Cooling? Really?

[code1211]

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

I only used the data presented by Old Rocks in the first post on the thread.

Are you disputing his sources?

No, I'm disputing your conclusions.

1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56
2 2010 0.5 2005 0.52 2005 0.55
3 2005 0.47 1998 0.5 2007 0.51
4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.5
5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49
6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49
7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48
8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48
9 2007 0.4 2004 0.45 2011 0.45
10 2001 0.4 2001 0.42 2004 0.41
11 2011 0.36 2011 0.41 2001 0.4



I'm not sure what the dispute might be. Of the first 11 years listed in the table that old rocks posted in the thread opener, 2011 is the coolest. The only post 2000 year cooler than 2011 is 2008.

Using the above data, how many years do you conclude might be cooler than 2011?

 

[code1211]

This post, untrue. Previous post, irrelevant. I guesss you forgot to "hide the decline" from other sources!!! News to the skeptics/deniers, natural cycles need to be taken into account when presenting your arguments, TOO!!!!

Ummm, we have ALLWAYS taken natural cycles into account. It is YOU who claim that the atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps. Nice attempt to recast your statements.

You take them into account when they serve your purpose and you lie when it suits you, too. You can't cite a post where I said, "atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps", so why should we believe ANYTHING you have to say?

Do you assert that reducing the emissions of anthropogenic CO2 will decrease the temperature of the globe?

 

[konradv]

Ummm, we have ALLWAYS taken natural cycles into account. It is YOU who claim that the atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps. Nice attempt to recast your statements.

You take them into account when they serve your purpose and you lie when it suits you, too. You can't cite a post where I said, "atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps", so why should we believe ANYTHING you have to say?

Do you assert that reducing the emissions of anthropogenic CO2 will decrease the temperature of the globe?

It's not what I assert, it's what the science asserts. If CO2 traps IR and CO2 is increasing, the principle of Conservation of Energy demands you explain where that extra trapped IR is going, if not to heat the earth. Statistics tells you 50% of absorbed IR will be re-emitted towards space, leaving the other 50% heading for earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

I only used the data presented by Old Rocks in the first post on the thread.

Are you disputing his sources?

No, I'm disputing your conclusions.

1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56
2 2010 0.5 2005 0.52 2005 0.55
3 2005 0.47 1998 0.5 2007 0.51
4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.5
5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49
6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49
7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48
8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48
9 2007 0.4 2004 0.45 2011 0.45
10 2001 0.4 2001 0.42 2004 0.41
11 2011 0.36 2011 0.41 2001 0.4



I'm not sure what the dispute might be. Of the first 11 years listed in the table that old rocks posted in the thread opener, 2011 is the coolest. The only post 2000 year cooler than 2011 is 2008.

Using the above data, how many years do you conclude might be cooler than 2011?

About 140 of the past 150. Pretty easy to answer that one. Of course, Code just fails to mention the 2008, and 2011 were both strong La Nina years.

As you noted, Konrad, Code conveniantly forgets about natural cycles when trying to make false claims.

 

[konradv]

Natural cycles only seem to count when they bolster the skeptics' cause. Otherwise, they're the ones that totally forget them. To say that professional climatologists do, is truly laughable.

 

[code1211]

You take them into account when they serve your purpose and you lie when it suits you, too. You can't cite a post where I said, "atmosphereic concentrations of CO2 are the sole driver of global temps", so why should we believe ANYTHING you have to say?

Do you assert that reducing the emissions of anthropogenic CO2 will decrease the temperature of the globe?

It's not what I assert, it's what the science asserts. If CO2 traps IR and CO2 is increasing, the principle of Conservation of Energy demands you explain where that extra trapped IR is going, if not to heat the earth. Statistics tells you 50% of absorbed IR will be re-emitted towards space, leaving the other 50% heading for earth.

I'll grant you whatever you wish be granted if it helps you to prove the causal link.

Why are we at the all time high of CO2 right now today with increases booked every year without exception and why have we been cooling over the last ten years?

