What is Earth's 'correct' temperature?

[daveman]

Following your train of logic, why has the level of Water Vapor remain stable in the face of rising CO2?

You made the claim that it has. Show your reasoning and proof of that claim. Then explain the increase in the number of precipitation events worldwide.

Water evaporates and condenses due to pretty specific temperature relationships.

The Global Climate has remained within a 2 degree variation for 8000 years.

We are smack dab in the middle of that variation right now.

Unless the physical properties of water have changed, the level of water vapor is very stable.

Maybe it's "sensitive" water vapor.

 

[JBeukema]

you never addressed the matter of none of the models producing the magical 14-degrees without being tweaked to render the desired result. You've not yet addressed the studies cited which refute your assertions regarding the time c0^2 remains in the atmosphere. In another thread, it was shown that the perceived increase in temperature is within the the standard deviation/variation and that the few land-based measurement centers are all located in heat islands which have become ever-more intense as more asphalt is added around them.

They can't account for all the c0^2 we're known to be producing, according to one source, which indicates that nature has at least some ability to counteract our acts (makes sense in a non-linear system, for one factor to be drowned out in the grand scheme of things unless it's truly massive) and you never addressed the matter that even the co^2 currently in the atmosphere doen'ts have the maximum effect it could because there's not enough radiation for it to absorb as is (see the posts relating to 'compeetion' with water vapour and other ghgs). You've not shown that the perciegved increase in global temperature is truly outside the norm, nor have you addressed the matter of c0^2 lagging behind global warming (perhaps in large part due to warming triggering the release of c0^2 form the oceans), which seems to indicate that what you assert is that cause it or has long been the effect. Nor have you answered why, if an increase c0^2 levels leads to warming and warming seemed to lead to higher c0^2 levels in the past, this didn't lead to a runaway cycle- or why we should expect it to do so now if it didn't in the past.

The agw alarmists' methodology seems highly suspect, and one bit of information that happens to fit into your conjecture (your mention of increased precipitation during warmer periods) doesn't counter-weigh all the open questions and and apparent holes in your conjecture. With such glaring issues with your methodology, how can you expect your 'science' to be respected or treated as real science?
?

you still never addressed any of that... Why?


Junk methodology = junk science

or?

 

[code1211]

you never addressed the matter of none of the models producing the magical 14-degrees without being tweaked to render the desired result. You've not yet addressed the studies cited which refute your assertions regarding the time c0^2 remains in the atmosphere. In another thread, it was shown that the perceived increase in temperature is within the the standard deviation/variation and that the few land-based measurement centers are all located in heat islands which have become ever-more intense as more asphalt is added around them.

They can't account for all the c0^2 we're known to be producing, according to one source, which indicates that nature has at least some ability to counteract our acts (makes sense in a non-linear system, for one factor to be drowned out in the grand scheme of things unless it's truly massive) and you never addressed the matter that even the co^2 currently in the atmosphere doen'ts have the maximum effect it could because there's not enough radiation for it to absorb as is (see the posts relating to 'compeetion' with water vapour and other ghgs). You've not shown that the perciegved increase in global temperature is truly outside the norm, nor have you addressed the matter of c0^2 lagging behind global warming (perhaps in large part due to warming triggering the release of c0^2 form the oceans), which seems to indicate that what you assert is that cause it or has long been the effect. Nor have you answered why, if an increase c0^2 levels leads to warming and warming seemed to lead to higher c0^2 levels in the past, this didn't lead to a runaway cycle- or why we should expect it to do so now if it didn't in the past.

The agw alarmists' methodology seems highly suspect, and one bit of information that happens to fit into your conjecture (your mention of increased precipitation during warmer periods) doesn't counter-weigh all the open questions and and apparent holes in your conjecture. With such glaring issues with your methodology, how can you expect your 'science' to be respected or treated as real science?
?

you still never addressed any of that... Why?


Junk methodology = junk science

or?

If one is to believe the AGW line, then they must believe it on a piece by piece basis. Applying logic and critical thought to the whole picture, as you have done above, brings it down.

The best way to be an AGW believer is to look at only CO2 and only the relation of CO2 to radiated Solar Energy. If that is as far as you go with your examination, as some on this board are proud to do, then there is only one conclussion.

If one were to look at historical variations of temperature and the historical correlation to the increase and decrease of CO2 along with Solar variations, interplanetary relationships, continental drift, ocean currents, atmospheric stratification, volcanism impacts and the rest, the picture becomes considerably less precise.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[edthecynic]

you still never addressed any of that... Why?


Junk methodology = junk science

or?

If one is to believe the AGW line, then they must believe it on a piece by piece basis. Applying logic and critical thought to the whole picture, as you have done above, brings it down.

