wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 I think you are mixing temps with CO2. I am only saying that the link between CO2 and humans has pretty solid support from the data. The CO2-temp link is another question entirely. CO2 is a GHG there is no denial of that is there? So more CO2 must result in more heat. Temp can drive CO2 increases by heating water(oceans) warm water holds less CO2 than cold. Previous warmings temps increased first followed by CO2 increases by a lag of about 800years, it takes awhile for the oceans to warm. In this warming CO2 is rising with temp increase, there is no lag. If there is no lag CO2 must be driving temp. Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 The source of the CO2 can be inferred from the ratio of carbon isotopes - CO2 that comes from old sources has a different isotope ratio. The science behind it is similar to carbon dating. yes... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 What difference does it make if it can be identified?Here is a good backgrounder on the CO2 attribution issue: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/...asurements.html Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 CO2 is a GHG there is no denial of that is there? So more CO2 must result in more heat.Yes, but the important unknown is how much more heat?Temp can drive CO2 increases by heating water(oceans) warm water holds less CO2 than cold.Yes. Previous warmings temps increased first followed by CO2 increases by a lag of about 800years, it takes awhile for the oceans to warm.It is potentially a lot more complicated since retreating ice sheets will lead to rapid expansion of plant life which manufactures CO2. In this warming CO2 is rising with temp increase, there is no lag.If there is no lag CO2 must be driving temp. Completely wrong. CO2 is rising and this is contributing to some of the temperature rise but there is no evidence that the majority of the rise was a result of CO2. In fact, if you look at the 20th temperature records you will see the warming proceeding in two stages where the the 1st stage from 1910-1940 was completely natural. Given that data it is impossible to argue that the second stage from 1980-1998 must be mostly CO2 driven. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
noahbody Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 I think you are mixing temps with CO2. No, it's just that you're analogy is over simplistic. In a controlled environment you should be able to predict when water would overflow onto the floor. That's assuming all your data is correct. If the water is draining faster than expected similarly to the study that suggests CO2 is escaping six times faster than expected, that will affect the accuracy of the predictions. I just mentioned the tub being outside, because it would be much more difficult to model. You'd have to take into account everything from evaporation to rainfall to thirsty critters. Models are only as good as their data. This is a big problem with AGW modelling. They don't understand enough to model it accurately. Quote
wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 It is potentially a lot more complicated since retreating ice sheets will lead to rapid expansion of plant life which manufactures CO2. how so? please explain...Completely wrong. CO2 is rising and this is contributing to some of the temperature rise but there is no evidence that the majority of the rise was a result of CO2. In fact, if you look at the 20th temperature records you will see the warming proceeding in two stages where the the 1st stage from 1910-1940 was completely natural. Given that data it is impossible to argue that the second stage from 1980-1998 must be mostly CO2 driven. you're assuming that I meant, it isn't...no one has suggested there are not normal climate changes...any anthropogenic causes are added to whatever natural cycles there are, warming or cooling... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 No, it's just that you're analogy is over simplistic. In a controlled environment you should be able to predict when water would overflow onto the floor. That's assuming all your data is correct. If the water is draining faster than expected similarly to the study that suggests CO2 is escaping six times faster than expected, that will affect the accuracy of the predictions.I just mentioned the tub being outside, because it would be much more difficult to model. You'd have to take into account everything from evaporation to rainfall to thirsty critters. Models are only as good as their data. This is a big problem with AGW modelling. They don't understand enough to model it accurately. water vapor takes about two weeks to cycle in and out of the atmosphere...CO2 can take centuries to cycle through...so it is accumulating faster than it can leave through a natural a cycle...being a GHG it must be accompanied by a temp increase, only how much and how fast can be questioned not if it is happening... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
jbg Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 the myth of the cooling trend...using the el Nino year of 1998 an anomoly as the starting year...the denier handbook alwsys cherry picks starting dates of convenience, why not use last week because it was warmer than this week?.... And the alarmists' handbook picks 1980 as the base year for arctic ice measurement and 1977 for global temperatures. In order to enable Mann to play hockey? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Battletoads Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Eh nm Edited October 21, 2009 by Battletoads Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 And the alarmists' handbook picks 1980 as the base year for arctic ice measurement and 1977 for global temperatures. In order to enable Mann to play hockey? and the deniers handbook doesn't include a section how to read a graph...ignorance can be bliss...what's the denier excuse going to be if el Nino comes back in 2010 and sets a new global record high next year?...oh I know the denier handbook will claim a cooler 2011 is the begining of a new global cooling... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
lictor616 Posted October 22, 2009 Report Posted October 22, 2009 A previous topic was moved to another section but, really, this plot affects Canada - and its "Climate Change Policy". It's infuriating......these Leftists are trying to remake the world under the guise of Climate Change. Now their agenda is out in the open for all to see - it's not about the Global Warming farce, it's not about Climate Change adaptation, and it's not about CO2. It's about Wealth Transfer......Harper was right years ago....it's unfortunate that it's politically unpalatable to say it anymore. The entire article is informative and well worth reading....it provides a sober look at the Big Picture.http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...al-economy.aspx Link: it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with global governance and "nationalizing" more wealth from us tax paying animals... Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
Argus Posted October 22, 2009 Report Posted October 22, 2009 it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with global governance and "nationalizing" more wealth from us tax paying animals... Yes, a comment in the Post this morning refers to the growing excitement on the part of big business for how much profit it could all mean to them. Big business and the globe's greatest corporate powers are marching in lock step with governments and environmentalists to impose climate policy on the world and its people. At the Copenhagen climate conference in December, no group looks forward more fervently than big business to a global carbon control agreement filled with firm targets, big tax increases and massive subsidies for special interests all over the world. Clmatism and the Industrial State Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jbg Posted October 24, 2009 Report Posted October 24, 2009 and the deniers handbook doesn't include a section how to read a graph...ignorance can be bliss...what's the denier excuse going to be if el Nino comes back in 2010 and sets a new global record high next year?...oh I know the denier handbook will claim a cooler 2011 is the begining of a new global cooling... We had Ninos in 2002-3, 2003-4 and 2006-7 without a hint of a new temperature peak. 1997-8 was a super-nino at the end of a 30 year "warm" cycle that started during 1977, a time when people were talking about a new "Ice Age". At that point, if you recall, there was a three-year stretch of extremely severe East Coast winters. The more things change the more they stay the same. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.