Can you point me to a source that shows CO2 lagging behind temperature change?
Also, data that show the Earth cooling in recent years ...
Being below an anomalous year or two isn't necessarily cooling but I'd like to see the data again, maybe my perspective is off.
not sure wrote:
Can you point me to a source that shows CO2 lagging behind temperature change?
Also, data that show the Earth cooling in recent years ...
Being below an anomalous year or two isn't necessarily cooling but I'd like to see the data again, maybe my perspective is off.
Let me clarify, I know where to find temperature data, I'm just looking for a source that shows cooling.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gifShows a clear warming trend when you look at 5-year averages.
Even looking at one year values, it would be hard to argue cooling when the lowest years of the last decade are among the highest on record.
Watch the first 30 min or so of the video.
You're kidding right? How about some actual data with citations.
Thanks for th
NJO wrote:
Watch the first 30 min or so of the video.
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
Thanks for the link. An entertaining show, which seems to say that a) the earth *is* warming, or at least has been for about 40 years; and b) humankind has probably had little or nothing to do with it.
I think humans just naturally like to feel that they're in control. Fact is, we can control ourselves (I said "can"--I didn't say "do"), but we can't control the planet itself very well.
So, to refer all the way back to the thread's title:
I think there *has* been climate change and that it's ongoing--why not? the climate has been changing throughout the earth's lifetime--but that the notion of *man's* having caused the change is, if not a conscious "con," then certainly a conclusion drawn from too little supporting evidence and in the face of too much evidence to the contrary.
I really hope to be around 30 or 40 years from now, because I think people then will laugh about the gullibility--and hubris--of people nowadays.
Wow. It's sad what you fools believe. Humans have caused climate change. Get your head out of the sand. End of thread.
Wow. It's sad what you fools believe. Humans have not caused climate change. Get your head out of the sand. End of thread.
This is from a past thread:
Here is what you need to know about global warming.
1. CO2 constitutes only .06percent of the atmosphere.
2. Methane is another greenhouse gas, but for some reason mans contribution to the atmosphere is hardly discussed. Why? According to NOAA methane levels have remained static since 1990. Cows 50 million tons per year. Termites 50 billion tons per year. Total output of methane is 600 million tons annually. New research indicates that live plants release up to 1000 times more methane then previously thought.
3. Water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas. At any given time there are 3,100 cubic miles of water in the vapor in the atmosphere. Any graph or greenhouse gas discussion that does not include water vapor is illegitimate poor science.
4. Sea level ice has been static for about 3,000 years.
5. After the last ice age it took 18,000 years for 60% of the last ice age to melt.
6 If the mean temp were to rise 20 degrees Celsius over night it would take Antarctic 10,000 years to melt.
7. The year 900AD. Norseman on Greenland were raising trees, grains, and grapes were raised in Newfoundland. Was it warmer or cooler back then?
8. Not every CO2 molecule that is created stays in the atmosphere. All living plants and the oceans regulate CO2. Rain water combines with CO2 to form H2CO3 carbonic acid. More CO2 is scrubbed out by weathering of rocks forming bicarbonates and carbonate ions. This is washed down to the ocean floor. All of the equivalent of man's CO2 is scrubbed out of the atmosphere in 23 days.
9. Other considerations? The Earth's axis wobbles from 22 to 25 degrees on a cycle of 41,000 years effecting climate.
10. The Milankovitch Theory. Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle on a cycle of 50,000 years effecting climate.
11. What is Earth's total mean temperature? Guess right now. It is 61 degrees.
12. Is there consensus among scientists about global warming? No. Go to
for details about a petition signed by 17,000 scientists and assistants. All the names are there too. And I can provide a list of scientist who don't agree.
13. There has been significant ice reduction lately on the planet Mars. What does the Earth and Mars have in common. The Sun.
14. Of all greenhouse gases, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC's, and miscellaneous gases. Nature is responsible for 99.72%, and man is responsible for 0.28% when water vapor is factored in.
15. The conventional wisdom is this. CO2 increase (a), plus increasing temps (b) equals global warming ©) a+b=c. Now I have seen a theory about global warming causing the next ice age. And plus the exact opposite of b still equals c. This is not science.
