PDA

View Full Version : The Global Warming Test...


mikey23545
06-24-2007, 05:02 PM
Based on measurable and recorded scientific facts (for those that have the attention span to complete it....)

Global Warming Test (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html)

I had a perfect score...How about you?

Logical
06-24-2007, 05:09 PM
:rolleyes:

tiptap
06-24-2007, 06:13 PM
Well, I walked through this test.
The first question is correct. We are in an interglacial period and I would add an unusually long duration one. It is this background that climatologists had expectations that temperatures should eventually go down and magazines trumpeted this way beyond what climatologists saw as the time scale for cooling. And against this expectation that the quick rise in temperature of the last 20th early 21st century is such a surprise.

The 2nd question substantiates that CO 2 does elevate temperatures above expectation as a GreenHouse Gas as well as water and methane. So the question is then if CO 2 levels have risen 30% over the last half of the 20th century why wouldn't we see an effect. Admittedly it alone it would be small but it provides a base for a small increase that supports a higher water vapor which magnifies the effect again.

The third question is correct. The sun is the ultimate source for heating the sun and earth eccentricities in orbit have a great deal with this. Accounting for the temperatures from 0 Kelvin to 253 Kelvin. But as stated in question one and again in this question Greenhouse Gases bring the temperatures up another 40 degrees.

Water vapor ok. And higher night temperatures means more energy. And while biological systems in any single year dwarf human production it is cyclical as result of land mass located in Northern Hemisphere. The addition is human sourced over time as indicated by C 12 C 14 ratio change in the CO 2.

The NOAA chart states .11 degree average rise per decade over the last century. That translates to over a degree centigrade as oppose to less than .2. The chart shown quits in 1995 with the 8 of the hottest years coming after 1995.

6 CO 2 indicated by proxy methods become more suspect as you go 100 of million of years back in time. But it is important to remember that we have already agreed that the sun is the primary source of heat for earth and Nuclear Star Expenditure was 25% less earlier in Earth's life than now. (See Main Star life cycle) It was probable about 5% less at the end of Cretaceous. So the extra CO 2 was important in getting those higher temperatures with less solar energy. No one thinks past rise in temperatures were initially brought about by CO 2. It was sustained and multiplied by increase in CO 2. The peculiarities of the 20th century phenomenon is unusual and human CO 2 is the new constituent.

7 While CO 2 doesn't hurt forests, acid rains and other smokestack gases do. A lot of this in western production has been addressed. Damn the chinese.

8 The chart with Medieval Warming followed by Little Ice Age is indeed a early chart of temperatures OF EUROPE from early IPAA. The evidence for world temperature trends do not follow this and the IPAA has addressed this many times about this specific early chart.

9 The increase temperatures at night is the concern. Clouds are the real unknown in the climate models. But note if there are more clouds that means there has to be more water vapor and we already stated this is the largest GreenHouse gas.

10. The weather satellite data does not substantiate this statement. The initial results did but upon review there was real temperature rise.

DanT
06-24-2007, 06:20 PM
I got 'em all right except for the last one. Thanks for the link, mikey23545!

Ugly Duck
06-24-2007, 06:46 PM
The peculiarities of the 20th century phenomenon is unusual and human CO 2 is the new constituent.

Thats the unpleasant truth that the test does not address, but is the main factor driving the consensus alarm. (I also got 100% - too easy).

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/CO2_0-50k_yrs.gif

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html

Ugly Duck
06-24-2007, 06:56 PM
Here's a temp vs CO2 graph going back 400,000 years or so. Notice the CO2 spiking after the industrial revolution (right border of graph). Thats what is worrying everybody but Republicans and "scientists" paid by oil companies.



http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink.

tiptap
06-24-2007, 07:49 PM
I should admit I missed two. But both of those are wrong. the NOAA states that we have over a degree and half rise in average temperature over the length of the records. And the satellite data does support a rise in temperature through to the tropopause.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html and choose National to get to page to choose annual for temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 10:58 PM
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif


But seriously, Global Warming is pretty much fact. It makes too much sense. The debate should be whether humans are to blame. Which I think they are - at least partially.

Calcountry
06-24-2007, 11:28 PM
I think I will go burn the tree prunings to help out a bit, it has been pretty freaking cool here all summer so far. Summer begins on memorial day here in the valley.

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 09:48 AM
Here's a temp vs CO2 graph going back 400,000 years or so. Notice the CO2 spiking after the industrial revolution (right border of graph). Thats what is worrying everybody but Republicans and "scientists" paid by oil companies.



http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink.