The best way to be an AGW believer is to look at only CO2 and only the relation of CO2 to radiated Solar Energy. If that is as far as you go with your examination, as some on this board are proud to do, then there is only one conclussion.

If one were to look at historical variations of temperature and the historical correlation to the increase and decrease of CO2 along with Solar variations, interplanetary relationships, continental drift, ocean currents, atmospheric stratification, volcanism impacts and the rest, the picture becomes considerably less precise.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You're proof of that!

The picture may have fluctuations within the TREND by the factors you tick off, but the trend is up. Historical variations cycle between warm and cold, but for the last 100 years we are fluctuating between warm and flat. It will warm and then level off and then warm again starting from where the last warming left off.

 

[westwall]

or?

If one is to believe the AGW line, then they must believe it on a piece by piece basis. Applying logic and critical thought to the whole picture, as you have done above, brings it down.

The best way to be an AGW believer is to look at only CO2 and only the relation of CO2 to radiated Solar Energy. If that is as far as you go with your examination, as some on this board are proud to do, then there is only one conclussion.

If one were to look at historical variations of temperature and the historical correlation to the increase and decrease of CO2 along with Solar variations, interplanetary relationships, continental drift, ocean currents, atmospheric stratification, volcanism impacts and the rest, the picture becomes considerably less precise.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You're proof of that!

The picture may have fluctuations within the TREND by the factors you tick off, but the trend is up. Historical variations cycle between warm and cold, but for the last 100 years we are fluctuating between warm and flat. It will warm and then level off and then warm again starting from where the last warming left off.

This is not true. The historical and paleoclimate record shows very clearly a range of temperatures that the Earth remains in. We have not even approached the last major warming period's temperature. It was a minimum of 5 degrees fahrenheit warmer 700 years ago, the temperautre then dropped down to the Little Ice Age temps and we are only now clawing back from that.

You are as wrong as can be.

 

[IanC]

Past historical evidence shows large swings in climate change. We appear to be at the tail end of an inter glacial age. I wonder if our climate research now will help us stave off the ice which is pretty surely on its way.

 

[edthecynic]

If one is to believe the AGW line, then they must believe it on a piece by piece basis. Applying logic and critical thought to the whole picture, as you have done above, brings it down.

The best way to be an AGW believer is to look at only CO2 and only the relation of CO2 to radiated Solar Energy. If that is as far as you go with your examination, as some on this board are proud to do, then there is only one conclussion.

If one were to look at historical variations of temperature and the historical correlation to the increase and decrease of CO2 along with Solar variations, interplanetary relationships, continental drift, ocean currents, atmospheric stratification, volcanism impacts and the rest, the picture becomes considerably less precise.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You're proof of that!

The picture may have fluctuations within the TREND by the factors you tick off, but the trend is up. Historical variations cycle between warm and cold, but for the last 100 years we are fluctuating between warm and flat. It will warm and then level off and then warm again starting from where the last warming left off.

This is not true. The historical and paleoclimate record shows very clearly a range of temperatures that the Earth remains in. We have not even approached the last major warming period's temperature. It was a minimum of 5 degrees fahrenheit warmer 700 years ago, the temperautre then dropped down to the Little Ice Age temps and we are only now clawing back from that.

You are as wrong as can be.

You're so full of it your eyes must be brown. After your claim that US taxpayers paid Jones 22.6 BILLION DOLLARS you have no credibility.

 

[JBeukema]

Can you source that data, West?

 

[edthecynic]

Past historical evidence shows large swings in climate change. We appear to be at the tail end of an inter glacial age. I wonder if our climate research now will help us stave off the ice which is pretty surely on its way.

Actually, we are quite overdue for a full fledged Ice Age. Past interglacial warm periods were less than 10,000 years, this one is 12,000 years. Based on the established natural cycle, the Little Ice Age should have been the start of the new ice age. Something seems to have interrupted the natural cycle.

Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Global temperature variation for the past 425,000 years. The present is at the right. The horizontal 0 line represents the 1961–990 average global temperature. The numbers on the left show the variation from that baseline in °C.
The data were derived from an analysis of ice cores taken at the Vostok station in Antarctica.

 

[JBeukema]

Wait... so our extra C)^2 is saving us fro another ice age?


and that's a bad thing?

 

[IanC]

Past historical evidence shows large swings in climate change. We appear to be at the tail end of an inter glacial age. I wonder if our climate research now will help us stave off the ice which is pretty surely on its way.

Actually, we are quite overdue for a full fledged Ice Age. Past interglacial warm periods were less than 10,000 years, this one is 12,000 years. Based on the established natural cycle, the Little Ice Age should have been the start of the new ice age. Something seems to have interrupted the natural cycle.

Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Global temperature variation for the past. 425,000 years. The present is at the right. The horizontal 0 line represents the 1961–990 average global temperature. The numbers on the left show the variation from that baseline in °C.
The data were derived from an analysis of ice cores taken at the Vostok station in Antarctica.

Thank goodness for that then. I'd be pretty pissed if the little ice age had just continued andleft me with ice fishing for a holiday instead of sunning at the beach.

 

[JBeukema]

Now it's sounding like humanity should WANT AGW to be true!


Ice aged suck!

 

[westwall]

Past historical evidence shows large swings in climate change. We appear to be at the tail end of an inter glacial age. I wonder if our climate research now will help us stave off the ice which is pretty surely on its way.

Actually, we are quite overdue for a full fledged Ice Age. Past interglacial warm periods were less than 10,000 years, this one is 12,000 years. Based on the established natural cycle, the Little Ice Age should have been the start of the new ice age. Something seems to have interrupted the natural cycle.

Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Global temperature variation for the past 425,000 years. The present is at the right. The horizontal 0 line represents the 1961–990 average global temperature. The numbers on the left show the variation from that baseline in °C.
The data were derived from an analysis of ice cores taken at the Vostok station in Antarctica.

Not true. There is no 10,000 year cycle for ice ages ed. The integlacials can last anywhere from 10,000-12,000 all the way to 130,000 years.

 

[edthecynic]

Wait... so our extra C)^2 is saving us fro another ice age?


and that's a bad thing?

And that is the only legitimate argument! The deniers who claim warming stopped 15 years ago are insane.

So the question is whether GW is a bad thing or not, and if it is a good thing whether it is out of control.

 

[edthecynic]

Past historical evidence shows large swings in climate change. We appear to be at the tail end of an inter glacial age. I wonder if our climate research now will help us stave off the ice which is pretty surely on its way.

Actually, we are quite overdue for a full fledged Ice Age. Past interglacial warm periods were less than 10,000 years, this one is 12,000 years. Based on the established natural cycle, the Little Ice Age should have been the start of the new ice age. Something seems to have interrupted the natural cycle.

Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Global temperature variation for the past 425,000 years. The present is at the right. The horizontal 0 line represents the 1961–990 average global temperature. The numbers on the left show the variation from that baseline in °C.
The data were derived from an analysis of ice cores taken at the Vostok station in Antarctica.

Not true. There is no 10,000 year cycle for ice ages ed. The integlacials can last anywhere from 10,000-12,000 all the way to 130,000 years.

Dang you are nuts!

 

[edthecynic]

Now it's sounding like humanity should WANT AGW to be true!


Ice aged suck!

Just so long as doesn't become runaway GW.

 

[JBeukema]

Wait... so our extra C)^2 is saving us fro another ice age?


and that's a bad thing?

And that is the only legitimate argument!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...earths-correct-temperature-6.html#post2584302

 

[westwall]

Now it's sounding like humanity should WANT AGW to be true!


Ice aged suck!

Just so long as doesn't become runaway GW.

All the GW alarmists claim that we will rise by 2 degrees 5 degrees at the outside. The Roman Warming Period was a minimum of 6 degrees warmer. There was no catastrophic runaway warming. That is a fantasy designed to frighten the natives. Back millions of years ago it was far warmer and it was not a problem then either.

 

[westwall]

Actually, we are quite overdue for a full fledged Ice Age. Past interglacial warm periods were less than 10,000 years, this one is 12,000 years. Based on the established natural cycle, the Little Ice Age should have been the start of the new ice age. Something seems to have interrupted the natural cycle.

Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Global temperature variation for the past 425,000 years. The present is at the right. The horizontal 0 line represents the 1961–990 average global temperature. The numbers on the left show the variation from that baseline in °C.
The data were derived from an analysis of ice cores taken at the Vostok station in Antarctica.

Not true. There is no 10,000 year cycle for ice ages ed. The integlacials can last anywhere from 10,000-12,000 all the way to 130,000 years.

Dang you are nuts!

Really? Well, lets look at the records shall we?

Tioga Glaciation ............................12,000 BP to 25,000 Bp
Tenaya Glaciation ..........................37,000 BP
Tahoe II Glaciation.........................56,000 BP to 118,000 BP
Tahoe I Glaciation..........................131,000 BP
Sherwin Glaciation.........................760,000 BP

BP means Before Present time.

 

[edthecynic]

Now it's sounding like humanity should WANT AGW to be true!


Ice aged suck!

Just so long as doesn't become runaway GW.

All the GW alarmists claim that we will rise by 2 degrees 5 degrees at the outside. The Roman Warming Period was a minimum of 6 degrees warmer. There was no catastrophic runaway warming. That is a fantasy designed to frighten the natives. Back millions of years ago it was far warmer and it was not a problem then either.

All deniers make crap up without sources.