Why are we a full degree cooler than we were ten thousand years ago? CO2 was certainly lower then than it is now.

Why was there a greater amount of warming in the thousand years from 0 to 1000 than in the thousand years from 1000 to 2000? There was certainly less Co2 in the first 1000 years.

Why are we 6 degrees cooler now than we were 55 million years ago?

These are very simple questions and I'm wondering how your very simple answer matches up to them.

If a change in CO2 can alter the planetary climate, then the change we are currently experiencing should be producing predictable and assured changes in keeping with the professed theories. It does not.

Either the theory is wrong or the real world is wrong. Which is it?

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[code1211]

No, I'm disputing your conclusions.

1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56
2 2010 0.5 2005 0.52 2005 0.55
3 2005 0.47 1998 0.5 2007 0.51
4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.5
5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49
6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49
7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48
8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48
9 2007 0.4 2004 0.45 2011 0.45
10 2001 0.4 2001 0.42 2004 0.41
11 2011 0.36 2011 0.41 2001 0.4



I'm not sure what the dispute might be. Of the first 11 years listed in the table that old rocks posted in the thread opener, 2011 is the coolest. The only post 2000 year cooler than 2011 is 2008.

Using the above data, how many years do you conclude might be cooler than 2011?

About 140 of the past 150. Pretty easy to answer that one. Of course, Code just fails to mention the 2008, and 2011 were both strong La Nina years.

As you noted, Konrad, Code conveniantly forgets about natural cycles when trying to make false claims.

I do not forget about natural cycles or any of the many, many factors that affect climate. It is the AGW proponents who exclude the possibility that any other factors impact climate.

I am challenging you to prove that CO2 is a strong enough forcing agent to change the world to affect it. We know that the use of fossil fuels helps to grow and distribute food and that stopping the use of fossil fuels will cause planetary famine and resulting plagues and global war.

We further know that there are no predictive models that has ever worked to predict the actual real world effect of Global Warming and also know that the scientists at CERN have proposed a different cause that has the same possibility of being right and has the added benefit of being able to demonstrated in a lab.

Please be sure to post the article from the phrenologist of the 1890's to support your case.

 

[code1211]

Natural cycles only seem to count when they bolster the skeptics' cause. Otherwise, they're the ones that totally forget them. To say that professional climatologists do, is truly laughable.

The entire case of revising the world's economy to reduce carbon emissions rests on the single idea that this change will eliminate climate change.

If you are saying that natural cycles affect the global climate, then the impact of CO2 on Global Climate must be reduced in its strength. By allowing this into the discussion, you are necessarily forced to quantify the impact of those other factors.

What is the impact? 10%? 50% 90%?

How big an impact do you reserve other factors including natural cycles, ocean currents, planetary orbits of Earth and the other planets, continental drift, magnetic pole movement, solar radiation, insular properties of the atmosphere, clouds, volcanoes, particulate pollution, variable TSI, Milankovitch Cycles, interstellar radiation, Solar radiation, solar storms, solar winds and on and on.

Will the rise in CO2 save us if the Ocean Conveyer stops? If the Sun falls into a very calm series of centuries?

Of course not and yet you say CO2 is the key.

Your case is ridiculous.

 

[konradv]

Do you assert that reducing the emissions of anthropogenic CO2 will decrease the temperature of the globe?

It's not what I assert, it's what the science asserts. If CO2 traps IR and CO2 is increasing, the principle of Conservation of Energy demands you explain where that extra trapped IR is going, if not to heat the earth. Statistics tells you 50% of absorbed IR will be re-emitted towards space, leaving the other 50% heading for earth.

I'll grant you whatever you wish be granted if it helps you to prove the causal link.

Why are we at the all time high of CO2 right now today with increases booked every year without exception and why have we been cooling over the last ten years?

Why are we a full degree cooler than we were ten thousand years ago? CO2 was certainly lower then than it is now.

