Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

[healthmyths]

First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:

All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:

10 boys at 100lbs average: 100 lbs.
But what happens if one of the 10 boys is overweight .. 300 lbs!
All 12 year old boys including the 300 lb average 120 lbs!

So it would be wrong to draw conclusion that ALL 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100lbs IF the 300 lb boy is excluded.. RIGHT???

How does this relate to global warming..

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
"The number of [Siberian ] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present.
Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So the basis for global warming has been the record keeping of temperature stations around the earth..except for 12.5% of the Earth's surface and those temperatures were NOT included!

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, another real dumb ass posting on things he knows nothing about.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2011: +0.11 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[TheDecepticon]

The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shut the hell up about things you know NOTHING about.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online

 

[Meister]

Give me a grant and I'll tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.

 

[skookerasbil]

Who cares........the majority of the public views Al Gore as a joke for several years now.

 

[healthmyths]

My, my, another real dumb ass posting on things he knows nothing about.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf

So it is OK not to include 12.5% of the Earth's surface area over 50 years in temperature gathering?

It is scientific to take more readings in urban areas and consider that valid?

Again.. I'm not an expert on exaggeration, I'll leave that to Al-below-the-surface-millions-of-degrees- Gore!
I'm just "sharing" what
"The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

 

[healthmyths]

The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shut the hell up about things you know NOTHING about.

Yea.. well go to Greenland!!!

 

[code1211]

The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shut the hell up about things you know NOTHING about.

And yet the warming caused by the Industrial Revolution started before the use of fossil fuels used in the Industrial Revolution.

Powerful stuff, this CO2, that can cause warming before it's there...

The problem with not questioning anything is that anything suddenly seems plausible.

"Shut the hell up"? The firm basis of all inquiry into all topics.


Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The commencement of the Industrial Revolution is closely linked to a small number of innovations,[16] made in the second half of the 18th century:
Textiles – Cotton spinning using Richard Arkwright's water frame, James Hargreaves's Spinning Jenny, and Samuel Crompton's Spinning Mule (a combination of the Spinning Jenny and the Water Frame). This was patented in 1769 and so came out of patent in 1783. The end of the patent was rapidly followed by the erection of many cotton mills. Similar technology was subsequently applied to spinning worsted yarn for various textiles and flax for linen. The cotton revolution began in Derby, which has been known since this period as the "Powerhouse of the North".
Steam power – The improved steam engine invented by James Watt and patented in 1775 was initially mainly used to power pumps for pumping water out of mines, but from the 1780s was applied to power other types of machines. This enabled rapid development of efficient semi-automated factories on a previously unimaginable scale in places where waterpower was not available. For the first time in history people did not have to rely on human or animal muscle, wind or water for power. The steam engine was used to pump water from coal mines; to lift trucks of coal to the surface; to blow air into the furnaces for the making of iron; to grind clay for pottery; and to power new factories of all kinds. For over a hundred years the steam engine was the king of the industries.
Iron making – In the Iron industry, coke was finally applied to all stages of iron smelting, replacing charcoal. This had been achieved much earlier for lead and copper as well as for producing pig iron in a blast furnace, but the second stage in the production of bar iron depended on the use of potting and stamping (for which a patent expired in 1786) or puddling (patented by Henry Cort in 1783 and 1784).




File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Old Rocks]

Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

 

[konradv]

First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:

All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:

10 boys at 100lbs average: 100 lbs.
But what happens if one of the 10 boys is overweight .. 300 lbs!
All 12 year old boys including the 300 lb average 120 lbs!

So it would be wrong to draw conclusion that ALL 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100lbs IF the 300 lb boy is excluded.. RIGHT???

How does this relate to global warming..

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
"The number of [Siberian ] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present.
Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So the basis for global warming has been the record keeping of temperature stations around the earth..except for 12.5% of the Earth's surface and those temperatures were NOT included!

The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps. The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs. If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy. Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat? I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.

 

[konradv]

Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

LOL!!! We keep being told that AGW proponents ignore natural cycles and here we have Code ignoring natural cycles!!! Do you knuckleheads forget your own arguments?