The Inconvenient Truth all tree huggers like to ignore is that the rise in CO2 levels tracks (lags) temp rises...In other words, by some mechanism that is not fully understood, temperature rises causes a rise in CO2 levels, not vice versa. When plotted with the right timescale, it is obvious. In Algore's movie, they actually show temps and CO2 levels on seperate graphs to keep it from showing....

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 09:52 AM
The Inconvenient Truth all tree huggers like to ignore is that the rise in CO2 levels tracks (lags) temp rises...In other words, by some mechanism that is not fully understood, temperature rises causes a rise in CO2 levels, not vice versa. When plotted with the right timescale, it is obvious. In Algore's movie, they actually show temps and CO2 levels on seperate graphs to keep it from showing....

I'm looking at a graph of them both on there and I can't tell by looking at it which is causing what, so I don't think AIC is misleading.

Hydrae
06-25-2007, 10:17 AM
The Inconvenient Truth all tree huggers like to ignore is that the rise in CO2 levels tracks (lags) temp rises...In other words, by some mechanism that is not fully understood, temperature rises causes a rise in CO2 levels, not vice versa. When plotted with the right timescale, it is obvious. In Algore's movie, they actually show temps and CO2 levels on seperate graphs to keep it from showing....


Personally I found the movie boring and repetitive. However the graph showing the CO2 levels for the last several hundred thousand years and the rises in CO2 levels during the last few ice ages I found to be very convincing. I have long held the belief that most of what we are calling Global Warming is a natural cycle. But when you see that we are literally off the chart compared to previous ice ages it should be pretty clear that we humans are indeed having an affect on the CO2 levels that is unprecedented.

Calcountry
06-25-2007, 10:55 AM
The Inconvenient Truth all tree huggers like to ignore is that the rise in CO2 levels tracks (lags) temp rises...In other words, by some mechanism that is not fully understood, temperature rises causes a rise in CO2 levels, not vice versa. When plotted with the right timescale, it is obvious. In Algore's movie, they actually show temps and CO2 levels on seperate graphs to keep it from showing....How convenient.

bkkcoh
06-25-2007, 11:25 AM
Personally I found the movie boring and repetitive. However the graph showing the CO2 levels for the last several hundred thousand years and the rises in CO2 levels during the last few ice ages I found to be very convincing. I have long held the belief that most of what we are calling Global Warming is a natural cycle. But when you see that we are literally off the chart compared to previous ice ages it should be pretty clear that we humans are indeed having an affect on the CO2 levels that is unprecedented.


I have always wondered why mankind was so arrogant to think they could really have an adverse impact as a whole on the planet. Localized, of course. But overall, come one, we are just a small part of the marble we call Earth.

It will probably be discovered that termite farts also cause an increase in the global temps....

Hydrae
06-25-2007, 11:50 AM
I have always wondered why mankind was so arrogant to think they could really have an adverse impact as a whole on the planet. Localized, of course. But overall, come one, we are just a small part of the marble we call Earth.

It will probably be discovered that termite farts also cause an increase in the global temps....


Arrogance, absolutely. I have used that term in regards to how we view the history of the Earth and what we think we "know." But when the CO2 levels currently are (from my memory of the movie) 4-5 times higher than at any time during the last 4 or so Ice Ages, something is different this time around. This does not appear to my unscientific mind to be a natural cycle due to the immense variance from what we can see as "normal."

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 12:08 PM
Arrogance, absolutely. I have used that term in regards to how we view the history of the Earth and what we think we "know." But when the CO2 levels currently are (from my memory of the movie) 4-5 times higher than at any time during the last 4 or so Ice Ages, something is different this time around. This does not appear to my unscientific mind to be a natural cycle due to the immense variance from what we can see as "normal."

Absolutely untrue, historically. At times in earth's past CO2 levels have been astronomically higher.

Hydrae
06-25-2007, 12:14 PM
Absolutely untrue, historically. At times in earth's past CO2 levels have been astronomically higher.

I am sure that the graphs and what not that were shown in the movie had a slant to them as shown with the seperate CO2 and temperature charts you mentioned. However, for those of us still trying to learn this stuff, do you have a link or anything to back up what you are claiming here?

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 12:56 PM
I am sure that the graphs and what not that were shown in the movie had a slant to them as shown with the seperate CO2 and temperature charts you mentioned. However, for those of us still trying to learn this stuff, do you have a link or anything to back up what you are claiming here?