Why was there a greater amount of warming in the thousand years from 0 to 1000 than in the thousand years from 1000 to 2000? There was certainly less Co2 in the first 1000 years.

Why are we 6 degrees cooler now than we were 55 million years ago?

These are very simple questions and I'm wondering how your very simple answer matches up to them.

If a change in CO2 can alter the planetary climate, then the change we are currently experiencing should be producing predictable and assured changes in keeping with the professed theories. It does not.

Either the theory is wrong or the real world is wrong. Which is it?

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Are you forgetting natural cycles again? You're cherry-picking data and committing the very mistake AGW proponents are accused of, making it all about the CO2. Now, I insist you address that pesky Conservation of Energy question.

 

[IanC]

konradv- I am very skeptical of CO2 being a principal driver of temperatures. but I freely admit that it does have some impact on heat flows and equilibriums. I think it is reasonable to allocate ~1C warming to every doubling of CO2, and so do the vast majority of climate scientists and physicists. the arguments are over feedback factors and predictions for any increase in temperature. I have been around for more than half a century and none of the dire predictions have come to pass, even when the so-called principal drivers turned out to follow the course. over population is here, but not the dramatic effects that were projected. easy sources of fossil fuels have diminished but technology has found others and made them viable.

some people, like Old Rocks, delight in scaring themselves over possibilities like clathrates. if the danger is there why didnt it happen in the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods? the only reason we consider the recent warm period unusual is because of the bizarre and incorrect studies by the likes of Mann and Jones. once you realize that the present is not atypical of the past variations, then everything falls into place. of course glaciers and ice caps wax and wane, they always have. ocean currents, variations in the sun's output, and a host of other factors all add up to natural variation. the recent blip of man made release of stored carbon is nothing that the homeostasis of the earth's systems cant handle. water and clouds dominate the storage and release of heat. the oceans havent been warming up as predicted by the climate models, that supposed heat has been lost to space. but if it was accumulating then tropical thunderstorms would burp it off as fast as it gathered. CO2 is a small but measurable component to our climate. it has one quality that sets it apart though. it is influenced by mankind! and many people like to believe they are more important in the universe than they are. because CO2 is the only thing we can (somewhat) control then we want it to be important just so we wont feel so insignificant.

 

[westwall]

konradv- I am very skeptical of CO2 being a principal driver of temperatures. but I freely admit that it does have some impact on heat flows and equilibriums. I think it is reasonable to allocate ~1C warming to every doubling of CO2, and so do the vast majority of climate scientists and physicists. the arguments are over feedback factors and predictions for any increase in temperature. I have been around for more than half a century and none of the dire predictions have come to pass, even when the so-called principal drivers turned out to follow the course. over population is here, but not the dramatic effects that were projected. easy sources of fossil fuels have diminished but technology has found others and made them viable.

some people, like Old Rocks, delight in scaring themselves over possibilities like clathrates. if the danger is there why didnt it happen in the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods? the only reason we consider the recent warm period unusual is because of the bizarre and incorrect studies by the likes of Mann and Jones. once you realize that the present is not atypical of the past variations, then everything falls into place. of course glaciers and ice caps wax and wane, they always have. ocean currents, variations in the sun's output, and a host of other factors all add up to natural variation. the recent blip of man made release of stored carbon is nothing that the homeostasis of the earth's systems cant handle. water and clouds dominate the storage and release of heat. the oceans havent been warming up as predicted by the climate models, that supposed heat has been lost to space. but if it was accumulating then tropical thunderstorms would burp it off as fast as it gathered. CO2 is a small but measurable component to our climate. it has one quality that sets it apart though. it is influenced by mankind! and many people like to believe they are more important in the universe than they are. because CO2 is the only thing we can (somewhat) control then we want it to be important just so we wont feel so insignificant.

Don't forget the money either. Carbon trading scams have made billions for people for doing not much of anything.

