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.
I really wish they had smoothed version of the blue data with much longer horizontal graph but this is the best they have available on that site that might help you understand the steady rise. Here's a plot that has 20 data points using 50 year overlapping increments compared to the overall trend, it would closely resemble the blue data if it were smoothed except it does not show the upward trend because we're comparing it to a flat line. Keep in mind this in millimeters, the largest divergence from the mean looks to be a little more than 1 mm.
Quote:
Linear mean sea level trends were calculated in overlapping 50-year increments for stations with sufficient historical data. The variability of each 50-year trend, with 95% confidence interval, is plotted against the mid-year of each 50-year period. The solid horizontal line represents the linear mean sea level trend using the entire period of record.
If you still don't understand what I've done is rotated the graph so the overall mean is the same angle as the one in the original graph and connected the 20 data points with a smoothed line. See? Consistent rise over 100 year period using 20 different points. Interestingly the last data point from 1985 would indicate that the mean from the period of 1960 to 2010 is nearly the same as the entire record. Give it up, you've lost this argument.
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-01-2020 at 05:30 PM..
Good luck with challenging Planet Earth and stopping it from changing.
No offense, but my money is on the planet coming out way ahead on this one.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who oppose Climate Change never stop to consider their objective. With an axial tilt of 23° and an orbital eccentricity between 0.005 and 0.058, the Earth's climate is always changing. Only a complete idiot would argue for a static climate.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who oppose Climate Change never stop to consider their objective. With an axial tilt of 23° and an orbital eccentricity between 0.005 and 0.058, the Earth's climate is always changing. Only a complete idiot would argue for a static climate.
No one is opposing "Climate Change" any more than one would deny weather changes occur. It is "climate change caused by man" that is being rejected as a blatant fraud.
And axial tilt and eccentricity of the orbit are not likely the primary factors in these climate cycles. They are more likely to be greater factors that affect weather patterns rather than climate cycles, and may play only a minor role in Climate.
What you rarely hear discussed by "climate scientists" is the earth's progression through the galaxy as the Sun orbits the Milky Way, which takes roughly 220 Million years to complete one pass. Along that orbit, the Sun and solar system pass through various regions of space and various interstellar dust clouds which affect solar activity and thus, affect the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the earth due to the waxing and waning of the earth's magnetic field, and solar deflection. Given this galactic orbit's much longer duration to complete one pass, these periodic passes through different regions of space as the journey proceeds may coincide with the glacial and interglacial cycles recorded in the ice core record which are not measured in years and decades, but in increments of 10's and 100's of thousands of years.
It is my personal opinion that Cosmic radiation, Solar variation, and the effect these have on our planet's magnetic field are the primary forces which drive "climate changes", with trace gasses like CO2 playing no role whatsoever. This hypothesis is supported by rather recent discoveries in the counter intuitive fact that there seems to be more warming of the planet during low solar activity cycles, rather than when the Sun's output radiation is at a high, as one might automatically expect. This leads to the conclusion that cosmic radiation drives climate cycles, because as the Sun's output radiation decreases, that in turn reduces solar winds which deflect cosmic radiation from reaching earth. Lower solar output means more cosmic radiation reaches earth, while higher solar output deflects that cosmic radiation.
It's a much stronger possibility that cosmic radiation (not trace gasses like CO2) interacts with the earth's atmosphere effecting increases and decreases of cloud formations and density, and depending on where the Solar system is on it's orbital path in the galaxy, certain regions of space along that path may result in variations of cosmic radiation streams and intensities which determine climatic events like glacial and interglacial events.
What we do know for certain is that CO2 has never driven climate before, so it is extremely unlikely ... altogether foolish really .... to conclude that it does now, regardless of whatever magical circumstances the United Nations bureaucrats dream up to justify and satisfy their insatiable desires for carbon taxation, and total control of every human activity on earth
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%.
Oh dear, you got me: but it's a cheap shot from you. We're talking about man-made climate change: naturally I thought that we were talking about man-made greenhouses gases. So I used the official figures: Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
However, what do you mean by "The composition of the (alleged) Greenhouse Gas is..."? As it stands it doesn't make sense: did you mean "...composition of the (alleged) Greenhouse Gases..." If so where does your 95% come from?