16. We know that we are here because of the greenhouse effect. Most of the suns energy reaches the surface and warms it, and the atmosphere close to the surface. That is why it grows colder the higher up you go. The earth's crust retains that heat the longest. The earth's oceans hold heat not as long as the crust. The atmosphere holds the heat the least amount of time. The conventional wisdom wants me to believe that all the trouble is coming from less than 1 percent of the atmosphere that holds heat the least amount of time?
17. Is mankind having an effect? Yes without a doubt, but how much. Using data from the Vostok ice core samples we can calculate gas levels from 2000 years ago, and compare them with atmospheric samples today.
2000 years ago Today Difference
CO2 284ppm 364ppm 80 Parts per Million
CH4 668ppb 1721ppb 1053 Parts per Billion
Parts per million. Parts per billion. To put it in perspective our atmosphere weighs 6 million billion tons.
18. If all CO2, CH4, CFC;s and NO2 were to disappear completely from the atmosphere 95% of the greenhouse effect will remain. Water vapor.
19. If CO2 levels doubled the climate would not respond quickly because of the large thermal inertia of the oceans. This effect would delay warming by decades to centuries. The deep oceans carries over a thousand years of thermal memory that would delay real warming even more according to research conducted by NOAA.
20. The warming of the 20th century happened in two stages. From 1910 to 1940 the Earth warmed ½ of a degree. Without significant anthropogenic CO2. From 1980 to 2000 another ½ degree warming with significant anthropogenic CO2. Between 1940 to 1980 the Earth cooled with CO2 on the rise. Are there other factors at play here?
21. It is the height of ignorance to worry about a degree here or a couple of degrees over a century. The only constant on this planet is change. I can drive 2 minutes from my house and find sharks teeth in sedimentary rock formations. That indicates huge change.
22. 450 million years ago the CO2 levels were over 10 times higher then they are today. At that time the Earth was in its coldest period in the last 500 million years. What we are experiencing is a very small CO2 increase compared with some in the past.
23. This is what effects climate on this globe. Listed in order of magnitude of effect.
1. Solar output.
2. Distance between Earth and Sun.
3. Angle of Earth to Sun.
4. Position and height of the continents. (Wilson cycle) Interruption or free flow of the Thermohaline currents vastly effecting heat distribution.
5. Composition of the atmosphere.
From
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/proof-of-climate-change-unequivocal
:
"Proof of climate change 'unequivocal'
Document Actions
Published: 02 Feb 2007
A new UN report, written by a panel of senior scientists from around the world, says that the proof of climate change is 'unequivocal'. The report, 'Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis', the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was released in Paris on Friday, February 2.
'These new findings from the IPCC are alarming. The recent observations and measurements reflected in the report dispel any doubts that the global climate is changing and that human activities have caused most of the observed changes in the past 50 years. International action is needed to address climate change by both enhanced mitigation and adaptation efforts,' says Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the EEA.
The report assesses the latest scientific knowledge on climate change and constitutes the first part of the IPCC's forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. It confirms the main findings of the Third Assessment Report from 2001, but many results can now be better quantified and there is even higher confidence in them.
The report’s key conclusions are:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level.
It is 'very likely' that increases in man-made greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the rise in globally averaged temperatures since the middle of the 20th century. It is 'extremely unlikely' that this warming was due to natural climate variability alone.
During the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.76 °C on average, and the rate of warming has further increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1 300 years. Europe has warmed by about 1 °C over the past 100 years, faster than the global average.
The best estimates for projected global warming this century of a further rise in the global average temperature range from 1.8 to 4.0 °C by 2100 for different scenarios which do not assume that more action is taken to limit emissions. The full uncertainty range for the projected temperature increase this century is 1.1–6.4 °C.
Rates of observed sea level rise almost doubled from 18 centimetres per century in 1961–2003 to 31 cm per century in 1993–2003.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase due to man-made emissions, and the rate of increase has further accelerated. Current concentrations of CO2 and methane are the highest for at least 650 000 years.
Extreme weather events have increased and regional climate patterns are changing. Heat waves and other weather extremes, as well as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, storm tracks and precipitation, can now be traced back to climate change caused by human activities.
