What Do We Think About Climate Change

That, again, denies that the blip is in fact a real temperature anomaly, but instead is a measurement artifact. This is what "The Team" has been saying for years. When you look at Beck's data, not only is a blip present, but so is a contemporaneous spike in CO2 concentration, suggesting that the blip is in fact real, and CO2 concentration followed the temperature increase, just as it always does, as a consequence of the temperature increase. The equilibrium concentration explains this sort of thing perfectly.

Jimbo

 

The last time I checked, Beck wasn't Jesus, or even Oral Roberts,and his words weren't being channeled through him from On High. But I didn't come here to argue about his perfect infallibility.....

I was presenting an interesting and common-sense sounding reason for the blip. You haven't proven that it's real instead. And you won't, by trying to convince me that the wild CO2 swings Beck believes in really happened.

 

But you choose to believe in a stable, 'unchanging for eons', CO2 level that is supported by fudged data. The data set that was used to bring us the idea of the "stable, unchanging for eons, CO2 level" did itself contain the data points which support the "wild CO2 swings Beck believes in really happened", yet were removed by the author when he re-presented the same data set to the IPCC. And yet you continue to believe.

Jimbo

 

No, the data Beck seized on has nothing to do with any "stable, unchanging for eons, CO2 level." His claims are based on his interpretation of chemical measurement data over a relatively short period of time in the modern era.

Tell you what, Jimbo: why don't you stick to telling me what you believe, and stop trying to tell me what I believe. OK?

Say goodnight, Jimbo.

 

I'm not talking about Beck's data. I'm talking about the data that the IPCC, "Team Hockey Stick" and all the other AGW alrmists use to suggest that CO2 levels were stable for eons at 280ppm. That data was fudged. The data points that agreed with Beck were thrown out. We absolutely KNOW for a fact that this is what was done, because the entire paper was simply a re-hash for the new audience, the IPCC. The original data and paper was already published before the IPCC even existed, and still available for all to see, and guess what? It shows the 'Beck spike' of ~450-500 ppm.

If you still believe in a fiction, after someone shows you it's a fiction, that is your choice.

Jimbo

 

Can someone explain the logic or lack of it of suppressing the fall in efficiency of greenhouse effect for increasing CO2?

Another one, if the GW theory supporters say that CO2 increase, increases temperature and therefore increase HO2 vapour and increases greenhouse gases, water has also a limit to it's efficiency as a greenhouse gas since it does something very useful and that is condense into clouds and come back as rain. The time water is in the form of clouds, it does not operate as greenhouse since no light goes through and no heat goes through so it acts as a cover and when it may stop counter radiation it also stops light.

And last, how are we to believe that GW will bring drought? We have been lied to at nauseam by our local ******** artists that the droughts are caused by global warming complete with propaganda paid by me showing cattle carcasses stuck in the crackled mud.

 

Give that man a gold star

And to think, the AGW alarmists STILL refuse to accept the most obvious, ordinary observed realities of daily weather; Clouds and precipitation are the regulators of the water vapor concentration level, and therefore the regulators of the entire greenhouse effect!

The alarmists continue to believe that droughts, storms and all manner of nasty stuff accompanies a warmer climate precisely because they misunderstand the role of water vapor, clouds and precipitation in the climatic system.

But their ignorance is willful and therefore unforgivable.

Jimbo

 

I think those who consider themselves as children of bitches should preach with their own example. Why don't you begin by perishing hard yourself? (No offense intended. Just your own words)

Troy,
records from buckets or pipes are not good data for climate studying purposes, but just to assess local weather conditions. There was not a uniform protocol for measurements, so trustability is very low because of the possible vast array of uncertainty, as it has been said. To try to match or compare those measurements to present ones by "massaging" data is a futile and distracting effort in my opinion.

And what I'm surprised and sad about is to learn how AGW proponents seem to have been doing that kind of "massaging" with all kind of data to sustain their theories and trying to prevent others to replicate or criticise their results. Very poor practice, in my opinion.

But the blip in temperatures around 1940 is also shown in air temperatures measurements from several sources, including NOAA, so it's well documented.

Cheers.

 

It showed up on land according to the Team. It's in that email in comment #4000: "Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know)."

In fact he goes on to say that the land blip was bigger. That was during his discussion of how he can best fudge the data to hide the blip without being too obvious.

As to the explanation of the different temperature-taking methods, it's curious. Did they really used to just combine two entirely different sets of temperature measurements without worrying about their different error characteristics? And even if they did, this doesn't seem to require a painstaking effort to correct. You just keep the data in distinct sets, normalize them to some standard and graph the results. They ought to be able within a few minutes to see whether the US data alone and the British data alone reflect the dip or not, yet the article says nothing about this.

