26 Jan 15
Originally posted by humy"If you meant after 1940-1975:Are you claiming there was less CO2 in the atmosphere during 1940-1975?
"less" than what? Before 1940-1975? If so:
Since we all know CO2 levels have been measured to be consistently going up every year for many years now, he obviously didn't claim there was cooling because there was less CO2 during that period than before becaus ...[text shortened]... ming of that warm period. Do you deny this? Yes or No? Or do you pretend to not comprehend this?
There was less CO2 during that cool period than after that cool period so that cooling logically couldn't be in conflict with evidence for man made warming. Do you have a problem with that?"
What is your source of information? I would like to know what causes CO2 levels to decrease during this time period. I'm sure it would lead to a more intelligent conversation.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere is a graph depicting recorded temperature trends:
Then state the SPECIFIC cause of the warming of 1900-1940 and the cooling of 1940-1975. Humy will not do it and neither will you. If the 90% of climate scientists know more than the 10% of rational scientists show me that is the case. Don't be evasive like Humy. That is transparent and we all know it, he would just like to think otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#mediaviewer/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
It doesn't show any significant cooling trend during 1940-1975.
26 Jan 15
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"If you meant after 1940-1975:
There was less CO2 during that cool period than after that cool period so that cooling logically couldn't be in conflict with evidence for man made warming. Do you have a problem with that?"
What is your source of information? I would like to know what causes CO2 levels to decrease during this time period. I'm sure it would lead to a more intelligent conversation.
I would like to know what causes CO2 levels to decrease during this time period.
Can't you comprehend two statements in plain English? There is two things very wrong with that above statement which shows you failed to comprehend two of my statements:
Firstly, you just quoted back to me my own quote that started with:
“There was less CO2 during that period you referred to than after that period ...”
How can you fail to comprehend the meaning of the word “after” in the above? The word “after” clearly doesn’t mean “during”. Therefore, I clearly was NOT saying/implying anything in the above about the change of CO2 levels during that period. Therefore I CLEARLY was NOT saying/implying CO2 levels “decrease during” this time period.
Secondly, I clearly implied the exact opposite with another statement I made in that same post; specifically, the quote of:
“.. CO2 levels have been measured to be consistently going up every year for many years now, ...”
“going up” means INCREASING, NOT decreasing. And “every year for many years now” was obviously meant to include the years during that period (along with many years if not a few hundreds years before that ) you referred to therefore I very clearly implied CO2 INCREASED during this time period, NOT decreased.
If you want to know my source of information:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html
"...Carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and other human activities is the most significant greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change. Its concentration has increased every year since scientists started making measurements on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano more than five decades ago. ..."
And CO2 has no doubt increased each year and at least very nearly every year if not every year for many years before that and at least as far back as from a few decades after the start of the industrial revolution.
I'm sure it would lead to a more intelligent conversation.
That is rich coming from you who just made perhaps the least intelligent post to date exposing your inability to comprehend plain English.
Try and read and comprehend this:
CO2 levels increased, NOT decreased, during the 1940-1975 time period.
Perhaps this will lead to a more intelligent conversation.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt is a cooling during that time period. Now show CO2 levels for the 20th century. Lets see if the 1900-1940 period matches up well.
Here is a graph depicting recorded temperature trends:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#mediaviewer/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
It doesn't show any significant cooling trend during 1940-1975.
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyI would like to know what causes CO2 levels to [b]decrease duringthis time period.
Can't you comprehend two statements in plain English? There is two things very wrong with that above statement which shows you failed to comprehend two of my statements:
Firstly, you just quoted back to me my own quote that started with:
“There ...[text shortened]... during the 1940-1975 time period.
Perhaps this will lead to a more intelligent conversation.[/b]“There was less CO2 during that period you referred to than after that period ...”
LOL!! Okay captain obvious. Thanks for making statements that mean nothing substantial. Why would you even bother writing such meaningless crap? Oh, that's right...you want to digress into meaningless nonsense to avoid an intelligent debate. Or maybe you just want to avoid making intelligent statements. That seems to be the real trend. I guess I assumed you were smarter than that. I will not make that same mistake next time.