 

[code1211]

Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

My, my, my... The warming starts before the Industrial Revolution. There is no denying that fact. It simply does. It happened. Accept it. Wide spread use of the coal driven steam engine did not occur until after 1775. All of the proxies on the graph have started moving up 100 years before that and one of them 150 years prior.

Your challenge is to explain how the effect of the increasing CO2 which you claim to be the cause of the warming caused the warming before it was increasing. Simply ignoring reality does not change reality.

Stopping the cooling and then reversing it would require more energy than just maintaining the warming once it started. It takes more energy to increase the temperature of water from 32 to 33 than it does to increase from 33 to 34.

Whatever it was that caused the Little Ice Age apparently stopped and whatever it was that caused the temperature of the globe to increase during the previous millennium apparently started up again.

Both of these factors occurred without the causation you cite and yet you cling to that particular cause instead of looking to any one of about 20 other possibilities.

Why are you so sold on the single bullet theory when there are so many bullets to choose from that actually might be the cause?

The link below shows that CO2 did not actually increase until after 1850.

You are still arguing that the future causes the past.

File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[westwall]

The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online

And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's. Amazing how that happens eh?

 

[code1211]

First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:

All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:

10 boys at 100lbs average: 100 lbs.
But what happens if one of the 10 boys is overweight .. 300 lbs!
All 12 year old boys including the 300 lb average 120 lbs!

So it would be wrong to draw conclusion that ALL 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100lbs IF the 300 lb boy is excluded.. RIGHT???

How does this relate to global warming..

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
"The number of [Siberian ] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present.
Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So the basis for global warming has been the record keeping of temperature stations around the earth..except for 12.5% of the Earth's surface and those temperatures were NOT included!

The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps. The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs. If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy. Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat? I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.

I'm confused by the statement in red.

The effect of GHG is to reflect the infra red radiation coming from the surface back to the surface, is it not? Instead of allowing the heat to radiate back into space, the heat is reflected back to the surface and contribute toward escalating temperature.

Is this not the argument?

Is IR photons the same thing as IR radiation? I Google IR photons and find nothing.

 

[westwall]

That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.

Well you got part of that correct. The US did pull the 200K per year grant from Jones when they figured out he was unethical and unqualified. I hear Mann is having trouble getting money now too, and Al Gores schemes have fallen by the wayside, so yes you are correct, once they are known to be unethical and unqualified the money is taken away from them.

 

[westwall]

First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:

All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:

10 boys at 100lbs average: 100 lbs.
But what happens if one of the 10 boys is overweight .. 300 lbs!
All 12 year old boys including the 300 lb average 120 lbs!

So it would be wrong to draw conclusion that ALL 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100lbs IF the 300 lb boy is excluded.. RIGHT???

How does this relate to global warming..

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
"The number of [Siberian ] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present.
Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So the basis for global warming has been the record keeping of temperature stations around the earth..except for 12.5% of the Earth's surface and those temperatures were NOT included!

The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps. The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs. If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy. Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat? I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.

I'm confused by the statement in red.

The effect of GHG is to reflect the infra red radiation coming from the surface back to the surface, is it not? Instead of allowing the heat to radiate back into space, the heat is reflected back to the surface and contribute toward escalating temperature.

Is this not the argument?

Is IR photons the same thing as IR radiation? I Google IR photons and find nothing.

I too am a little confused about that statement? If the world is indeed three dimensional why would the percentage be 50% returning to Earth? The normal scatter would be less then 10% returning to Earth based on simple geometry. Now if we lived on a flat Earth I can see his point. Is konny secretly a Flat Earhter?

 

[code1211]

Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

LOL!!! We keep being told that AGW proponents ignore natural cycles and here we have Code ignoring natural cycles!!! Do you knuckleheads forget your own arguments?

Natural cycles both terrestrial and extra terrestrial are candidates as the cause, both alone and in concert.

It is not I who have disallowed the impact of natural cycles or any other cause, it is the AGW crowd who have done exactly that. I am open to any plausible explanation including that of the scientists at CERN who have recently produced in the lab and proven a correlation between extra terrestrial particles coming to Earth and global climate.

So many possibilities and only one proposed cause coming form the AGW Crowd.

Interesting, albeit a limiting kind of science, is it not?