It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ProfessorChaos
You do?
I know what the term means, thank you for your concern.
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?
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.
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.
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
originally posted by: jrod
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?
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
constant volume
constant temperature
and uniform distribution of the substance throughout the volume of the system.
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...
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...
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.
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...