Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the black line is the trend over the whole period 1850 to 2010ish.
If you want to be accurate it's the red line.
Quote:
For that you have to look at the blue line.
Glad you figured that out, I was beginning to wonder if you understood what you were looking at.
Quote:
Yet according to Coalman there has been a consistant rate since 1855!!!
Yes there has, we can segment this graph into any considerable lengths of time of maybe 20 or 30 years and produce nearly the same rate of rise. Your examples of splitting it into just a few years are of course too small a sample to produce anything reliable. Understand now or do you need some more schooling on how graphs, means and sample sizes work?
Secondly, I don't need to prove that CO2 is not a "greenhouse gas" in order to challenge the claim that man made CO2 is the cause of Global Warming. That is just a straw man argument you have created based on your own faulty assumptions. The reality is, all one needs to do is understand the composition of the atmosphere itself, and particularly how minuscule CO2 is by comparison to the other gasses, and of that minuscule fraction of total CO2, how man made CO2 represents just a tiny fraction of that, with the vast majority naturally occurring. This alone, without any further understanding of how CO2 behaves, SHOULD immediately bring questions to mind as to the relative impact man made CO2 could possibly have, if any, insofar as climate altering effect. Pure, rational common sense is all that is required here. Now once you have recognized the ratio between naturally occurring and man made CO2 as being analogous to the Elephant and a Mouse, you should be able to grasp the legitimacy of skepticism regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming. Of course, this alone neither proves or disproves anything ... but is a good starting point to encourage further scrutiny of AGW claims.
In all the above quote I think you only make three points which I have bolded, think of them as a,b and c:
a) CO2 is currently about 390 parts per million of the atmosphere. It is the most common greenhouse gas, the others being measured in parts per billion. The majority of the atmosphere, roughly 990,600 parts per million, mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen, is not comprised of greenhouse gases. So the greenhouse effect of CO2 is large compared to its proportion in the atmosphere.
Think of alcohol in your beer: 4% isn't very much compared to the nearly 96% water. So drinking beer at 6% won't have any more eshffect will hic er, I mean, it?
b)+ c)The CO2 concentration before industry took off was about 270/280 parts per million: we've added almost half to it. Not a miniscule proportion. What I think T'N'G is trying to say is that there is natural emission and absorbtion of CO2 which is a hundred or more times greater than man-made emissions.
However, the natural emissions have been roughly in balance for a long time: that's why CO2 levels were stable around 270/280 ppm for at least a thousand years. Man has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere. We can tell how much by keeping a tally of fossil fuel production and usage. This calculation shows that "Nature" absorbs roughly half the excess. The rest stays in the atmosphere: hence the increase to 390ppm.
Here's something to think about: you have a swimming pool with water to a depth of 290mm. You stick in a firehose going full bore, say 100 gallons/minute but at the same time open the drain valve so that the water leaving is compensated exactly by the water going in. The water level stays the same. Now you take a glass of water and empty it in the pool and repeat and repeat and repeat. Now it's only a tiny amount of water compared to the firehose, but do you really think that the water level ain't gonna rise?
( I managed not to let the beer analogy influence me, because, let me tell you, emptying a glass into the pool was not the first idea that I had)
Yes there has, we can segment this graph into any considerable lengths of time of maybe 20 or 30 years and produce nearly the same rate of rise. Your examples of splitting it into just a few years are of course too small a sample to produce anything reliable. Understand now or do you need some more schooling on how graphs, means and sample sizes work?
Good try but changing the subject won't work; your claim was a consistent rise over the whole period.
Since you know that the only way to show a consistent rate over the whole period is to actually calculate all the rates over all the possible time periods, I suggest you get busy now if you want to prove your point. especially as you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
There isn't any graphs on that site that show any change in the rate they are rising or falling .
That's a heck of a lot of stations. However I'm feeling merciful, just do it for the yearly data, not the monthly.
The logical next step is to analyze and scrutinize the actual legitimacy of the "Greenhouse Effect" theory itself, which contrary to the mainstream propaganda, is far from proven. It's still a conceptual theory based on conjecture, and even among the proponents of the theory, there are varying explanations of it's mechanics. What might come as a big surprise to many, given the one sided approach to Climate science today, is the fact that elementary physics, and particularly the laws of thermodynamics and thermal conductivity actually does directly challenge and refute the foundational basis of the "greenhouse effect". (Gasp) I know this seems altogether impossible given the decades of bombardment of "Greenhouse" ... "Greenhouse gasses" ad nauseam, yet there are physicists with sound scientific arguments who do actually insist that the "greenhouse effect" as presented in the Anthropogenic Global Warming context is pure, unadulterated fiction.
The "greenhouse" scenario insofar as the atmosphere itself is concerned is a misnomer ... as your typical "greenhouse" (or hothouse) is constructed of solid transparent-opaque material which traps air within a closed system, allowing radiation to warm that trapped air, thereby creating a warm environment within it's isolated and enclosed boundaries. The earth is not a closed or isolated system, nor is the atmosphere a solid material. Consequently, there can be no actual "greenhouse" or "hothouse" scenario, and such terms are strictly anecdotal. Take your basic greenhouse, create air flow through the structure utilizing the air outside of the structure, and you will eventually reach equilibrium between the outside and inside temperature.
