NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Global Warming was know about long before NOAA & NASA came into existence. In fact the year was 1938.

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: jrod

I really don't get why you can't just click the links I provided earlier for the calculations. If they have already been done and I copy the same data they used the outcome is the same...

I get what you are doing. I am educated in the field of atmospheric physics. I don't agree with you so you are looking for some way to discredit my credentials...however doing a residence time calculation that has already been done...to death...by multiple scientific organizations, and all coming to the same conclusion (roughly) seems like a futile exercise...I am not your monkey. If I was trying to prove something that disagreed with the IPCC then I'd probably want to provide calculations to back it up. I don't need to in this case as I have never disagreed with the IPCC's calculations.

And what refresher are you looking for? What were you in college for? It seems to me you weren't even aware of past co2 levels or the climate associated with their levels which indicates you didn't even get entry level courses in atmospheric science. So when you say "refresher" do you mean an actual first lesson?

Edit: One more thing, you said this hasn't happened before, but it did according to the IPCC...

www.ipcc.ch...
depts.washington.edu...

A sharp increase occurred about 1500~ years ago This triggered the medieval warming period.

www.longrangeweather.com...
theinconvenientskeptic.com...

Again, we don't have a human affecting issue until 550PPM. I already linked you the IPCC link to that as well as their source data.

a reply to: raymundoko

What a lot of people need to realize is the IPCC takes a bunch of accurate data, then puts a spin on it. The data is there, but you have to throw the whole first half of the report out which wasn't written by scientists, but globalist bureaucrats. Then you get to the meat and potatoes scientific data. They also exclude a bunch of raw data from their report, but they almost always link to it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

I know what the term means, thank you for your concern.

You do?

Altering numbers in order to achieve a particular outcome is dishonest (especially in this case).

Then perhaps you can explain what is dishonest about using a running average. Do you think that is an invalid approach? Or are you claiming that 2012 was not the hottest on record in North America? Do you really believe that warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) is not occurring?

Phage, Based on this article, 1934 was the hottest year on record. Should we believe this clown?

However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.
But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency's heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century - far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s.

Link to source

I just want to know what facts are true and which are bullsheite.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko

Thank for the links. It helps to have them when there are so many skeptics who denounce climate changes and have nothing to back up their claims.

By showing us some residence time calculations for CO2, you will gain a lot of credibility on this board. It has been over a decade since I've crunched the numbers like that. It will be interesting to see , especially now with an extra 20ppm of CO2 than there was a decade ago.

You didn't understand logarithmic apparently. Logarithmic means [CO2]atm will have to more than double to get another 8% of not proven effect.

Are you saying co2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or at least that it isn't a proven one? I vehemently disagree with you. Yes, co2 is logarithmic. The more you have the more you need to warm. However, it's effects start out quite strong up to about 600ppm.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I would start out by not using breitbart.com as a source for scientific data...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

However that was only the US. Globally it's warmer than 34.

a reply to: network dude

a reply to: Semicollegiate


Really?

Prove it?

This is becoming a Brawndo debate.....

Prove that it's logarithmic? That's a basic co2 fact learned in high school...

wattsupwiththat.com...

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

It was just an article. I was trying to verify the hottest year on record for the US, since that was the direct claim made.
Not projecting any agenda or position.

edit to add:

Thanks for that link. I guess that verifies this article.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Are you saying co2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or at least that it isn't a proven one? I vehemently disagree with you. Yes, co2 is logarithmic. The more you have the more you need to warm. However, it's effects start out quite strong up to about 600ppm.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

All polyatomic molecules absorb infrared and could reemit infrared in such a way as to meet the definition of a green house gas. Yes CO2 is a green house gas.

The greenhouse gas model is a theory that might or might not happen in the atmosphere of the Earth. The sum of all variables can work against any theory. Like the invention of the airplane. All the inventors knew that the basis of heavier than air flight was the Bernoulli Principle. But the Bernoulli Principle causes controllable lift only under specific parameters.

