tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post6047169392196734177..comments2024-03-22T03:25:26.405-04:00Comments on WAG: Obama speaks on global warming: What you need to know to be certain that global warming is realwaghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-19336354167564906892010-04-29T18:25:20.947-04:002010-04-29T18:25:20.947-04:00While "CO2 is plant food" does not make ...While "CO2 is plant food" does not make any difference concerning whether it is contributing to the temperature of the surface of the earth, it does mean that it is wrong to call it a pollutant.<br /><br />Skeptical Science makes the point that correlation does not always mean causation when looking at the correlation between solar activity and temperatures, but you are bouncing up and down saying "Correlation is proof" when looking at the correlation between CO2 and temperatures.<br /><br />The 800 year lag in the Vostok Ice Cores proves that CO2 has not been the main force behind climate change in the past; CO2 change is a response to climate change. While CO2 might give a slight boost when it increases, it is not able to keep warming trends going. Temperature starts to drop, and 800 years later, CO2 follows it.<br /><br />While this shows that CO2 never drove the climate before the 20th century, you seem to need proof that physics hasn't changed.<br /><br />On ClimateScience.gov, there are two documents that together provide conclusive evidence that the warming of the 20th century was not due to the greenhouse effect. On page 11 of http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap1.pdf , a simulation is shown of how different levels of the atmosphere at different latitudes would have changed in temperature over a period of time. Because the greenhouse effect works by gasses in the atmosphere absorbing energy, there MUST be a hot spot a few kilometers up, that has been warming faster than the surface of the earth. If the greenhouse effect caused all the warming.<br /><br />On page 28 of http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf , there is a graph of data from radiosonde balloons which have been monitoring the temperatures at different altitudes and latitudes, and it is striking - there is no hot spot.<br /><br />This essentially proves that the greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming.<br /><br />For further persuasion that carbon emissions did not cause the warming and that the sun did, take a look at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf , especially the graphs on page 1.<br /><br />Please don't use red herrings to argue against this; the response to the previous anonymous post has no meat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-46273372926722681682010-02-28T22:38:54.720-05:002010-02-28T22:38:54.720-05:00SurfaceStations.org actually does not dispute the ...SurfaceStations.org actually does not dispute the temperature record. It disputes whether temperature stations have been sited properly, but does not offer evidence that poor siting impacts the temperature record - those are two different points of logic. But scientists have assessed temperature stations in response to SurfaceStations.org, and found that there's no impact on temperature:<br /><br />http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf<br /><br />Do you really think that Anthony Watts was the first to think that UHI could impact temperature readings? Despite us laypeople thinking that we're uncovering things that climatologists have never thought about, they are well aware of UHI and adjust for it in their temperature readings.<br /><br />As for "CO2 is plant food," that's the sort of logic a 5 year old might use. Just because CO2 is plant food does not mean it is not warming the planet. The two have nothing to do with each other.waghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-18723104550209225452010-02-27T10:56:05.253-05:002010-02-27T10:56:05.253-05:00"Fact #1: Global temperatures have risen by a..."Fact #1: Global temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F) since records began, with the ten warmest years on record all occurring from 1997-2008. This is not disputed." <br />Global temperatures have risen, but poor station siting, station drop out, and urban heat island effect, as well as homogenization of data all contribute to an overstatement of the actual heating. Go look at surfacestations.org to see how poorly sited most of the USHCN stations are. So, as a matter of fact, the temperature record <i>is</i> disputed.<br /><br />"Fact #2: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; a basic physical property of CO2, repeatedly measured and confirmed since the 1890s, is that it absorbs and emits infrared (heat) radiation, so CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun. This is undisputed."<br /><br />CO2 absorbs radiation in three wavelengths, two of which are also absorbed by water. Nearly all the radiation in these wavelengths is already being absorbed by the atmosphere. As CO2 concentrations increase the marginal increrase in radiation absorbtion decreases asymptotically to zero. You can't absorb more energy of any given wavelength than the sun emits no matter how much CO2 you put in the atmosphere. So while the point is undisputed, it is also of limited utility to understanding the full nature of the situation.<br /><br />"Fact #3: CO2's concentration in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since the Industrial Revolution, and is now at its highest level in at least 450,000 years (measured in bubbles of air trapped in ice cores). CO2 measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii shows an uninterrupted increase since records began in 1959. This is undisputed." <br /><br />Undisputed, but not particularly relevant. See above.<br /><br />Also CO2 is not an undisputedly harmful substance to release into the atmosphere. It is, after all, plant food. A significant portion of increase in agricultural productivity and of overall global biomass in C20 is attributable to CO2 increases in the atmosphere. Who's to say, Dr. Pangloss, what is the best of all possible global tempertures or CO2 concentrations? Is 350ppm really the optimal CO2 concentration? Prove it.<br /><br />"Fact #4: The amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere matches almost exactly with the amount released from fossil fuels (minus the amount that would be taken up by natural carbon sinks). That sounds like a big claim, but miners, drillers, factories, and utilities are, after all, businesses who keep careful records of the fuel they burn, so it's relatively easy to measure. So we know with 100% certainty that the extra CO2 comes from human emissions. This is undisputed."<br /><br />Base stealing. This is too complex a system to substantiate the claim made. Also, in light of point 2 above, this is a trivial assertion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-40234233096703349892010-02-09T21:36:30.165-05:002010-02-09T21:36:30.165-05:00Thanks PeteThanks Petewaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-56064912412183492382010-02-05T14:30:17.597-05:002010-02-05T14:30:17.597-05:00WAG, check out carbon 13 and stable isotope method...WAG, check out carbon 13 and stable isotope methods. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carbon-13/<br />will get you started.<br /><br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-40901606375107576492009-11-24T22:25:36.664-05:002009-11-24T22:25:36.664-05:00Thanks. I'm not qualified to get into the det...Thanks. I'm not qualified to get into the details of the science, but I can at least present the logical case based on the science I do know. A couple more posts like this on cap-and-trade are in progresswaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-70909703521080327132009-11-24T17:55:29.381-05:002009-11-24T17:55:29.381-05:00This is great. I've been arguing with skeptics...This is great. I've been arguing with skeptics for awhile, but the discussion usually meanders all over the place. <br /><br />By sticking to the strict logical argumentation, they can't go off into tangents that don't relate to the premises. Even whether the MWP was warmer or not than today is irrelevant.<br /><br />Thanks for this!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.com