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).
Still missing the point aren't you? Your argument boils down to: it's such a tiny amount it can't have any effect. Let's apply it to other fields: if you get pulled over for driving under the influence with 0.08% alcohol in your blood try telling the cop that it's miniscule. I'm sure he'll appreciate being told to look at it in its proper perspective.
Or you go to your MD who prescribes say, 50 mg of a blood thinner. "Oi Doc, I weigh 100 kg: 50mg won't have any effect: gimme it by the pound."
Cyanide at 1.5Mg/kg body weight? Poisonous? Nah no way ergh thud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
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.
Don't believe that you're telling the full story with the bit in italic. Back it up with some facts.
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.
Naughty, naughty, I said proportion. You reply amount.
Last edited by Turboblocke; 09-10-2011 at 10:51 AM..
Reason: Getting nested quotes right, second attempt
I really wish they had smoothed version of the blue data with much longer horizontal graph but this is the best they have available on that site that might help you understand the steady rise. Here's a plot that has 20 data points using 50 year overlapping increments compared to the overall trend, it would closely resemble the blue data if it were smoothed except it does not show the upward trend because we're comparing it to a flat line. Keep in mind this in millimeters, the largest divergence from the mean looks to be a little more than 1 mm.
If you still don't understand what I've done is rotated the graph so the overall mean is the same angle as the one in the original graph and connected the 20 data points with a smoothed line. See? Consistent rise over 100 year period using 20 different points. Interestingly the last data point from 1985 would indicate that the mean from the period of 1960 to 2010 is nearly the same as the entire record. Give it up, you've lost this argument.
Oh puhlease.
Given the data points show the +/-95% confidence error bars, to save space, I'm just going to talk about the position of the central short bar. So that means that the first one at about 1880 shows a rate of about 2.5mm/year: note that it is below the thick black horizontal line.
Let's now look at the data points from 1930ish to 1950ish: they're all different and they're all above the thick black horizontal line, showing rates <2.7 mm/year.
Does that fit the definition of steady and predictable? Nope.
So let's go back to post 179, to see the original claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
NOAA has great site for this, Graphs that go up: (Turboblocke: To save space I'm not showing the plots )
Graphs that go down:
There is one absolute about any graph you view, they show a very steady and predictable rise or decline however long the data was collected.
In the current version of reality that most of us inhabit, your claim has been proved wrong by a plot that shows different rates of rise and decline.
(Note that the bits in bold in your topmost post show where you also acknowledge that rates differ.)
You can't reach the ignorant. Every single country on the planet acknowledges climate chane and every developing country is ramping up to meet the challenge in every regard except the "Let's go shopping at the mall, watch dancing with the stars, and worship our huge gas guzzling suv", bury your head in a hole America! It could be a bunch of crap, but science and a lot of ice core samples and data spanning more than a week...... as in centuries, certainly points in that direction. So why not be safe and give it the benifit of the doubt. You can't even see God... but people still go to church. Why? Just in case the skeptics are wrong.
So true. You cannot reach the ignorant. Take a look at the billions of dollars of damage due to natural disasters in this year alone. Texas has set so many records I think they've stopped counting them. Heat, temperatures, and fires. Texas isn't the only one, either.
Since La Nina there is now another La Nina after the La Nina condition had weakend, we'll see how if the drought in TX continues. Once it breaks and they get enough rain the fires will be great for regenerating vegetation. Until then there will be crop failures, homes burned, and lives lost.
I do believe the South will be inhabited indefintely. There may be places that change, or disappear with the rising oceans, but as for heat it will be okay. It's the droughts in some areas that will be the killers.
Oh yes, "global warming". What a load of garbage that isn't supported by true science. There are small natural fluctuations in temperature, relatively speaking. Within fifty years, you're not going to see the South "uninhabitable". If you think so, then I have beach-front property to sell you in Tennessee.
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.
as in centuries, certainly points in that direction. So why not be safe and give it the benifit of the doubt. You can't even see God...
but people still go to church. Why? Just in case the skeptics are wrong.
