Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Global Warming] Re: No statistical evidence that the earth is cooling

Expand Messages
  • poitsplace
    BTW, I saw an interesting talk by Richard Lindzen (which was actually about the fact that outgoing radiation seems to indicate that feedbacks are negative)...
    Message 1 of 94 , Nov 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      BTW, I saw an interesting talk by Richard Lindzen (which was actually about the fact that outgoing radiation seems to indicate that feedbacks are negative)...

      ...anyway, speaking of no statistical evidence of cooling...he pointed out that once you toss in the standard deviation... temperatures also aren't statistically different than they were in the mid 90s.


      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
      >
      > By whose suggestion?
      >
      > poitsplace wrote:
      > > So then you now agree that the long term trend...is the trend. Well it's good we're on the same page. The total warming suggested ...assuming 100% was caused by CO2... by either the linear rate or in proportion to CO2's logarithmic increases should be around 1C, maybe as high as 1.3C.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@> wrote:
      > >
      > >> This was just to show that the recent weather is not statistically
      > >> important enough to say that the earth is cooling like many of the
      > >> illiterate skeptics keep harping on. The earth is not cooling. The
      > >> trends are based on surface temperature records. There is not enough
      > >> satellite data over a long enough time period to formulate a trend.
      > >>
      > >> poitsplace wrote:
      > >>
      > >>> Wait, we're suffering "unprecedented" and "accelerating" warming and you guys had to take the data to statisticians to tell if it was going up or down? LOL, and they ignore the satellite data...literally because it's showing cooling. Priceless!
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lwaynes_world" <kb0syf@> wrote:
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>> http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/10/earth_is_not_cooling_according_1.html
      > >>>>
      > >>>> How do these statisticians stack up with McIntyre?
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> ------------------------------------
      > >>>
      > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Wayne
      Even if it cyclic as you state, you have not given us any real evidence that it is connected to solar activity. It is equally as valid to point to biological
      Message 94 of 94 , Nov 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Even if it cyclic as you state, you have not given us any real evidence
        that it is connected to solar activity. It is equally as valid to point
        to biological activity. After all it is believed by most that organisms
        were responsible for developing the atmosphere as it exists today. Man
        is an organism who is disturbing the balance of the cycles of life. One
        in particular, the carbon cycle. You should expand your understanding of
        the processes on earth to allow the biological as well as the physical.

        Your last paragraph is not at all scientific and is swimming in
        political dogma and propaganda.

        Chris Miller wrote:
        > The interesting thing about this discussion is the lack of a point being made, just looks like people with their "blinders" on taking about CO2 and Methane aimlessly with no conclusions and no explanation. This of course is an attempth at reaching for an answer that isn't there.
        >
        > In other words in trying to discuss global warming no one is willing to falsely admit it's caused by CO2, and no one is really willing to admit it's a Fourier wave due to methane for the last 40,000 years.
        >
        > I'm willing to say It's most likely cyclical due to the Fourier series of repeating ice ages. If any warming has occured, (there is no real evidence of it), then it most likely be solar activity.
        >
        > The cost of having this discussion at this time in history is everybody's freedom, because the world socialists are trying to exploit it to create onerous regulations. Actually a new "green communism" is being instigated by the ruling elite, due to this sort of paranoid belief of man caused global warming.
        >
        > --- On Thu, 11/12/09, poitsplace <poitsplace@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: poitsplace <poitsplace@...>
        > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: No statistical evidence that the earth is cooling
        > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:17 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Look, the problem is this is all speculation. People (including many scientists) are caught up in this goofy loop in which they ignore the fact that the CO2/methane correlations show little driving capability.. .but ASSUME it's true and go thru the kind of mental gymnastics religious people do to warp it to their perception. Temperatures PLUNGE while CO2/methane remain high. THEY ARE PROXIES, little more. Methane has too short a half life and CO2 has too little impact.
        >
        > If you just do some rough calculations on the difference in albedo between glacial maximum and the interglacial period there is FAR more water vapor and albedo feedback (which is almost entirely absent in the interglacial periods) than there is CO2/Methane feedback. I'm not kidding its something over an order of magnitude. You're literally implying the tail wags the dog.
        >
        > You need to remember that during the glacial maximum most of europe was covered in ice (High albedo). Most of asia was covered in desert (high albedo). Most of north america was covered in ice/desert (high albedo). Also, sea ice extended closer to the equator than 50 degrees (high albedo). Oh, also as is evidenced from even the antarctic ice, there was a LOT of dust blowing around the world, again...high albedo. Seriously, we're probably talking something like a 30watt per meter deficit in earth's energy budget.
        >
        > Do I even need to mention that water vapor ties up over 30% of earth's entire energy budget in a form that CANNOT be radiated until later? (during the late afternoon and at night). CO2 and methane are insignificant when compared to earth's incredible insensitivity to these other forcings/feedbacks.
        >
        > --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, "coloradoken" <ken.macclune@ ...> wrote:
        >
        >> Interesting statistic. 1/2 methane from ag. Where does it come from?
        >>
        >> co2 as lagging historically has to due with oceans and how they absorb co2 according to temperature. Physics to date show contiued warming in prevoius interglacials due to co2 as well as ch4.
        >> Ken
        >> --- In globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com, Freddy Hutter <fredh@> wrote:
        >>
        >>> About 1/2 of methane emissions last year were agriculture related. It
        >>> is a figure that is diminishing in % as arctic methane release
        >>> increases. We will probably find that the co2 contribution to global
        >>> warming GHGs has been overstated and Methane will be found to be the
        >>> true culprit. co2 may be just a proxy marker, which would explain its
        >>> tendency to be "lagging" indicator rather than a leading one over the
        >>> past 2 million years.
        >>>
        >>> Freddy H>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> Chris Miller wrote:
        >>>
        >>>> I've heard some of this too, but please note the time frame-every 40000 years. There is only from 0.1-0.3% CO2 in the atmosphere, and plants breathe CO2 in and exhale O2. There is no greenhouse effect from CO2. There never will be either.
        >>>>
        >>>> As for cattle flaggelence. Cattle occurs naturally, and so you imply that it is the Earth's tendency for animal's to release methane, therefore causing global warming. Therefore you would conclude that it is the Earth's tendency to destroy itself. The Earth does not destroy itself. The concept is wrong, as is the concept that decimal values of CO2 will cause global warming and thereby destroy the earth.
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, Freddy Hutter<fredh@ > wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> From: Freddy Hutter<fredh@ >
        >>>> Subject: Re: [Global Warming] Re: No statistical evidence that the earth is cooling
        >>>> To: globalwarming@ yahoogroups. com
        >>>> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 3:35 PM
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> Actually, yes ... indirectly. Methane. As each ice episode builds, the
        >>>> sea level recedes 400'. The allows a lessening of water pressure on the
        >>>> methane clathrate ocean beds. Methane percolates to the surface, then
        >>>> releases to the atmosphere, and the resultant high ppm's extinguish the
        >>>> ice age. And the cycle repeats. Every 40,000 years. Harmonics create
        >>>> a super cycle each 200-k years.
        >>>>
        >>>> Freddy H>
        >>>> TrendLines Research
        >>>>
        >>>> Chris Miller wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>> However, let me ask you why the last ice age ended several thousand years ago? Let me guess cattle flaggilence?
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> ------------ --------- --------- ------
        >>>>
        >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>
        >>>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.