 

[konradv]

konradv- I am very skeptical of CO2 being a principal driver of temperatures. but I freely admit that it does have some impact on heat flows and equilibriums. I think it is reasonable to allocate ~1C warming to every doubling of CO2, and so do the vast majority of climate scientists and physicists. the arguments are over feedback factors and predictions for any increase in temperature. I have been around for more than half a century and none of the dire predictions have come to pass, even when the so-called principal drivers turned out to follow the course. over population is here, but not the dramatic effects that were projected. easy sources of fossil fuels have diminished but technology has found others and made them viable.

some people, like Old Rocks, delight in scaring themselves over possibilities like clathrates. if the danger is there why didnt it happen in the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods? the only reason we consider the recent warm period unusual is because of the bizarre and incorrect studies by the likes of Mann and Jones. once you realize that the present is not atypical of the past variations, then everything falls into place. of course glaciers and ice caps wax and wane, they always have. ocean currents, variations in the sun's output, and a host of other factors all add up to natural variation. the recent blip of man made release of stored carbon is nothing that the homeostasis of the earth's systems cant handle. water and clouds dominate the storage and release of heat. the oceans havent been warming up as predicted by the climate models, that supposed heat has been lost to space. but if it was accumulating then tropical thunderstorms would burp it off as fast as it gathered. CO2 is a small but measurable component to our climate. it has one quality that sets it apart though. it is influenced by mankind! and many people like to believe they are more important in the universe than they are. because CO2 is the only thing we can (somewhat) control then we want it to be important just so we wont feel so insignificant.

Don't forget the money either. Carbon trading scams have made billions for people for doing not much of anything.

Who's made billions? I thought the meme was that the trade collapsed. Which is it?

 

[konradv]

konradv- I am very skeptical of CO2 being a principal driver of temperatures. but I freely admit that it does have some impact on heat flows and equilibriums. I think it is reasonable to allocate ~1C warming to every doubling of CO2, and so do the vast majority of climate scientists and physicists. the arguments are over feedback factors and predictions for any increase in temperature. I have been around for more than half a century and none of the dire predictions have come to pass, even when the so-called principal drivers turned out to follow the course. over population is here, but not the dramatic effects that were projected. easy sources of fossil fuels have diminished but technology has found others and made them viable.

some people, like Old Rocks, delight in scaring themselves over possibilities like clathrates. if the danger is there why didnt it happen in the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods? the only reason we consider the recent warm period unusual is because of the bizarre and incorrect studies by the likes of Mann and Jones. once you realize that the present is not atypical of the past variations, then everything falls into place. of course glaciers and ice caps wax and wane, they always have. ocean currents, variations in the sun's output, and a host of other factors all add up to natural variation. the recent blip of man made release of stored carbon is nothing that the homeostasis of the earth's systems cant handle. water and clouds dominate the storage and release of heat. the oceans havent been warming up as predicted by the climate models, that supposed heat has been lost to space. but if it was accumulating then tropical thunderstorms would burp it off as fast as it gathered. CO2 is a small but measurable component to our climate. it has one quality that sets it apart though. it is influenced by mankind! and many people like to believe they are more important in the universe than they are. because CO2 is the only thing we can (somewhat) control then we want it to be important just so we wont feel so insignificant.

If you go through my posts, you'll see that I haven't predicted when any of the "catastrophes" are likely to occur. I'm mainly here battling those who say CO2 isn't a factor. I'm confused why the deniers refuse to address the Conservation of Energy question. That's more to the point than implying grandiose visions of what man can do. It just seems to be a dodge to escape answering the difficult question I posed. Difficult if you're a sketic or denier, that is, since in throws a monkey wrench into one's pet theories.