The greenhouse effect, the back scatter effect, is possibly happening, but the totality of circumstances ;
convection,
the CO2 reemission rate,
the specific wavelengths emanated from the Earth,
the increased surface area of heated gas directly expanding under constant pressure (gravity),
the expansion of the Troposphere into the cooler Stratosphere,
the fact that CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere,
relativity and quantum mechanical effects,
the electricity of the atmosphere,
particulates in the atmosphere,
entropy,
symmetry,
and whatever else in reality,
can negate or minimize the effect of any theory or single phenomenon.

The sum of all forces manifests as negative feedback and conservation of energy and perhaps some force of symmetry.
CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere and the increase in concentration must be logarithmic to cause a linear effect, and the greenhouse syndrome is not proven to have an deleterious effect in actual reality.

Warming is often a good thing. Most people in Canada live in the warmest part.
Plants are 40% Carbon by weight. More carbon means more plant anabolism. A few degrees of temperature facilitates enzymatic reactions in biological systems.

CO2 concentration as a true horror story is begging the question, as is any political solution.

Ok I just spent the better part of an hour typing a nice long though out post to a thread that was just closed.... as I have lost the entire thing here is the short, short version.

Do you?
Do you?
Good Kiss her! You're Married.

Wait wrong thread.....

Ok so here is a website. 1/4 the way down is a chart called "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time". It covers both CO2 and it's area of uncertainty and global average temperature. What is shows is our global average temperature has remained relatively the same over the planets history. If one was to peruse the site further the bring ice cores into dispute by relating data taken from plant stomata in relation to CO2 levels showing that ice cores may be misleading. For whatever this information is worth to some; my question is this: Is this chart wrong and if so, why?

Also if somebody feels that this may be worth it's own thread, feel free. I have no time to stay on top of creating stuff like that.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

And that my friend is what I call a pseudo scientific argument.

Not factual, flawed in so many ways.

Can you show me a residence time calculation for CO2 in the troposphere?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

And that my friend is what I call a pseudo scientific argument.

Application is an art. Relevant math is a means.

Not factual, flawed in so many ways.

Real math is not proof alone. Math must be correctly applied.

Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics. (Sophistry)

Can you show me a residence time calculation for CO2 in the troposphere?

Can you explain how they are penultimately relevant?

I would have to work through the algorithm, can you explain or are they tweaked just exactly right?

When using the residence time equation, a variety of assumptions are made to reduce the complexity of the system being modeled. These assumptions include, but are not limited to:

steady state inflow and outflow

The first estimate.

constant volume

The second estimate.

constant temperature

Third estimate

and uniform distribution of the substance throughout the volume of the system.

Fourth estimate

It is also assumed that chemical degradation (chemical decomposition) does not occur in the system in question and that particles do not adsorb onto surfaces that would hinder their flow.

en.wikipedia.org...

[ka][kb] = 10^-14

Residence Time Calculations work in a controlled system, the atmosphere is not a controlled system.

Apparently the "Hockey Stick Graph" will be going down the memory hole.

Remember that really scary “hockey stick” graph IPCC used to show that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations would send global temperatures soaring? And recall all the ballyhoo about CO2 levels reaching a 400 ppm record high? Yet last February even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years. And that was after the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017.

You certainly know the jig is up when the New York Times finally recognizes that the feverish climate fervor is overheated. They reported on June 6 that “The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”

www.forbes.com...

The HSG represented the Mideval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as a straight line.

How is that not lying?

originally posted by: cuckooold

Funny.

Galileo had the same problem, and look at where we are today.

~Namaste

a reply to: Semicollegiate

BS, again a pseudoscience argument. Take the time to read through this thread if you fail to understand why residence time is important in the carbon cycle.

Until you can demonstrate a collegiate level understanding of atmospheric chemistry, you have no business trying to discredit any of my posts on climate change.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

BS, again a pseudoscience argument. Take the time to read through this thread if you fail to understand why residence time is important in the carbon cycle.

Until you can demonstrate a collegiate level understanding of atmospheric chemistry, you have no business trying to discredit any of my posts on climate change.

The Atmospheric CO2 Residence Time Calculation is a communication tool, it is not a scientific formula.

www.princeton.edu...

I've read it once.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Those who refuse to listen and refuse do their own research/homework are impossible to teach.

Have you read through this thread yet?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Global Warming was know about long before NOAA & NASA came into existence. In fact the year was 1938.

www.bbc.co.uk...