Global Warming Debate

[xort]

I'm sure he dropped by, saw the reactions and realized there ar some people here who don't just blindly follow his BS, so he moved on to find some easier marks.

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by therapy23

I don't have that at my finger tips but will say the past 100 years data by itself is worthless.

Depends on what you're trying to get out of it. Basically I'm going to claim that the observed upward trend in temperatures over the time period in question is within experimental error.

I would be interested in performing the analysis on both of the datasets used to generate the graphs posted yesterpage.

[Yamsailor]

Folks,

I have been traveling overseas. The microscope is at the National Enforcement Investigation Center in Fort Collins Colorado.

[Yamsailor]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Regular readers of this thread will know how critical I have been with the NASA/GISS surface temp readings AND with the continuous manipulation of that data. Just ran across the following graph...actually it is TWO graphs...one from GISS in 1999 and one in 2008 showing the changes in average surface temperatures and the upward "tilt" of the average "proving" global warming. Of course the second graph has a few more years at the end of it tacked on...but look what has happened to the AVERAGE temps on the rest of the graph...they've changed! "Adjustments" have been made. How convenient that the adjustments enhance the tilt!! Old temps lowered and new ones raised!

Gentlemen,

I did not say the change of temperature coincides with the change in CO2! I stated the RATES OF CHANGE of temperature coincides with the RATES OF CHANGE for CO2 concentrations.

[camaraderie]

Yam...my post with the graph had nothing to do with your post.
It had to do with surface temp measurement data manipulation by James Hansen at Nasa/GISS which is another subject altogether.

As to your 2 types of carbon in CO2 post...are you referring to the isotope balance of carbon12 vs. 13 found in temperate climates vs. tropical and the linkage of the temperate type to man made CO2? If so...that is a very problematic theory and is more related to agricultural carbon release rather than oil/energy emissions. Or...Is this the "jason legget" theory? That one doesn't wash either. Been debunked. I could post the whole debunking if you'd care to read it.

If not...what are you referring to? Links??
As a practical matter is does NOT matter what "type" of carbon is found in CO2 since CO2 does not cause any SIGNIFICANT warming regardless of concentration. Only in terrariums is it an issue. CO2 has gone up rather nicely in the last 10 years at the top of Mauna Loa...yet temps have either flattened or gone down.

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by Yamsailor

I did not say the change of temperature coincides with the change in CO2! I stated the RATES OF CHANGE of temperature coincides with the RATES OF CHANGE for CO2 concentrations.

Over a fixed time period, what's the difference?

[ebs001]

The warmers are moving on. It's now becoming a problem with too much CO2 in the atmosphere being absorbed by the oceans which according to them will have catastrophic affects. If the oceans are warming then their ability to absorb CO2 goes down. I think you will now see less talk about warming, 'cause it ain't happening, and the talk will now be CO2 doom and gloom. We all know human activity is producing CO2. With this there can be no argument. The important point is the percentage contribution of anthropogenic CO2 which as pointed out in the article refenced in posts #1511 and #1513 is negligible. We may have to change this thread to the CO2 debate.

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by ebs001

If the oceans are warming then their ability to absorb CO2 goes down.

Generally it works the other way... increasing the temperature of a liquid permits greater solubility. Why is it different for CO2?

[xort]

Originally Posted by AdamLein

Generally it works the other way... increasing the temperature of a liquid permits greater solubility. Why is it different for CO2?

Because 'they' want it to be?

It didn't matter a bit that over millions of years, CO2 FOLLOWED global warming. 'They' beat the drum of CO2 dangers to global warming.

I expect in a few years; 'SEE! we caused global cooling with our fight against CO2. We were right.'

[ebs001]

Originally Posted by AdamLein

Generally it works the other way... increasing the temperature of a liquid permits greater solubility. Why is it different for CO2?

This is not true for gases. Heat water in a pot and before it boils what do you see? Bubbles on the surfaces of the pot. Air is being desolved out.