Show the co2 levels from the 20th century like I asked kazet to. Why do you keep beating around the bush making stupid statements that any dolt could make without having a point to make.
🙄
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyI would like to know what causes CO2 levels to [b]decrease duringthis time period.
Can't you comprehend two statements in plain English? There is two things very wrong with that above statement which shows you failed to comprehend two of my statements:
Firstly, you just quoted back to me my own quote that started with:
“There ...[text shortened]... during the 1940-1975 time period.
Perhaps this will lead to a more intelligent conversation.[/b]"CO2 levels increased, NOT decreased, during the 1940-1975 time period."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
That is hilarious! There goes you correlation between CO2 and temps. LOL!
Now, tell us all why the temps decreased while CO2 increased. I have been asking this again and again and you keep being evasive and try to digress away from it. We are all waiting.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWow are you stupid.
"CO2 levels increased, NOT decreased, during the 1940-1975 time period."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
That is hilarious! There goes you correlation between CO2 and temps. LOL!
Now, tell us all why the temps decreased while CO2 increased. I have been asking this again and again and you keep being evasive and try to digress away from it. We are all waiting.
The data set you refer to is atmospheric surface temperature.
CO2 accumulation causes an increase in GLOBAL TOTAL HEAT CONTENT.
90% of the increase of heat is in to the oceans, leaving 10% for melting ice
and heating the earth/rocks as well as the atmosphere, which get's 2~3%
of the total.
The atmosphere has a relatively low total heat carrying capacity, and can rapidly
gain and loose heat... typically to and from the oceans.
The oceans are known to go through [as yet unpredictable] cycles of absorbing
more heat [and cooling the atmosphere] and releasing heat [and warming the atmosphere].
These cycles cancel themselves out over time, leading to LONG TERM averages
being stable.
However the LONG TERM averages in global atmospheric surface temperature are not
stable, they are inexorably climbing.
The rate at which temperatures are rising rises and falls depending on the interactions
of various natural warming and cooling effects [increased SO2 from volcanoes has a
cooling effect for example] as well as changes in man made activities [such as coal
power plants releasing lots of cooling SO2].
The rate over any given year is dependent on all of these factors.
This is why it's unhelpful [stupid] to look at the rate at any one year, and instead long term
averages are used.
The long term average is only going up.
Faster now that we have cut out a lot of the SO2 and other pollutants which caused cooling
[and acid rain, among other things].
Also the underlying rate of heat accumulation increases the larger the difference between the
current Global Thermal Content and the stable level the system will reach based on the current
CO2 level. The more CO2 we emit the higher the heat content the system can support and
thus the greater the discrepancy between the current heat content and the systems stable
heat content.
In short, the underlying trend is not just up, it's accelerating up as CO2 levels climb.
And thus the underlying trend was weaker in the past.
Couple this with the large amounts of cooling pollution being emitted in the period you are
referring to, as well as natural cycles and you can, and indeed we have, explain why surface
temperatures have not risen smoothly year on year despite continuous global warming during that
period.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
The above article has some interesting information on the heat content gain in our oceans, which
makes the surface temp data look puny.
In the late 90's / early 2000's the Earth was gaining heat at an average rate of about ~4 Hiroshima
bombs per second.
Now it's more like ~12 Hiroshima bombs per second.
The idea that we could miss, or fake, that much energy gain is facile beyond belief.
26 Jan 15
1 edit
There's an article here [1] about extreme weather events and global warming. Basically they are saying that the risk of extreme weather events will double, although they fail to say over what time period - based on the last sentence by the end of the century. I assume the nature article [2] that the BBC one was based on includes this.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30985039
[2] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
27 Jan 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe warming trend is largely, but not only, a result of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Then state the SPECIFIC cause of the warming of 1900-1940 and the cooling of 1940-1975. Humy will not do it and neither will you. If the 90% of climate scientists know more than the 10% of rational scientists show me that is the case. Don't be evasive like Humy. That is transparent and we all know it, he would just like to think otherwise.