The mechanisms claimed to be at work in creating the greenhouse "effect" on earth actually violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics, in that the amount of heat created from solar radiation cannot exceed it's total energy potential, regardless of what form it converts to, be it visible or infrared. And, the greenhouse effect theory is based on "back-radiation" which supposes that visible radiation enters the atmosphere, reaches and warms the surface ...which then re-radiates that heat in the form of infrared back to the atmosphere which then re-radiates that back to the surface perpetually, without loss, creating heat build up at the surface and in the atmosphere. This is akin to free energy creation ... or creating energy out of nothing because the greenhouse model does not factor in heat loss .... it recycles it. That is impossible ... as radiation is omnidirectional, and half of that re-radiated energy would radiate out into space, and not recycle as suggested by the back-radiation model. As the surface re-radiates heat back to the atmosphere, the surface would have to cool in the process, as you cannot store and radiate this heat simultaneously. And the same holds true for the atmosphere as it must lose heat as it transfers that heat to the surface. Substances of whatever type cannot store and radiate their total energy potential simultaneously. In other words, there are laws governing thermal conductivity that must be ignored with respect to CO2 being a cause of global warming.
Familiarize yourself with Kirchoff's Law of thermodynamics.
I'm going to stop here and let you digest this. Perhaps your "Myth Busters" can explain how the earth's atmosphere, and particularly CO2 is not subject to the laws of physics and thermodynamics ..... I'm anxious to see what you come up with.
Congrats, stripped of the excessive rhetoric, such as the whole of the first paragraph, you got some facts right or so near to right that it's not worth quibbling about them. I've underlined them.
Unfortunately you blew it by creating a straw man: I've bolded the bit where you depart from what mainstream science says. As that straw man underpins the whole of your case, perhaps you should reconsider what you have written after it.
You also over simplify the back radiation; you got the omnidirectional bit right, but you only consider the case of a single interaction. In fact there are multiple interactions before "heat" can escape into space. Increasing these interactions by putting more greenhouse gases "slows" the escape of heat from the surface, reducing cooling which manifests itself as warming. Let's be clear: it's not "akin to free energy creation": it's just slowing down the rate at which heat escapes.
Although you dismiss the "greenhouse effect" as an unproven controversal theory, do bear in mind that so far, in its 150+ year history, it has explained why the Earth is at its current balmy temperature and why Venus is a lot hotter.
Please remember that you position has to account for all known facts: you can't ignore those that you can't explain.
Good try but changing the subject won't work; your claim was a consistent rise over the whole period.
I'm not changing the subject at all, just correcting a fundamental mistake you have made using a too small a sample and I've alreay explined it is consistent rise. The blue data does not diverge from the mean, it's really as simple as that.
Let's clarify a few things here ....first, I'm not a "Climate Skeptic". I'm pretty certain that Climate exists . The use of labels such as "Skeptic" and "Denier" are tactical ploys to cast aspersions on those who don't drink the Carbonated Kool-Aide.
Thanks for clarifying what you aren't. Did I say that you were a "climate sceptic" or anything?
You had better tell Dr. Roy Spencer that he is casting aspersions on himself and his colleagues...
"One of the points that Dr. Richard Lindzen made during his keynote speech at the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change, held in New York City March 8-10 this year, is that we global warming skeptics need to be careful about what aspects of the theory of manmade global warming we dispute." In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
and the owner of this site http://www.climate-skeptic.com/about (broken link)
and this Party The Climate Sceptics Party
and all the people who bought stuff from this shop: Climate Skeptic Shop
Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to turn down your paranoia/victim setting? Just a little, maybe from 11 to 10, huh, please?
I'm not changing the subject at all, just correcting a fundamental mistake you have made using a too small a sample and I've alreay explined it is consistent rise. The blue data does not diverge from the mean, it's really as simple as that.
LOL you keep digging your hole deeper. If it's a consistent rise, then it's the same for all sample lengths.
Your wriggling is now starting to become tiresome. The only person you are trying to convince is yourself.
One last attempt to get you to stop fooling yourself.
The trend is given by the red line. You claim that actual rate has been consistent over the whole period. That is 2.77mm/year. That means that if you pick any point on the blue line which is the value for a particular year, then one year later the blue line will show a 2.77 mm rise. So the blue line can never go down. (In fact it should always match the red line exactly.)
But it does. So your claim is disproved.
To change the subject. To everyone else out there if this exchange hasn't sent you to sleep: are there any well known timewasters that I should be aware of?
In all the above quote I think you only make three points which I have bolded, think of them as a,b and c:
a) CO2 is currently about 390 parts per million of the atmosphere. It is the most common greenhouse gas, the others being measured in parts per billion. The majority of the atmosphere, roughly 990,600 parts per million, mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen, is not comprised of greenhouse gases. So the greenhouse effect of CO2 is large compared to its proportion in the atmosphere.