Not here at work, but I think i still have links to some stuff at home...check back later.

Hydrae
06-25-2007, 02:22 PM
Not here at work, but I think i still have links to some stuff at home...check back later.


That would be a lovely thing, thanks!

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 03:15 PM
I have some better links somewhere, but here is one article to get started.

Carbon Dioxide Levels Are a Blessing, Not a Problem
Written By: Dudley J. Hughes
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: May 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


For centuries, bloodletting was an accepted medical procedure administered by physicians to treat patients for most illnesses. In today's world, we find it almost inconceivable that such a practice was condoned by entire populations.

Similarly, the claim that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is causing "global warming" has been accepted as "fact" in many countries worldwide. This belief has no more scientific foundation than the bloodletting of past generations.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide may be gradually rising, but there is no compelling evidence that such a modest rise in CO2, which still comprises significantly less than 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, will have any substantial negative effect on the Earth's environment.


Scientists Ignored

Activists have successfully pressured governments to declare CO2 a pollutant and to take drastic measures to reduce the amount entering the atmosphere. By contrast, little publicity is given to the large number of qualified scientists who strongly contest the claims of the advocacy groups. These scientists contend that if CO2 plays any part in global warming, it is so insignificant that it can barely be measured, let alone be the major cause.

One rationale given for claims that Earth's recent, moderate warming is being caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 is the high surface temperature of Venus, which stands at approximately 472° C. Venus is an Earth-size planet that has a predominantly CO2 atmosphere.
If the Earth’s Atmosphere Were a Football Stadium
Atmospheric Gas Percent in Atmosphere People in the Stadium
Nitrogen (N2) 78% 7,800
Oxygen (O2) 21% 2,100
Argon (A) 1% 100
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.038% 4

However, a comparison between Venus and the Earth's recent moderate increase in atmospheric CO2 is misleading, because there is 25,000 times as much CO2 in Venus' atmosphere as there is in the atmosphere of Earth.


CO2 Rare in Atmosphere

Earth's atmosphere is made up of several major gases. For simplicity, let us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas. The approximate numbers of people representing the various types of gas are set out in the accompanying table.

Not included in the table is "water vapor," the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.

Carbon dioxide is represented as only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas.

Moreover, those who name CO2 as a pollutant are not concerned with the 4 parts, but only with 1 part--the portion added during the past 150 years by the burning of fossil fuels. This 1/10,000 increase is the target of the Kyoto Protocol.


Oxygen More Important

After nitrogen, the second most common gas in the atmosphere is oxygen (O2), which is derived from CO2 through photosynthesis. In simple terms, photosynthesis is the process by which the leaves of trees and other plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, retaining the carbon (C) for food while releasing the O2 back into the atmosphere. Some organisms in water also release free oxygen through this same process.

There was no free oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere. Relatively late in the geologic history of the Earth, photosynthesizing organisms began to release oxygen. This has continued to the present, gradually changing the composition of the air to 21 percent free oxygen at the expense of CO2.


<b>CO2 Now Historically Low</b>

A thin veneer of sedimentary rocks blankets the Earth's surface and, along with ice cores from glaciers, can provide a reasonable geologic history of the Earth's past atmosphere.<b> Scientific study of these rocks suggests the Earth's atmosphere in ancient times had considerably more CO2 than today.</b>

Many experiments have demonstrated that the rate of plant growth is largely governed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the growth rate of plants increases dramatically. Similarly, the plant growth rate decreases as atmospheric CO2 decreases.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the basic food for plants, and since plants provide the food for animal life (including humans), CO2 is the base of the food chain for all advanced life forms on Earth.

The present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely low by historical standards. If atmospheric CO2 is significantly reduced, it is more likely that slower plant growth could affect world food supplies while having little effect on global warming. The life of all plants and animals on Earth is dependent on CO2 for food and oxygen.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the staff of life for our planet.

Dudley J. Hughes (awbyrd@bellsouth.net) is a retired geologist and author of A Geologic Reinterpretation of the Earth's Atmospheric History, Inferring a Major Role by CO2, published in 1998 by the College of Geosciences at Texas A & M University.


I'll find some of the other links later...I have some things to take care of right now.

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 03:25 PM
One more quick chart (Click on thumbnail for larger view):

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.69d526522f.gif (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?69d526522f.gif)

If CO2 were the warming monster environmentalists proclaim it to be, the earth's temp back in the Cambrian would have been about 7 bazillion degrees.

