Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have a prediction for you. It's going to get hotter.
More deflection....I have a prediction for you, you or nobody else knows with certainity what is going to happen. A prime example of the absurdity of GW models and the climate, can we even predict the weather with a high level of accuracy more than 3 weeks out?
Kirk, you sure are steadfast, I'll at least give you that.
Climate models are tweaked all the time due to their poor predicting power. Temperature increases have grossly undershot James Hansen's predictions from 1990. He has had to tweak his climate model quite aggressively to match history.
In fact, all climate models are constantly being reworked to match history. Old models are falsified all the time as empirical observations prove those predictions wrong. On the one hand, you can say "well our models are much more sophisticated now, and we have 5 more years of data to use in our modeling. Today's models are much better!"
But on the other hand, if 5 years from now, the predictions of present-day models don't come true, we'll hear the same the same excuse. The goalposts are constantly moving.
Futhermore, there is no way scientists can predict with certainty the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2. THAT is an outright lie.
No, you are wrong. CO2 warms the earth. No one disputes that. The only question is, How much?
Very little, by itself.
How do the Earth's natural mechanisms respond to the slight increase? That's the unknown.
I believe those natural mechanisms act to diminish the CO2 input, and that the Earth's climate tends towards stability. Climate alarmists believe the mechanisms enhance and accelerate the CO2 input, implying that the Earth's climate tends toward instability.
But to say we can predict with certainty the net impact of a doubling of CO2 is flat out wrong.
I never said we can predict the "net" impact. But doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is not a "slight" increase, and we will see the effect more and more as time goes on. Especially when the sun comes back around to the top of the solar irradiance cycle.
Wait, your buds all say the sun has nothing to do with the rise in temperature. Where are you getting this information from?
You haven't been reading my posts.
The Stanford Solar Center scientists say that the sun accounts for at the most 25% of global warming. Could the sun trump the effect of CO2? Of course. But the problem is that every day we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so every day the effect of CO2 on the earth's temperature is greater than the day before. At the moment we are at the bottom of the solar irradiance cycle, so the effects of global warming will be mitigated somewhat. In a couple of years as the sun moves to the top of the cycle, we will probably see more record breaking heat. The GISS website explains what is happening right now very well in this link....
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
The GISS website explains what is happening right now very well in this link....
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
Kinda funny that NASA prefers to use surface temperatures in lieu of satellite temperatures. Last time I checked, wasn't NASA the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?
I guess if satellite data doesn't fit your political agenda....
What "political agenda" does the melting ice cap have?
I never said we can predict the "net" impact. But doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is not a "slight" increase, and we will see the effect more and more as time goes on. Especially when the sun comes back around to the top of the solar irradiance cycle.
None, obviously. I was referring to those who try to use rising temperatures as evidence that we need to cap CO2 emissions, and therefore want to utilize temperature data that shows the most warming. Why else would NASA use land-based temperature data?
Futhermore, here are the temperature "adjustments" NASA has made to the raw surface temperature data it's collected.
Seems as if they're inclined to show as much warming as possible, possibly to promote an agenda?
Here's the data used in the chart, STRAIGHT from the GISS website:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt
I should also point out that the NASA temperature anomaly chart in your link is normalized to the 1951-1980 mean - during the cold phase of a dominant ocean cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I'm sure you remember the 1974 Time Magazine article about the impending ice age. Of course modern-day temperatures will appear warmer by contrast.
And here's why it's a load of crap....
There is no science because these Eco-babblers cannot control for carbon from other sources than man. CO2 emissions from volcanoes to start. There are volcanoes that erupt for more than a decade at a time spewing more carbon into the atmosphere in a day than the US could hope to do in years. This carbon is unaccounted for in "Eco-science" as it pretty much has to be. Volcanic eruptions are random and the severity of the emission is random as well. But, even if they made progress and could account for these volcanoes, there are additional underwater volcanoes erupting all the time as well with the same characteristics as the above ground volcanoes. Again, this carbon is unaccounted for.
Usually when someone brings up the volcano argument the Eco-babbler will trot out the trusty ice-core sample and begin his obfuscation. Typically the argument goes something like there have always been volcanoes and we can assume that we have no greater or no worse volcanoes than there have always been. Hmmmm....really? A random event is always equally as random, well there's a theory. In any event, by careful examination of the ice-core we can determine whether the carbon comes from man or from nature. Yup! Different kind of carbon. We'll leave the boring science out and take them at their word.
But, wait a minute! What about the thousands of coal fires burning out of control all over the world. It wouldn't matter if coal was burnt by man in a furnace or whether it was started by accident in a mine or by lightning striking a coal vein on the ground. How could you tell. Well, you can't. There have been coal fires burning for hundreds and even thousands of years. There's a coal fire burning in Australia that's been burning for 6,000 years. There is a famous anthracite coal fire that has been burning in PA since 1960. Coal fires are especially bad in China and India. In China, coal is plentiful and close to the surface. Peasants typically have a community coal pit that is available to retrieve coal and take it home. These are especially susceptible to lightning strikes and grass fires.
Documentation of coal fires and their effect
So why aren't we all trying to find a solution to putting out coal fires instead of instituting a "cap and trade" system? I think we can all agree that these should be put out and would be a good step toward the common goal of a cleaner environment.
The reason is, that's not what this is all about. This is about redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries. That's why we aren't interested in solutions to problems. The eco-BS is conducted with the same disingenuousness as the oil drilling argument. "We need the problem to exist so we can pursue our uneconomic solutions."
CO2 levels remained contant for some time until the industrial revolution. Since then they have been rising nonstop for 200 years. Now the rate of the increase is accelerating as more countries industrialize. The current level of CO2 is higher than at anytime in recorded history, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. So volcanoes and coal fires have nothing to do with what is happening.
That, my friend, came directly from your butt. Coal fires have nothing to do with it? Really? Then differentiate the CO2 from the coal fires from the other so-called man-made CO2.
You said yourself that these coal fire burned for thousands of years and yet CO2 is higher now than at any time in the last 600,000 years, so it isn't the coal fires that are causing the increase in CO2. It is the 8 billion tons of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere each year.
You get a star for creativity, however.
You said yourself that these coal fire burned for thousands of years and yet CO2 is higher now than at any time in the last 600,000 years, so it isn't the coal fires that are causing the increase in CO2. It is the 8 billion tons of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere each year.
You get a star for creativity, however.