Absolutely wrong .... you couldn't be more wrong if that were your intention. That's not your intention is it? To mislead?
The composition of the (alleged) Greenhouse Gas is predominately Water Vapor (95%) with CO2 representing about 4.7 %. .... hardly the "most common" of the gasses. And of that small fraction of 4.7 %, the portion contributed by human activity represents 1/3 of 1% of the 4.7%.
Put into proper perspective, when these "greenhouse gasses" are compared to the atmosphere as a whole, they wouldn't even be visible on a pie chart, which is why they are referred to as "trace gasses". The current levels of CO2 can be expressed as 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and based on current projections, that level of CO2 may increase by 1 molecule in the next 5 years to 40 (or 400 ppm). This may result in a "doubling"of the CO2 levels by 2100, and however frightening that may seem to the carbonated kool-aide drinkers, that would be a great thing for people who love life and abundance, and such a doubling of CO2 couldn't come too soon. You see, it is a biological fact that plant life shows it's greatest prosperity and ability to thrive at 3 times the current atmospheric CO2 levels, or 900 to 1200 ppm. And, as plant life thrives, so does all life on the planet.
For those who hate life and abundance, they have spared no effort or expense in convincing the masses that CO2 is a dangerous, poisonous gas, which will lead to global catastrophe. And in a certain twisted way, they aren't really lying. To them, the potential of abundant life is a catastrophe, if one's underlying agenda is to reduce human population levels by 80-90% of current. To them, CO2 is most certainly a global threat .... just not the threat they've convinced you to believe in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
b)+ c)The CO2 concentration before industry took off was about 270/280 parts per million: we've added almost half to it. Not a miniscule proportion. What I think T'N'G is trying to say is that there is natural emission and absorbtion of CO2 which is a hundred or more times greater than man-made emissions.
Actually, it is a very MINUSCULE amount since 50% of a very small number is still a very small number, especially when doubling or tripling that number would be even more beneficial for life on the planet. That's what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
However, the natural emissions have been roughly in balance for a long time: that's why CO2 levels were stable around 270/280 ppm for at least a thousand years. Man has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere. We can tell how much by keeping a tally of fossil fuel production and usage. This calculation shows that "Nature" absorbs roughly half the excess. The rest stays in the atmosphere: hence the increase to 390ppm.
Actually, no, you're making unjustifiable assumptions here. Given the lag time of 800-1000 years between global warming cycles and the corresponding increases in atmospheric CO2 levels firmly established in the climate record data over the past 400,000 years, you cannot legitimately proclaim that the increase from 280 to 390 ppm is a direct result of man's contribution via industrial activity. The industrial revolution fell squarely in that 800-1000 year time frame after the Medieval Warm period that occurred between 900-1200 AD. This is at the heart of the pseudo-science fraud of man made global warming .... 1) CO2 has never driven temperature before ... 2) Atmospheric increases in CO2 show a significant lag time occurring as a result of warming and therefore not the cause ... 3) Attempts to assign recent increases in the atmospheric CO2 levels occurring over the past 100 years to industrial activity IGNORES the proven CO2 cycle that occur naturally as a result of a warming cycles and subsequent releases of CO2 by warmer Oceans, 800 - 1000 years AFTER the warming event. Far more likely, increases in CO2 levels measured over the past 100 years are a direct result of a warming event that occurred 300 years before Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue in 1492.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
Here's something to think about: you have a swimming pool with water to a depth of 290mm. You stick in a firehose going full bore, say 100 gallons/minute but at the same time open the drain valve so that the water leaving is compensated exactly by the water going in. The water level stays the same. Now you take a glass of water and empty it in the pool and repeat and repeat and repeat. Now it's only a tiny amount of water compared to the firehose, but do you really think that the water level ain't gonna rise?
This is not even remotely close to a reasonable analogy ... you're defining a static situation, while the earth's climate mechanisms and cycles are far from static. And that is one of the problems with AGW pseudo-science... it selectively cherry picks, and often manufactures false evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion, which is exactly opposite the scientific method of allowing evidence to determine conclusions. And it's a purposeful fraud of childlike transparency.
What you and so many others suffer from is a severe case of BS overload, that literally drowns out reason by means of bombarding one with false arguments, false data, erroneous assumptions, and conjecture and purchased opinions passed along as proven scientific facts. Your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the shear foolishness of some of these CO2 claims is proof of brainwashing based on repetition of messages. Just like that Pavlovian response of dogs salivating when presented with stimuli associated with feeding time .... you respond with the same inane canned responses that make absolutely no rational sense whatsoever.
The prime example of this condition is demonstrated by your willingness to accept that CO2 drives climate change now, even though hundreds of thousands of years of precedent shows that it never has before.
Actually, it will be the northern part of the US that will become much colder in the event of global warming. It may even trigger a new ice age and truly make that part of the US uninhabitable (and Canada, too).
This is the last "prediction" I heard too.
Of course the OP didn't provide a source, but I'm pretty sure I know the source.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