Hydrae
06-25-2007, 03:28 PM
Interesting read, thanks Mikey!

...
Not included in the table is "water vapor," the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.
...

So I am correct to have concerns about the large amount of water vapor we will be pushing into the atmosphere if we were to go totally hydrogen power for our vehicles. :)

Hydrae
06-25-2007, 03:29 PM
One more quick chart (Click on thumbnail for larger view):

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.69d526522f.gif (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?69d526522f.gif)

If CO2 were the warming monster environmentalists proclaim it to be, the earth's temp back in the Cambrian would have been about 7 bazillion degrees.


That does show pretty clearly that there is little to no relationship between CO2 levels and temperature, huh?

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 05:05 PM
So I am correct to have concerns about the large amount of water vapor we will be pushing into the atmosphere if we were to go totally hydrogen power for our vehicles. :)

Actually, since the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is so relatively large (about 50 times the amount of CO2) the workings of man cause no appreciable effect on the level. And since water vapor is far and away the most potent of the so-called greenhouse gases it would seem strange that it is never mentioned in the global warming debate....That is strange unless the real goal of the movement is something far different than their stated one...

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 05:11 PM
Just a little giggler....

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

<b>Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”</b>
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

tiptap
06-25-2007, 05:15 PM
One more quick chart (Click on thumbnail for larger view):

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.69d526522f.gif (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?69d526522f.gif)

If CO2 were the warming monster environmentalists proclaim it to be, the earth's temp back in the Cambrian would have been about 7 bazillion degrees.

I'll repeat myself. It is true historically that solar output or distribution INITIATED temperature rise. But the TOTAL temperature rise and its duration is explained by the increase in CO 2 and the corresponding Greenhouse Effect. And in early times, you know 100 of millions of years as in Graph, the solar output was LESS than now. The sun gets hotter through the natural progression of the sun's life. The higher CO 2 was needed just to get our temperatures. Want proof, the 400 million and again 200 million years ago, all the earth was an iceball, and only escaped this with the initiation from a different orientation and the help of the extra CO 2 as the earth came out of those iceball conditions.

The composition of the CO 2 in the atmosphere has changed. It has increased 30%. All of that increase is human generated revealed by C12 vs C14 ratio. That has changed corresponding to non biological sources in sync with the 30% measured increase. No one denies CO 2 does act as a Greenhouse Gas. The unique situation is the increase in CO 2 initiated by man this time instead of solar input.

I will also add that the base temperature increase supported by the more CO 2 then supports more water vapor in the atmosphere that in turn magnifies the effect. Water vapor is also the conveyor system for heat distribution in the atmosphere. The heat of fusion feeds lots of heat into the atmospheric weather systems. The limit on the amount of water a temperature can support as a gas makes water more than just a Greenhouse Gas.

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 05:21 PM
Another treatise on CO2/temperature non-correlation:

http://downloads.heartland.org/20070204_idso.pdf

An excerpt:

CO2 and Temperature Throughout Geologic Time

We begin our investigation with the study of Rothman (2002), who derived a 500-millionyear history of the air’s CO2 content based on considerations related to the chemical weathering of rocks, volcanic and metamorphic degassing, and the burial of organic carbon,
along with considerations related to the isotopic content of organic carbon and strontium in marine sedimentary rocks. The results of this analysis suggest that over the majority of the half-billion-year record, earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuated between values that were two to four times greater than those of today at a dominant period on the order of 100 million years (see Figure 1 below). Over the last 175 million years, however, the data depict a long-term decline in the air’s CO2 content.

Figure 1. A 500-million-year record of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration (relative to that of the present = 1), as derived by Rothman (2002), together with indications of periods of relative cold and warmth.

With respect to the question of what correspondence might exist between ancient climates and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Rothman correctly reports that the CO2 history of Figure 1 “exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.” In fact, a simple visual examination of Rothman’s plot of CO2 and concomitant major cold and warm periods clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the air’s CO2 concentration <b>occur either totally or partially within periods of time when earth’s climate was relatively cool.</b> <b>Consequently, not only is there no proof in these data for the climate-alarmist claim that high atmospheric CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there are times when just the opposite could be imagined to be implied.</b>

tiptap
06-25-2007, 05:31 PM
I know all these studies punch up these counter correlations. The problem for a Chemist with this is that the Thermodynamics and heat retention and increase is a laboratory fact for CO 2. I don't deny that CO 2 had typically never been the initial reason for temperature rise. But increase in CO 2 can only Thermodynamically increase temperature (barring saturating the process with CO 2 as a real large constituent of the atmosphere and negating solar influx by being represented higher in the atmosphere blocking input matching retention.)