 

[westwall]

konradv- I am very skeptical of CO2 being a principal driver of temperatures. but I freely admit that it does have some impact on heat flows and equilibriums. I think it is reasonable to allocate ~1C warming to every doubling of CO2, and so do the vast majority of climate scientists and physicists. the arguments are over feedback factors and predictions for any increase in temperature. I have been around for more than half a century and none of the dire predictions have come to pass, even when the so-called principal drivers turned out to follow the course. over population is here, but not the dramatic effects that were projected. easy sources of fossil fuels have diminished but technology has found others and made them viable.

some people, like Old Rocks, delight in scaring themselves over possibilities like clathrates. if the danger is there why didnt it happen in the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods? the only reason we consider the recent warm period unusual is because of the bizarre and incorrect studies by the likes of Mann and Jones. once you realize that the present is not atypical of the past variations, then everything falls into place. of course glaciers and ice caps wax and wane, they always have. ocean currents, variations in the sun's output, and a host of other factors all add up to natural variation. the recent blip of man made release of stored carbon is nothing that the homeostasis of the earth's systems cant handle. water and clouds dominate the storage and release of heat. the oceans havent been warming up as predicted by the climate models, that supposed heat has been lost to space. but if it was accumulating then tropical thunderstorms would burp it off as fast as it gathered. CO2 is a small but measurable component to our climate. it has one quality that sets it apart though. it is influenced by mankind! and many people like to believe they are more important in the universe than they are. because CO2 is the only thing we can (somewhat) control then we want it to be important just so we wont feel so insignificant.

Don't forget the money either. Carbon trading scams have made billions for people for doing not much of anything.

Who's made billions? I thought the meme was that the trade collapsed. Which is it?

You don't read much do you. Before the carbon trading scam failed, billions were transferred from the pocketbooks of European citizens to a very few "traders". Those traders then paid the folks they were beholden to and pocketed a tidy sum for shuffling the paper.

 

[westwall]

konradv- I am very skeptical of CO2 being a principal driver of temperatures. but I freely admit that it does have some impact on heat flows and equilibriums. I think it is reasonable to allocate ~1C warming to every doubling of CO2, and so do the vast majority of climate scientists and physicists. the arguments are over feedback factors and predictions for any increase in temperature. I have been around for more than half a century and none of the dire predictions have come to pass, even when the so-called principal drivers turned out to follow the course. over population is here, but not the dramatic effects that were projected. easy sources of fossil fuels have diminished but technology has found others and made them viable.

some people, like Old Rocks, delight in scaring themselves over possibilities like clathrates. if the danger is there why didnt it happen in the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods? the only reason we consider the recent warm period unusual is because of the bizarre and incorrect studies by the likes of Mann and Jones. once you realize that the present is not atypical of the past variations, then everything falls into place. of course glaciers and ice caps wax and wane, they always have. ocean currents, variations in the sun's output, and a host of other factors all add up to natural variation. the recent blip of man made release of stored carbon is nothing that the homeostasis of the earth's systems cant handle. water and clouds dominate the storage and release of heat. the oceans havent been warming up as predicted by the climate models, that supposed heat has been lost to space. but if it was accumulating then tropical thunderstorms would burp it off as fast as it gathered. CO2 is a small but measurable component to our climate. it has one quality that sets it apart though. it is influenced by mankind! and many people like to believe they are more important in the universe than they are. because CO2 is the only thing we can (somewhat) control then we want it to be important just so we wont feel so insignificant.

If you go through my posts, you'll see that I haven't predicted when any of the "catastrophes" are likely to occur. I'm mainly here battling those who say CO2 isn't a factor. I'm confused why the deniers refuse to address the Conservation of Energy question. That's more to the point than implying grandiose visions of what man can do. It just seems to be a dodge to escape answering the difficult question I posed. Difficult if you're a sketic or denier, that is, since in throws a monkey wrench into one's pet theories.

Ummm, because you don't understand the 2nd Law and after attempting to educate you on it we have given up because you lack the education to understand it.

 

[konradv]

Don't forget the money either. Carbon trading scams have made billions for people for doing not much of anything.

Who's made billions? I thought the meme was that the trade collapsed. Which is it?

You don't read much do you. Before the carbon trading scam failed, billions were transferred from the pocketbooks of European citizens to a very few "traders". Those traders then paid the folks they were beholden to and pocketed a tidy sum for shuffling the paper.