Scientists have improved their ability to predict future climate change. Confidence in regional climate change projections has increased due to better models and more powerful computers. The temperature over land and at high northern latitudes will be higher than the global average. In the Arctic it could be on average 6 °C – and possibly as much as 8 °C — warmer by the end of this century than at the end of the 20th."
hey dumb f*ck, of course "climate change" is unequivocal. It changes every freaking day, not to mention cooling and warming periods over the long haul. The question is how much of it is man-made, the answer is man has an immaterial effect, quit drinking the freaking kool-aid!
WWRD wrote:
hey dumb f*ck, of course "climate change" is unequivocal. It changes every freaking day, not to mention cooling and warming periods over the long haul. The question is how much of it is man-made, the answer is man has an immaterial effect, quit drinking the freaking kool-aid!
Please look up climate vs weather. Climate does not change every day.
1. OK, point?
2. Again, point?
3. Fair enough. point? 3100 cubic miles? So? Put that in perspective of the total atmosphere ...
4. False, it fluctuates. Further, foxnews disagrees with you:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293632,00.html
5. Again ... point? It's still melting ...
6. If that's true, fine, and how long did it take that ice to form? Hint, longer than 10,000 years.
7. What's your point? There are areas of sea around Nova Scotia and PEI that are warmer than the ocean off NY. So what?
8. A citation on the 23 days would be interesting. What quantity of man's CO2 are you talking about? Historical? Yearly? Daily? Irrelevant without that.
9. Great, but we're not talking about a temperature change on a 41,000 year cycle, the change is much more dramatic (rapid) than that.
10. Ditto.
11. Again, relevance? The point is change, not status.
12. Are you kidding? Did you look at that website? They're based in a garage.
13. You're comparing our knowledge of Mars ice (a few decades) to our knowledge of Earth's ice (centuries)?
OK, I'm out of time, but seriously, most of this is complete non sequitur. Facts lack citations. If this were a paper, you'd fail, and not just for plagiarizing.
1. CO2 constitutes only .06percent of the atmosphere.
CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. Without it, we would be a very cold planet. The fact that it is a small percentage of the total atmosphere does not mean that an increase in the amount of CO2 will have no warming affect. That is just talk radio supposition.
2. Methane is another greenhouse gas, but for some reason mans contribution to the atmosphere is hardly discussed. Why? According to NOAA methane levels have remained static since 1990. Cows 50 million tons per year. Termites 50 billion tons per year. Total output of methane is 600 million tons annually. New research indicates that live plants release up to 1000 times more methane then previously thought.
The atmospheric half life of Methane is years. CO2 is at least centuries, some say 10,000 years. Increased methane out put will not accumulate in the atmosphere as much as CO@ because it dissipates much faster. And people do talk about methane a lot. You just don't listen.
3. Water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas. At any given time there are 3,100 cubic miles of water in the vapor in the atmosphere. Any graph or greenhouse gas discussion that does not include water vapor is illegitimate poor science.
Again, water vapor is considered in climate modeling. You just assume it isn't.
7. The year 900AD. Norseman on Greenland were raising trees, grains, and grapes were raised in Newfoundland. Was it warmer or cooler back then?
They still make wine on Newfoundland. This goes to the normative argument on global warming or the "who says a warmer planet is bad" argument. A warmer planet isn't necessarily bad. The bad part is the warming taking place over a few decades. Species won't have time to adapt and will die off. Fish estuaries will be lost with salt water incursion from rising ocean levels. Island nations and low lying places like Bangladesh and Mumbai will flood, displacing millions. There is much evidence in the geological record of the massive loss of species that occurs when there is a sudden cataclysmic change in temps. Also, there is a threat of warming going beyond the balmy times the Norsemen enjoyed and having catastrophic consequences, even if the warming occurred over centuries instead of decades.
8. Not every CO2 molecule that is created stays in the atmosphere. All living plants and the oceans regulate CO2. Rain water combines with CO2 to form H2CO3 carbonic acid. More CO2 is scrubbed out by weathering of rocks forming bicarbonates and carbonate ions. This is washed down to the ocean floor. All of the equivalent of man's CO2 is scrubbed out of the atmosphere in 23 days.