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 06:32 PM
I know all these studies punch up these counter correlations. The problem for a Chemist with this is that the Thermodynamics and heat retention and increase is a laboratory fact for CO 2. I don't deny that CO 2 had typically never been the initial reason for temperature rise. But increase in CO 2 can only Thermodynamically increase temperature (barring saturating the process with CO 2 as a real large constituent of the atmosphere and negating solar influx by being represented higher in the atmosphere blocking input matching retention.)

Increase in CO2 is an obviously an insignificant factor in increasing the temperature. First, the environment is far too complex to look at a single factor and proclaim it to be the major culprit. Second, it is extremely disingenuous to pick out one factor which is such a minor player in the process (if at all) while ignoring other, more important factors unless you have ulterior motives.

By the way, did you know that studies by European scientists have shown that global warming is also taking place on Mars?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I guess we better quit driving all those rovers around up there, huh?...

mikey23545
06-25-2007, 06:36 PM
I'll repeat myself. It is true historically that solar output or distribution INITIATED temperature rise. But the TOTAL temperature rise and its duration is explained by the increase in CO 2 and the corresponding Greenhouse Effect. And in early times, you know 100 of millions of years as in Graph, the solar output was LESS than now. The sun gets hotter through the natural progression of the sun's life. The higher CO 2 was needed just to get our temperatures. Want proof, the 400 million and again 200 million years ago, all the earth was an iceball, and only escaped this with the initiation from a different orientation and the help of the extra CO 2 as the earth came out of those iceball conditions.

The composition of the CO 2 in the atmosphere has changed. It has increased 30%. All of that increase is human generated revealed by C12 vs C14 ratio. That has changed corresponding to non biological sources in sync with the 30% measured increase. No one denies CO 2 does act as a Greenhouse Gas. The unique situation is the increase in CO 2 initiated by man this time instead of solar input.

I will also add that the base temperature increase supported by the more CO 2 then supports more water vapor in the atmosphere that in turn magnifies the effect. Water vapor is also the conveyor system for heat distribution in the atmosphere. The heat of fusion feeds lots of heat into the atmospheric weather systems. The limit on the amount of water a temperature can support as a gas makes water more than just a Greenhouse Gas.

Are you really pretending to be a scientist, or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

It's too bad they didn't make you take some courses in English composition to earn your B.S.

tiptap
06-25-2007, 10:01 PM
You are right about the english syntax. I didn't pursue a PHd because, I don't think in English. So if you want to rail against that go ahead. However if you want to step into a math or science field, I'd mop 99 out of 100. When I write for something more than online rant, I have to spend a lot of edit time. I'd have killed for a word processing program back in college. The trouble for me is that very few people really think Newtonian or any level of science. There are plenty of studies that show as many as 50% of those taking College Physics still fail to reason with physics. Oh they are drilled well enough to choose the right equation and know the drill to figure a result. But they don't really reason in even Newtonian terms. That doesn't bow well for those who aren't science majors. So I don't expect to be listened to but I will not sit idly and let bad and even wrong notions go uncontested.

As far as Mars, you should include Pluto as well, as another heavenly body getting a little warmer. Mar's temperature is due to albedo. CO 2 levels are saturated. In other words there is diminishing returns as far as Greenhouse effect because CO 2 levels are so high already.

The Thermodynamic fact to remember is that temperatures don't go up on their own. It ONLY happens if the energy in increases or the energy out decreases compared to previous state. PERIOD. So if temperatures are going up you have to account for this by more energy in or less energy out.

The Greenhouse Effect is a KNOWN for CO 2, water and methane in the atmosphere. And yes water is a bigger constituent in this effect. But there is a limit on how much vapor can be held at any temperature compared to CO 2. As such adding CO 2 adds to Greenhouse Effect. But not enough to account for all the temperature rise. But the contribution it does supports a new base higher temperature that isn't removed from the atmosphere (or why is the measurement rising). That new little higher temperature supports higher water vapor content which as a better GHG supports even higher temperatures and all the 'weather' carried by the change of phase by vapor to ice.

I just wish your little site had included the last 10 years of data for temperature instead of conveniently stopping at 1995. Or that the new data for satellite determinations substantiate the higher energy content in the atmosphere. And that Thermodynamically speaking that data is no more valid then temperature readings from thermometers. Only more extensive and therefore more reliable covering larger areas.

