Gravitymaster 0 #76 July 9, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Looks like it leveled out for about 40 years between 1940 and 1980. If CO2 was causing the Earth to warm, why did it stop during that period? No reason it should be monotonic. In fact it would be stupid to expect monotonicity. Just an increase in the average over the long term. And that is exactly what we see. Can you explain why it leveled out? There must be a reason. Yes, there's no reason it should be monotonic. In fact it would be stupid to expect monotonicity. That's like explaining the reason for an automobile accident is that it was bound to happen eventually. Come on, you're a scientist. Tell me why the temperatures leveled out during that period. Was it due to less solar activity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #77 July 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's the magical power of man-made CO2...there's *nothing* it can't do! It can't make you and brenthutch open your eyes to reality. You mean the 'flat temps since 98' reality, or the one that YOU live in? You REALLY are getting desperate. The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html www.nasa.gov/images/content/616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg[1].jpg Ah, GISS... the database that's had to be corrected several times due to skeptics finding errors in it. Yes, now all the errors they can find have been corrected or debunked, so we can believe it. No, there's still the 'adjustments' that cooled the 30's and warmed the 70's and up to be corrected. Then maybe GISS will track with the other temperature datasets instead of being the outlier.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #78 July 9, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Looks like it leveled out for about 40 years between 1940 and 1980. If CO2 was causing the Earth to warm, why did it stop during that period? No reason it should be monotonic. In fact it would be stupid to expect monotonicity. Just an increase in the average over the long term. And that is exactly what we see. Can you explain why it leveled out? There must be a reason. Yes, there's no reason it should be monotonic. In fact it would be stupid to expect monotonicity. That's like explaining the reason for an automobile accident is that it was bound to happen eventually. No, that's incorrect. More like the reason for health insurance, that you're bound to need it eventually.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #79 July 9, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Looks like it leveled out for about 40 years between 1940 and 1980. If CO2 was causing the Earth to warm, why did it stop during that period? No reason it should be monotonic. In fact it would be stupid to expect monotonicity. Just an increase in the average over the long term. And that is exactly what we see. Can you explain why it leveled out? There must be a reason. Yes, there's no reason it should be monotonic. In fact it would be stupid to expect monotonicity. That's like explaining the reason for an automobile accident is that it was bound to happen eventually. No, that's incorrect. More like the reason for health insurance, that you're bound to need it eventually. Fine, we will go with your analogy. Now explain why the temperatures leveled out for 40 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #80 July 9, 2012 Quote Fine, we will go with your analogy. Now explain why the temperatures leveled out for 40 years. Silly question, because it hasn't. The warming trend has ups and downs (mnealtx always cherry picks a warm year as a starting point (like the el Nino year 1998) to suggest a down trend), but over the long term the trend is clearly up. Both GISS and HadCrut4 show this along with NCDC, RSS and UAH datasets.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #81 July 9, 2012 After correcting for measurable natural variation due to the southern oscillation, atmospheric aerosols, and solar output the 5 commonly used datasets are shown in the attached graph.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #82 July 9, 2012 Something caused temperatures to flatten out between 1940 and 1980. It seems you can't explain it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #83 July 9, 2012 Quote Something caused temperatures to flatten out between 1940 and 1980. It seems you can't explain it. Perhaps it was the "cold war".There are natural variations superimposed on the long term trend. What is so hard to understand about that? Man made aerosols increased markedly during and after WWII. David Stern (D.I. Stern / Chemosphere 58 (2005) pp 163–175) showed that sulphurous emissions around the world increased sharply between 1945 and about 1989, since when they have declined markedly due to pollution controls. Sulphuruous emissions peaked in North America and Europe during the 1970s. I think you are being intentionally obtuse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #84 July 9, 2012 Quote Quote Something caused temperatures to flatten out between 1940 and 1980. It seems you can't explain it. Perhaps it was the "cold war".There are natural variations superimposed on the long term trend. What is so hard to understand about that? I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Nope. Statistics didn't cause temperatures to flatten out for 40 years. Something environmentally related did. I'd like to know what that was. If you don't know, just say so and stop tap dancing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #85 July 9, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Something caused temperatures to flatten out between 1940 and 1980. It seems you can't explain it. Perhaps it was the "cold war".There are natural variations superimposed on the long term trend. What is so hard to understand about that? I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Nope. Statistics didn't cause temperatures to flatten out for 40 years. Something environmentally related did. I'd like to know what that was. If you don't know, just say so and stop tap dancing. D.I. Stern / Chemosphere 58 (2005) 163–175 explains it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #86 July 9, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Something caused temperatures to flatten out between 1940 and 1980. It seems you can't explain it. Perhaps it was the "cold war".There are natural variations superimposed on the long term trend. What is so hard to understand about that? I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Nope. Statistics didn't cause temperatures to flatten out for 40 years. Something environmentally related did. I'd like to know what that was. If you don't know, just say so and stop tap dancing. D.I. Stern / Chemosphere 58 (2005) 163–175 explains it. I didn't ask him, I asked you. If you don't know, just say so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 July 10, 2012 Quote The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. so stated a different way, 2011 was the 3rd coldest of the past 11 years. Has a slightly different ring to it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #88 July 10, 2012 >so stated a different way, 2011 was the 3rd coldest of the past 11 years. >Has a slightly different ring to it... True. And George Soros is the fourth poorest of the top 10 wealthiest people in the US. Doesn't sound rich at all, now, does he? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 July 10, 2012 Quote>so stated a different way, 2011 was the 3rd coldest of the past 11 years. >Has a slightly different ring to it... True. And George Soros is the fourth poorest of the top 10 wealthiest people in the US. Doesn't sound rich at all, now, does he? save the fact that there are over 300M Americans, and less than 230 years of American history. The argument is that we're burning up, but the trend line doesn't show this so well. The deniers are right - some explanation is needed for the flat line, the disappearance of major hurricanes, all while emissions by the US and China continue unchecked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #90 July 10, 2012 QuoteQuote>so stated a different way, 2011 was the 3rd coldest of the past 11 years. >Has a slightly different ring to it... True. And George Soros is the fourth poorest of the top 10 wealthiest people in the US. Doesn't sound rich at all, now, does he? save the fact that there are over 300M Americans, and less than 230 years of American history. The argument is that we're burning up, but the trend line doesn't show this so well. The deniers are right - some explanation is needed for the flat line, the disappearance of major hurricanes, all while emissions by the US and China continue unchecked. There is no flat line when sulfate aerosols are accounted for. I already posted the reference.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #91 July 10, 2012 QuoteQuote The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. so stated a different way, 2011 was the 3rd coldest of the past 11 years. Has a slightly different ring to it... 11 years is the solar sunspot cycle. Which is why periods longer than 11 years need to be examined. You are as intellectually dishonest as mnealtx in taking 1998 as a starting point when it was an el Nino year.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #92 July 10, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Something caused temperatures to flatten out between 1940 and 1980. It seems you can't explain it. Perhaps it was the "cold war".There are natural variations superimposed on the long term trend. What is so hard to understand about that? I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Nope. Statistics didn't cause temperatures to flatten out for 40 years. Something environmentally related did. I'd like to know what that was. If you don't know, just say so and stop tap dancing. D.I. Stern / Chemosphere 58 (2005) 163–175 explains it. I didn't ask him, I asked you. If you don't know, just say so. Read the article like I did, lazy bastard.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #93 July 10, 2012 >save the fact that there are over 300M Americans, and less than 230 years of >American history. Yes, when you add in the background it does sound different, doesn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #94 July 10, 2012 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #95 July 10, 2012 So without CO2 emissions, we'd be facing climate change from sulfate aerosols. Because it says exactly the same thing only with a sifferent message. Kinda like "sea levels may rise six feet" is another way of saying "sea levels probably won't rise six feet." But with a wholly different inferred message. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #96 July 10, 2012 QuoteSo without CO2 emissions, we'd be facing climate change from sulfate aerosols. Because it says exactly the same thing only with a sifferent message. Kinda like "sea levels may rise six feet" is another way of saying "sea levels probably won't rise six feet." But with a wholly different inferred message. Sulfate emissions have been cut back drastically since the 1980s, which is why the "flat" spot ended. Read the article, it's explained in there. Then you won't make silly comments.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #97 July 10, 2012 John: perhpas I'm limited by my blackberry but I'm having a hard time finding your sulfate aerosols cite. But I found this: [Quote]I wonder how the inhabitants of Tuvalu will adapt to being submerged. I've written on more than one occasion about Tuvalu. Such as the problem that Tuvalu has isn't too much water but not enough fresh water. And that sea level has been lowering around Tuvalu. And the money from .tv websites has dried up. Tuvalu is a CLASSIC example of using projected climate change as a scapegoat for other problems in order to obtain global sympathy. Tuvalu has had a hard time with it locally, though. Not even Australia is buying their argument. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #98 July 10, 2012 QuoteJohn: perhpas I'm limited by my blackberry but I'm having a hard time finding your sulfate aerosols cite. The gist is that a huge increase in air pollution (particularly aerosols from industrial processes) during and after WWII increased albedo. The pollution also caused other problems such as acid rain, resulting in pollution controls that reduced the aerosol levels starting in the mid 1970s. There isn't only one factor determining global temperatures. When known, measurable factors such as aerosols, el-Nino/la-Nina events, volcanism, etc, are accounted for, there is a very steady long term trend of temeperature increase.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #99 July 10, 2012 Quote11 years is the solar sunspot cycle. Which is why periods longer than 11 years need to be examined. You are as intellectually dishonest as mnealtx in taking 1998 as a starting point when it was an el Nino year. Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, it's funny how 1998 was just FINE to use as long as it was proving warming. Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you'll note that we're *PAST* that 11 year mark, El Nino year or not. Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, it's funny how just a year or two is just FINE to talk about warming, but lack of warming requires 11 years or more to even be noted. I'd say it's YOUR side that has the market cornered on the intellectual dishonesty.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 July 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteJohn: perhpas I'm limited by my blackberry but I'm having a hard time finding your sulfate aerosols cite. The gist is that a huge increase in air pollution (particularly aerosols from industrial processes) during and after WWII increased albedo. The pollution also caused other problems such as acid rain, resulting in pollution controls that reduced the aerosol levels starting in the mid 1970s. There isn't only one factor determining global temperatures. When known, measurable factors such as aerosols, el-Nino/la-Nina events, volcanism, etc, are accounted for, there is a very steady long term trend of temeperature increase. So, show the events that ended the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)