn't find one.

The point is, can temperature as we measure it truly demonstate warming? It's a simple yes or no question. Can you measure surface temperatures and why would they reflect the total warming of a planet? It's a fact that we don't have the capacity to even measure surface temperatures on our planet. Hell, warming only became an interest after it was observed, so the nonsense claiming it hasn't warmed isn't based on reality. I don't see the Denialistas distancing themselves from the obvious warming.

 

[Poptech]

14 year Global Cooling Trend

 

[Gary]

Was that after or before they flicked a booger on your analysis or was it in your face?

 

[Klown]

I've have already proceeded in post #532 referenced here.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1060966048

Please explain why these scientists are wrong in their assessment that CO2 is causing the rise in temperature.

You may proceed.

The 1000 year period from 900 AD to 1900 AD, saw average global surface temperatures remain essentially constant. In fact to precise there was a tiny cooling of the earth of 0.05 degF, which is negligible.

How do you account for the almost 2 degF increase over the past 110 years since about 1900 AD, most of which occurred over the past 60 years?

Are you aware that prior to filtration of emission particulates from industry and coal power plants and cars, these particulates were released into the atmosphere and cause global dimming. These cooling effect was significant pre 1950 when the CO2 level was lower. Since then, these particulates have been reduced by industry and the dimming effect is small. Also the CO2 level has kept climbing.

The temperature trend reflects the dimming effect caused by these particulates.

In fact fires and volcanos also release reflective particulates into the atmosphere and can be accounts for as one off events. The huge Indonesian volcano eruption of the late 1990s is a good example.

You need to look at trend periods greater than a few years and isolated weather events in the USA which only makes up about 2% of the global surface area.

You also need to take into account the 12 year solar irradiance cycle and El Ninio and La Ninia events.

The warmest decades on record are

Warmest is 2000 to 2009
2nd warmest is 1990 to 1999
3rd warmest is 1980 to 1989
4th warmest is 1970 to 1979
5th warmest is 1960 to 1969

Any ideas as to what is driving this trend?

Who would you consult to find an answer to this question?

 

[Klown]

14 year Global Cooling Trend

Why does the graph begin in 1998?

Lol

 

[flogger]

Why does the graph begin in 1998?

Lol

Perhaps its to illustrate that the current warming phase may have peaked and we are in fact still wringing our hands over nothing ? :roll:

 

[Poptech]

Using their theory we need to ramp up hydrocarbon energy use and pump out CO2 to reverse this dangerous cooling trend.

 

[flogger]

Using their theory we need to ramp up hydrocarbon energy use and pump out CO2 to reverse this dangerous cooling trend.

If I live long enough I'll wager I see the next global cooling panic dominate our media and you know what , it will still be all our fault

 

[Poptech]

It will be like the 1970s all over again,

1969 - New Ice Age Threat Seen (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969)
1969 - Worrying About a New Ice Age (The New York Times, February 23, 1969)
1969 - Ice Age Biggest Threat According to Archeologist (The Hartford Courant, November 21, 1969)
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 - Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 - New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 - Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 - B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 - The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 - The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1977 - We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 - The New Ice Age (Book, 1978)
1978 - Winters Will Get Colder, 'we're Entering Little Ice Age' (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 - Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 - The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 - An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

 

[flogger]

:doh Oh no not the 70s !

It will be like the 1970s all over again,

1969 - New Ice Age Threat Seen (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969)
1969 - Worrying About a New Ice Age (The New York Times, February 23, 1969)
1969 - Ice Age Biggest Threat According to Archeologist (The Hartford Courant, November 21, 1969)
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 - Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 - New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 - Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 - B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 - The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 - The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1977 - We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 - The New Ice Age (Book, 1978)
1978 - Winters Will Get Colder, 'we're Entering Little Ice Age' (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 - Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 - The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 - An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Outstanding finds ..... good gawd !! I wonder if anyone remembers which prominent NASA scientist was also in the vanguard of this scare :lamo

 

[flogger]

Double post