I am still waiting for an answer from the deniers for an explanation for the rise in temperatures. They flail around trying to find anything other than the obvious known contribution of CO 2. Yet in the last 20 years and not for not trying, have failed to come up with anything that stands up to scrutiny.

Logical
06-25-2007, 10:16 PM
You are right about the english syntax. I didn't pursue a PHd because, I don't think in English. So if you want to rail against that go ahead. However if you want to step into a math or science field, I'd mop 99 out of 100. When I write for something more than online rant, I have to spend a lot of edit time. I'd have killed for a word processing program back in college. The trouble for me is that very few people really think Newtonian or any level of science. There are plenty of studies that show as many as 50% of those taking College Physics still fail to reason with physics. Oh they are drilled well enough to choose the right equation and know the drill to figure a result. But they don't really reason in even Newtonian terms. That doesn't bow well for those who aren't science majors. So I don't expect to be listened to but I will not sit idly and let bad and even wrong notions go uncontested.

As far as Mars, you should include Pluto as well, as another heavenly body getting a little warmer. Mar's temperature is due to albedo. CO 2 levels are saturated. In other words there is diminishing returns as far as Greenhouse effect because CO 2 levels are so high already.

The Thermodynamic fact to remember is that temperatures don't go up on their own. It ONLY happens if the energy in increases or the energy out decreases compared to previous state. PERIOD. So if temperatures are going up you have to account for this by more energy in or less energy out.

The Greenhouse Effect is a KNOWN for CO 2, water and methane in the atmosphere. And yes water is a bigger constituent in this effect. But there is a limit on how much vapor can be held at any temperature compared to CO 2. As such adding CO 2 adds to Greenhouse Effect. But not enough to account for all the temperature rise. But the contribution it does supports a new base higher temperature that isn't removed from the atmosphere (or why is the measurement rising). That new little higher temperature supports higher water vapor content which as a better GHG supports even higher temperatures and all the 'weather' carried by the change of phase by vapor to ice.

I just wish your little site had included the last 10 years of data for temperature instead of conveniently stopping at 1995. Or that the new data for satellite determinations substantiate the higher energy content in the atmosphere. And that Thermodynamically speaking that data is no more valid then temperature readings from thermometers. Only more extensive and therefore more reliable covering larger areas.

I am still waiting for an answer from the deniers for an explanation for the rise in temperatures. They flail around trying to find anything other than the obvious known contribution of CO 2. Yet in the last 20 years and not for not trying, have failed to come up with anything that stands up to scrutiny.

Just curious, are you suggesting English is not your first language. If not I am impressed with your communication skills, they are actually excellent.

tiptap
06-25-2007, 10:47 PM
No logical, my family, who all can write with the ease of breathing, accuse me of not thinking in English. And I really do have to work at the grammar. It is a fair jab. It is my weak link. I could get huffy about the whole thing but this is an open forum. No one is going to demand meritocracy as entry therefore I do not get too invested in others attacks on my sloppiness in syntax.

By the way in looking at my LAST YEAR thread, are you seeing the numbers as jumbled. You ask me to fix my entry. From my browser they seem to be pretty much in a column. But if others are having troubles I should make it a xls file or something.

Logical
06-25-2007, 10:49 PM
No logical, my family, who all can write with the ease of breathing, accuse me of not thinking in English. And I really do have to work at the grammar. It is a fair jab. It is my weak link. I could get huffy about the whole thing but this is an open forum. No one is going to demand meritocracy as entry therefore I do not get too invested in others attacks on my sloppiness in syntax.

By the way in looking at my LAST YEAR thread, are you seeing the numbers as jumbled. You ask me to fix my entry. From my browser they seem to be pretty much in a column. But if others are having troubles I should make it a xls file or something.
Yes it is badly jumbled on my screen.

tiptap
06-25-2007, 10:52 PM
Ok before June is out I'll see about correcting that.

Baby Lee
07-10-2007, 08:18 AM
Bumping the most recent climate thread I saw

It's a small world after all (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070706-13045300-bc-germany-earth.xml)

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:12 AM
Bumping the most recent climate thread I saw

It's a small world after all (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070706-13045300-bc-germany-earth.xml)

I don't see how they can measure the size of the Earth to within 5 millimeters in the first place. Couldn't a good gust of wind either add or reduce 5 millimeters of dust overnight? I wonder how they measure this.