Printable View
you are correct. sunspot cycles were not recorded until after the invention of the telescope. but here is how they estimate historical sunspot activity back about 11,000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/M...&lbnode=gcmd3b
The other link is interesting and I am in the process of looking at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
However, don't try to avoid answering my simple questions. How does CO2 keep the planet warm and what would be the average global temperature without any CO2 in the atmosphere. With someone with your brains I'm surprised you didn't answer them straight away.
Yes, the average global temperature without any CO2 in the atmosphere is important because it shows how small amounts of it affect our daily lives.
As for the FoS being more qualified than myself to look at the "big picture", I doubt it since they have an axe to grind and I don't. Post their financial statements if you are so convince of their honesty.
Bob, to quote the web page you posted:Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Although the
rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades.
:icon_wink
i don't think many people will argue that sunspots are the only cause for climate change, but failing to consider solar activity is just one flaw in many in the awg argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
in short, co2 absorbs more infrared radiation from the earth than oxygen or nitrogen. so does water vapor. so does methane and other gases found in trace quantities in the atmosphere. this absorption of ir radiation keeps the earth from losing all of its heat into space and keeps temperatures on earth in a range that can sustain life. this is known as the greenhouse effect. most scientists agree that co2 accounts for approximately 0.7% of the greenhouse effect on the earth. i assumed that since you were making a big stink about global warming you would at least know what the greenhouse effect is, but i guess you were just ranting based on what the news man told you. i'm working on the financial statement thing. are you going to comment on dr. spencer and dr. christy's work?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Yes, tomorrow, I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Something to chew on. Especially the bottom part.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
good link. it demonstrates several things that you have either skirted or denied:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
1) temperatures have not been stable historically (so much for the hockey stick)
2) past temperature changes have happened just as rapidly (or more so) as today
3) co2 levels have been higher in the past
the other point that your link fails to recognize is that co2 swings lag temperature swings. you cannot use the correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide as evidence of co2-induced global warming when the co2 curve clearly lags the temperature curve. the increased release of oceanic c02 as temperatures rise is apparently responsible for this correlation.
as we discuss the falacy of global warming scientists claiming to know it all, and dismissing anyone who disagrees with them, it is ironic that the quote in my franklin-covey planner for today comes from the late daniel boorstin: "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
Bob, you are confusing apples to oranges. The statement that co2 lags temperature changes refers to the rise of co2 after the world starts to come out of an ice age. Guess what? In the 20th century the world was NOT coming out of an ice age. Try to keep the 2 climate events separate in your arguments because otherwise you are confusing yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Here's a link that shows that all of the recent rise in co2 level is due to human activity and is NOT because of the 1.3F increase in global temperatures in the 20th century.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
Now, about your other points: yes, co2 levels have been higher millions of years ago (20 times), when the dinsosaurs roamed the earth and the place had huge fern trees. For the passt 500,000 years today's reading of 380 ppm of co2 is a record high. The hockey stick is about the statement that as co2 levels rise the temperature will rise also, and are you denying that? Rapid climate change is why many people are concerned about the danger of AGW, the climate could rapidly change, and not necessarily for the better.
Seems like the folks at Huntsville made a mistake in their calculations of the satellite temperature data. Here is a recent link where they admit their mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
http://www.techcentralstation.com/081105RS.html
Bob, probably the best measurement for global warming are temperatures taken on the surface of the planet, not those taken at 80,000 ft. :icon_wink
As a side note, satellites can now take very accurate readings of the level of the ocean so any future rise in the ocean level will be detected accurately.
Today's AGW news: Russians to launch CryoSatQuote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8091
A spacecraft that will reveal how rapidly Arctic sea ice may be thinning as a result of global warming is set to blast off from northern Russia on Saturday.
The European Space Agency (ESA) satellite CryoSat will provide scientists with the first detailed measurements of the depth of floating sea ice across the Arctic. Comparing monthly measurements will enable them to monitor any deterioration.
"The situation may be much worse than we thought," says Duncan Wingham, principal investigator. "There simply hasn't been a change like this for the past million years."