The cooling from 1940-1975 was due to sulfur in the atmosphere. It must be noted that the earth did not actually cool much during this period, it was more like a temporary pause in the general warming trend.
I am fairly sure you still haven't answered the initial question I asked you a while back.
Can you answer this one: why are you arguing against Global warming? Entertainment? Politics? Guilt? Something else?
27 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"CO2 levels increased, NOT decreased, during the 1940-1975 time period."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
That is hilarious! There goes you correlation between CO2 and temps. LOL!
Now, tell us all why the temps decreased while CO2 increased. I have been asking this again and again and you keep being evasive and try to digress away from it. We are all waiting.
There goes you correlation between CO2 and temps.
Nope; Obviously, nobody claims nor expects that CO2 induced warming prevents the temperature variation from naturally causes.
There is no contradiction in simultaneously having both temperature variation from natural causes, and that includes any temporary dips in temperature, and having man made warming. The temperature can temporarily go down while the general trend is still up (and that incidentally answers your stupid question). Which part of that do you not comprehend?
27 Jan 15
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Wow are you stupid.
The data set you refer to is atmospheric surface temperature.
CO2 accumulation causes an increase in GLOBAL TOTAL HEAT CONTENT.
90% of the increase of heat is in to the oceans, leaving 10% for melting ice
and heating the earth/rocks as well as the atmosphere, which get's 2~3%
of the total.
The atmosphere has a relative ...[text shortened]... econd.
The idea that we could miss, or fake, that much energy gain is facile beyond belief.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
That chart in that link has got to be one of the best charts I have ever seen to date that undeniably shows a clear warming trend.
The idea that we could miss, or fake, that much energy gain is facile beyond belief.
Yes, and I would say not just “facile” but “totally absurd” beyond belief.
That is what the denialists don't get; the total absurdity of a vast world mass conspiracy to fake all the measurements without a single exception -Wow that's absurd! Strange that not a single honest person has just happened to made the same measurements and said;
“HEY! You've all done your measurements wrong! I think I will publish my measurements and get world recognition for being the first one to blow the whistle. Strange that nobody honest thought of doing that before me! All those honest people before me must be really stupid! Now, thanks to their stupidity, I get the benefit of the fantastic full credit for being the whistle-blower and they don't”.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by humyThat is exactly what I have been telling you. My only point here is that last year's temp means nothing. I proved that and now you are finally admitting it. Thanks. 😏There goes you correlation between CO2 and temps.
Nope; Obviously, nobody claims nor expects that CO2 induced warming prevents the temperature variation from naturally causes.
There is no contradiction in simultaneously having both temperature variation from natural causes, and that includes any temporary dips in temperature, and having ...[text shortened]... (and that incidentally answers your stupid question). Which part of that do you not comprehend?
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, you are really stupid. Do you expect satellite readings before satellites? LOL!
Wow are you stupid.
The data set you refer to is atmospheric surface temperature.
CO2 accumulation causes an increase in GLOBAL TOTAL HEAT CONTENT.
90% of the increase of heat is in to the oceans, leaving 10% for melting ice
and heating the earth/rocks as well as the atmosphere, which get's 2~3%
of the total.
The atmosphere has a relative ...[text shortened]... econd.
The idea that we could miss, or fake, that much energy gain is facile beyond belief.
🙄
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is your source of information? While you are at it explain the warming between 1900-1940. I'm sure that was natural too and the warming was substantial.
The warming trend is largely, but not only, a result of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The cooling from 1940-1975 was due to sulfur in the atmosphere. It must be noted that the earth did not actually cool much during this period, it was more like a temporary pause in the general warming trend.
I am fairly sure you still haven't answered the initial question I ...[text shortened]... one: why are you arguing against Global warming? Entertainment? Politics? Guilt? Something else?
I don't remember your question. Lots of people ask me questions and they are usually stupid questions they already know the answer to or have not been following my posts. For example, you asked me why I was arguing against global warming and I have not been doing that at all. Why are you asking me stupid questions like this? Do all of you GW alarmists have me confused with someone else? I have NEVER denied global warming. I challenge anyone to show otherwise.