Kinda sketchy there, westy. "Traders"? "Tidy sum"? "Beholden"? Lot of buzzwords but there's really no there, there. How about a cite at least?

 

[konradv]

konradv- I am very skeptical of CO2 being a principal driver of temperatures. but I freely admit that it does have some impact on heat flows and equilibriums. I think it is reasonable to allocate ~1C warming to every doubling of CO2, and so do the vast majority of climate scientists and physicists. the arguments are over feedback factors and predictions for any increase in temperature. I have been around for more than half a century and none of the dire predictions have come to pass, even when the so-called principal drivers turned out to follow the course. over population is here, but not the dramatic effects that were projected. easy sources of fossil fuels have diminished but technology has found others and made them viable.

some people, like Old Rocks, delight in scaring themselves over possibilities like clathrates. if the danger is there why didnt it happen in the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods? the only reason we consider the recent warm period unusual is because of the bizarre and incorrect studies by the likes of Mann and Jones. once you realize that the present is not atypical of the past variations, then everything falls into place. of course glaciers and ice caps wax and wane, they always have. ocean currents, variations in the sun's output, and a host of other factors all add up to natural variation. the recent blip of man made release of stored carbon is nothing that the homeostasis of the earth's systems cant handle. water and clouds dominate the storage and release of heat. the oceans havent been warming up as predicted by the climate models, that supposed heat has been lost to space. but if it was accumulating then tropical thunderstorms would burp it off as fast as it gathered. CO2 is a small but measurable component to our climate. it has one quality that sets it apart though. it is influenced by mankind! and many people like to believe they are more important in the universe than they are. because CO2 is the only thing we can (somewhat) control then we want it to be important just so we wont feel so insignificant.

If you go through my posts, you'll see that I haven't predicted when any of the "catastrophes" are likely to occur. I'm mainly here battling those who say CO2 isn't a factor. I'm confused why the deniers refuse to address the Conservation of Energy question. That's more to the point than implying grandiose visions of what man can do. It just seems to be a dodge to escape answering the difficult question I posed. Difficult if you're a sketic or denier, that is, since in throws a monkey wrench into one's pet theories.

Ummm, because you don't understand the 2nd Law and after attempting to educate you on it we have given up because you lack the education to understand it.

I don't give credit for misapplying the law. There's absolutely no violation of the 2nd Law. That has to do with closed systems, which the earth isn't. You seem to be confused about who's violating laws here, considering that you won't tackle the Conservation of Energy question, a basic 1st Law principle!!! I think you've given up because you know you'll be ground into the dust trying to finagle your way around this. You aren't doing it because I'm ignorant, but because you know you'll get called on your B.S.

 

[westwall]

If you go through my posts, you'll see that I haven't predicted when any of the "catastrophes" are likely to occur. I'm mainly here battling those who say CO2 isn't a factor. I'm confused why the deniers refuse to address the Conservation of Energy question. That's more to the point than implying grandiose visions of what man can do. It just seems to be a dodge to escape answering the difficult question I posed. Difficult if you're a sketic or denier, that is, since in throws a monkey wrench into one's pet theories.

Ummm, because you don't understand the 2nd Law and after attempting to educate you on it we have given up because you lack the education to understand it.

I don't give credit for misapplying the law. There's absolutely no violation of the 2nd Law. That has to do with closed systems, which the earth isn't. You seem to be confused about who's violating laws here, considering that you won't tackle the Conservation of Energy question, a basic 1st Law principle!!! I think you've given up because you know you'll be ground into the dust trying to finagle your way around this. You aren't doing it because I'm ignorant, but because you know you'll get called on your B.S.

Go to a university. Go talk to a physicist and ask him to explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to you. Ask him to use real small words.

 

[Old Rocks]

I suggest that you take you own advice, Walleyes. Right after you take a look at the tectonic history of the earth. Geologist?