The melting might trigger further changes to the Earth's climate by influencing atmospheric temperatures and upsetting the planet's system of water currents.
CryoSat will also provide measurements of ice covering the Antarctic, Greenland and Alaska.
i'll take this one thing at a time. i can't keep up with you on web research -- i don't have that kind of time. first, you argue that increases in atmospheric co2 most certainly cause increases in global temperatures. there are only two things you could be basing this on: historical data or scientific theory. my point was that there is no evidence that co2 has ever caused any warming of the earth -- even when concentrations were much higher than they are now. so that leaves us with scientific theory, which has produced many climate models that have already failed to predict even short-term climate change. in short, your certainty comes from nothing more than that "illusion of knowledge" that boorstin refered to.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as for rapid climate change, climate has changed rapidly in the past, and it will continue to do it. we just need to get used to it and adapt.
if you actually read the article, you will find that after the proper corrections were made, their number changed from .09 to .12 -- still far short of the surface measurements of .20.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
as for the best measure of global warming being on the ground, there are several flaws to that assumption. first is the matter of coverage. satellites cover the entire globe to get a true global mean temperature. surface measurements, on the other hand, contain huge holes, particularly over oceans and in underdeveloped areas. in some places, the gap is so wide, its like measuring the temperature in topeka, ks and saying that it represents the weather from brownsville, tx to grand forks, nd. the second is the urban heat island effect. it is well known that temperatures inside an urban area are higher than those in the immediate surroundings. thus, temperature readings that are in areas of rapid urban expansion would show significant artificial temperature increases. and finally, even if you take the surface temperature measurements at face value, greenhouse theory dictates that any temperature rise caused by greenhouse gases would start in the atmosphere, not on the surface. therefore, temperatures in a greenhouse warming atmosphere would increase at a higher rate than the increase in surface temperatures. the fact that, even after the satellite corrections, atmospheric warming is measured to be about 60% the magnitude of surface warming tells me that the warming is not caused by co2.
as for your side note: satellites can be trusted to measure sea level, but not temperature?
a scientist says this before he has even collected one little bit of data, and you consider him unbiased?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Posted on Thu, Oct. 06, 2005
Scientists report further evidence of global warming
BY CURTIS MORGAN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
MIAMI - (KRT) - Scientists analyzing two decades of satellite data have confirmed an atmospheric spike in a prime fuel behind global warming, according to a study to be published Friday in Science magazine.
The finding is important because it used real-world readings to verify what computer simulations have predicted is happening in a key zone of earth's atmosphere, said Brian Soden, a University of Miami scientist and lead author of the study.
It's getting wetter up there, which means it's getting hotter down here.
"This is one of the first studies to show it is increasing at the same rate as the models suggest," said Soden, an associate professor of meteorology at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science.
Researchers did not focus on pollutants typically blamed for global warming but on simple water vapor, which climatologists recognize as the "dominant greenhouse gas," said Soden.
Water vapor occurs naturally, driving the rain cycle and keeping the planet from being too cold, he said. But as global temperature rises - from carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel, other industrial emissions and deforestation - moisture in the atmosphere builds up with it, forming a blanket that further raises temperatures, Soden said.
"The CO2 carbon dioxide is the trigger," he said, "and water vapor acts as an amplifier."
Scientists say water vapor is a key greenhouse gas that fuels global warming.
Models suggest the impact is profound. Current projections predict average global temperatures rising five degrees Fahrenheit by century's end, Soden said. Without the water vapor increase, he said, models predict a two-degree rise.
Though the study is being published in one of the world's most respected academic journals, Soden did not anticipate it would necessarily sway skeptics. The Bush administration, for one, has questioned global warming theories, and critics, including some scientists, believe the effect is cyclical and not linked to human activity.
"I don't think there will ever be a single study that provides the smoking gun," he said. "It is all incremental evidence that accumulates. The consensus has developed toward global warming. What role this study will play in convincing people who are still skeptical, that's impossible for me to say."
---