 

Guillermo, mi amigo, let me tell you why. First, because I do not consider myself to be one of those sons/daughters of bitches. Second, because I am not suicidal. Just because I live surrounded by religious fanatics of every colour doesn't mean that there are not other intelligent people around that I could relate to on a level those bitches' descendants will never be able to reach.

Au contreur, mon ami.

And third, I am spending a lot of money on schools and poor children around my part of America, where anglosaxon criminals have destroyed just about every state with their "capitalist democracy" and left behind millions in absolute poverty. Those scumbags are gone, but the poverty is still here. I am doing something about it, as small my gesture may be, given the magnitude of the problem.

But that is still by far more than everything that chatolic church is doing around, for example.

So, I am not a hypocrite like chatolics, or muslims, or jews, or hindus, etc. etc. I am actually doing SOMETHING about the tragedy that is playing out every single day here.

How about you, mi amigo? What have you done good lately/ever? How many kids have you saved or fed? How many school books have you bought for poor kids? How many have you saved from your fellas catholic priests and other good christians preying on vulnerable kids for their perverse pleasures? I hope many, but I have my doubts. So who would be a better candidate for self-inflicted perishing?


Answer to Troy: neither. If you are indeed a new member, you are already falling into the trap of the general tone of debate in these threads here.

I am as far from hating myself as usa is from being a democratic country. Surely, you will agree that people who are killing each other, and anyone else for that matter, are sons of bitches.

What's to like about these animals? I do not see myself being even remotely similar to those retards.

 

Ignore where the CO2 may come from? Ok?
The atmosphere has its total mechanical properties with the ability to keep moist, heat capasity, insulation, etc..
CO2 has mechanical properties, like insulation, heat capacity, these are way above the same properties for the preindustrial atmosphere.
The added CO2 since the start of the industrial times equals something like 0,5 m pure CO2 (20°C/ 1 atm) on each square meter. So, it's pretty easy to (well; for me at least) to assume that the "new" properties for the atmosphere will be added insulation, increased heat capacity.

So, if the above seem correct, im my opinion, again, its safe to assume a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. A higher temp will mean more vapour.

The heat input form the sun, (thank God...) far outweights the heat loss, so the vapour will be humidity, but not skies. So the balance in the daytime will be more input from the sun, but not in any significant way (?). On the night time; we'll still have 0,5 m more CO2 that insulate, the water wapour will also, in colder regions, condensate, make skies, rain, snow, that will be more visible in the winter/ night time. Skies will insulate, reduce the heat loss in the night time.

As you do, you're not considering the (slightly) different behavior the atmosphere have during the day versus the night. To balance it completely as you do, is like comparing the Tjernobyl reactor with a camping stove. The sun will give more energy.

So, when the day comes, with another cycle, we're a (tiiiny) tiny fraction of a degree higher...?

Drought... As mentioned; the earth will try to achieve a new equilbrion (correctly speeeld?) with more evaporation, this will be mostly significant at the central band of this earth. And since everything that goes up, must come down, and it'll do that in colder regions, like where I'm living.... Last winter at my cabin in the mountains, I had to dig 2,7 meter down through the snow to get to the water post... I've been about in that area since I was 15 years old, never seen it like that before; That's pretty much, even for me. This november; we had the 2nd most ever recorded amount of rain (a little snow too); 300 mm. It's kinda wet, in my opinion. If we hold that up against lack of rain in some other places of the world, it may seem connected... somehow...

You can still count me in "the better safe than sorry crowd"..

 

"Au contreur, mon ami." Que significa "contreur", porfas? I study French and, it seems, you would be a good candidate to teach cool words! In your opinion, would it be best to get a tentitive grasp of the language before posing culture or just dive in pell-mell?

 

Knut, I thin' their getting more precipitation in "dry" places, too. Grass and crawly things in the Sahara, etc.

RE: Climategate.
Apparently sometime in 1992 they, Mann, et. al., decided that computer storage would become MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE and so they had to hit the delete button to save on costs.
"But oh, here -- here are the numbers as we tweaked them. But we can't tell you how they were tweaked as we threw out the records about what we did. Go ahead and run with it at Copenhagen."

 

Just too many foreigners out there.....

 

I'm afraid it's not like that at all, Knut. I'm surprised. You're forgotting the absorbing of CO2 by the sea, soils, rocks, plants, etc. The missing carbon thing, you know....

Best regards.