There is growing evidence that oceans have become saturated with CO2 and their ability to absord CO2 is dimishing. Many parts of the Earth, Asia, Africa, are experiencing desertification of what were once very productive soils. And don't forget about the loss of the rainforests. You are also assuming that the scrubbing properties of rain water are limitless. The clear rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere indicate otherwise.
9. Other considerations? The Earth's axis wobbles from 22 to 25 degrees on a cycle of 41,000 years effecting climate.
Considered and dismissed. These wobble periods do not correlate with paleoclimatic data.
12. Is there consensus among scientists about global warming? No. Go to
for details about a petition signed by 17,000 scientists and assistants. All the names are there too. And I can provide a list of scientist who don't agree.
This is a sham. Anyone can claim to be a scientist and sign the petition. They don't do any real vetting. And any branch of the sciences can qualify one to be on the petition. Talk to climatologists about global warming, not any goober who claims to be a scientist on some website.
18. If all CO2, CH4, CFC;s and NO2 were to disappear completely from the atmosphere 95% of the greenhouse effect will remain. Water vapor.
Again, you make the unfounded assumption of no atmospheric sensitivity and a straight line correlation between the amount of non-water vapor greenhouse gasses and their atmosphere forcing abilities. There is far more evidence to the contrary.
21. It is the height of ignorance to worry about a degree here or a couple of degrees over a century. The only constant on this planet is change. I can drive 2 minutes from my house and find sharks teeth in sedimentary rock formations. That indicates huge change.
It is not change that is the issue. It is the pace of the change. Humans have pushed the Earth's resource to their very limits. The world's fisheries are in a state of near collapse. Poor farming and resource management has meant the loss of huge amounts of productive farm land in Africa and China. Clean drinking water is scarce, and millions rely on glacier melt for water. Add in a sudden change in global temps and you have potential for a very serious problem. Add in the fact that the inhabitants on this planet will readily kill one another for the right to live on a small strip of land in the desert or for the right to profit from certain oil reserves, and you have a very scary future on a rapidly warming planet.
23. This is what effects climate on this globe. Listed in order of magnitude of effect.
1. Solar output.
2. Distance between Earth and Sun.
3. Angle of Earth to Sun.
4. Position and height of the continents. (Wilson cycle) Interruption or free flow of the Thermohaline currents vastly effecting heat distribution.
5. Composition of the atmosphere.
Are you actually saying that climate scientist simply ignore these factors and just look at CO2? Well, they don't ignore them. Climate modeling includes multitudes of non-greenhouse gas factors. The result has been that climate modeling is proving to be too conservative.
Mrs. M., Could you please stop stalking me. My posts are rarely directed at you unless you attack me first. I don't know what your obsession with this other woman is, but you are just creating more work for Wejo by repeatedly using her name without her consent. Not to mention your posting the pics of that poor woman in NC presumably without her consent was cruel. Your posts regarding protecting privacy are eerily hypocritical. As far as I recall, you have always been the initiater of *infringements* on privacy.
Your references to people on LR making untrue statements about you is also puzzling. I have yet to see a statement made about you or your husband that is false if he has portrayed you honestly himself, but maybe that's where the communication breakdown occurred. You may want to consult with BRM on the accuracy of any posts before you lash out at others.
If you and your husband have issues in your marriage I would recommend that you deal with him directly in that regard. Your marriage is not my problem. Bullying and attacking other women on a message board is unlikely to improve your situation at home, or make him love you, if that is what is missing.
Good luck.
Happy New Year Lia!
Ah, the closet plagiarist in his 1982 Dolphin singlet returns (no way any garmet you owned in 1982 still fits).
Any chance you could call off your dog?
You two seem to love the sound of that poor girl's name. Donnie Iris was right. It has a nice ring to it. A guy I knew in high school used to like to croon that tune in the wee hours (Did you need his dimensions?), but alas, Masterbooner is barking up the wrong tree.
"Considered and dismissed. These wobble periods do not correlate with paleoclimatic data."
"This is what effects climate on this globe. Listed in order of magnitude of effect... Angle of Earth to Sun."
I believe you just contradicted yourself.
Also, careful with the use of the word "correlate." Most of the time, the word "relate" is more appropriate, although I know that is a big "smart word" on this board.
