|
7914. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:07:06 PM Re. 7911 -
Any such linkage is in your own mind, Wombat. I take it you are comfortable with with the EPA calling CO2 a 'pollutant', even though in no reasonable or logical sense could it be considered one.
Given the above, you certainly don't have grounds to call me 'stupid' or an 'ignoramus'. 7915. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:13:15 PM It is also totally irrational to fixate on anthropogenic CO2 and ignore the orders of magnitude greater effects of water vapor on global temperature. 7916. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:16:05 PM Wombat probably also believes that the current administration and Democrats in general give a flying fuck about the US Constitution and governmental checks and balances in general when so many of them have gone on record as wanting to seriously modify and/or discard them because they are 'outdated', etc., etc.
Ha! 7917. Wombat - 4/19/2012 5:24:15 PM Examples? 7918. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:27:33 PM Interesting that global temperatures today are probably lower than the average between 9000 BC and 0 AD. What kind of CO2 belching Flinstonemobiles were they using then? 7919. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:30:19 PM The GISP2 records actually show a 2C declining trend on average over the last 2,000 years that continues today. 7920. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:32:01 PM Over the longer term, the current interglacial optimum is the longest of any during the last half million years. Probably the basis for the original global cooling scare that was fashionable in the '70's. 7921. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:39:05 PM Re. 7920 -
Make that 400,000 years, not half million. 7922. concerned - 4/19/2012 7:07:37 PM Quote from cite:
From figure 3 it is obvious that the global meteorological record (Fig.4) begins in the final part of the Little Ice Age, and thereby documents the following temperature increase, especially clear since about 1915. In other words, the temperature increase documented by meteorological records represents the temperature recovery following the cold Little Ice Age. The ongoing climate debate is essentially about this being mainly a natural temperature recovery, or caused by atmospheric CO2, especially for the time after 1975? It can, however, from figures 2, 3 and 4 be concluded that the temperature increase 1975-2000 is not unique when compared with past records, and that the net effect on temperature by atmospheric CO2 has been small or even absent (Fig.3).
So you all can stop fibrillating now.
7923. concerned - 4/19/2012 7:18:06 PM A problem that dwarfs global warming in terms of temperature increase magnitude: Urban Heat Islands
It would seem that planting trees in urban environments is one of the most practical ways to ameliorate this problem. Interesting that Leftists want to cram people like sardines in urban centers which would tend to maximize the heat island effect. 7924. OhioSTOPAS - 4/19/2012 7:42:21 PM Wrong. The contribution of urban heat islands to global temperature increase is minor compared to the effect of greenhouse gases. Cite 7925. concerned - 4/19/2012 7:48:47 PM Re. 7924 -
Read more carefully - that is not what I claimed. I was talking about the relative change to the urban environment itself due to the UHI effect compared to global warming. 7926. OhioSTOPAS - 4/19/2012 9:33:04 PM Not really - but if so, then what was your point?
Paved surfaces cause a localized increase in temperature. So does turning on your oven. What does that have to do with world-wide temperature increases? 7927. concerned - 4/19/2012 9:36:46 PM It has plenty to do with them if temperature measuring stations in UHIs are reading 3-6C high and are not be properly compensated for. 7928. concerned - 4/19/2012 9:36:57 PM ...not being.... 7929. OhioSTOPAS - 4/19/2012 9:53:33 PM Oh, so your point is that global temperature measurements have been warped by placement of stations in hotter than average areas like "urban islands" (or my kitchen)? In that case: Wrong again.
This canard was a favorite of global warming "skeptics", but it's been refuted. Cite 7930. concerned - 4/19/2012 10:46:44 PM Re. 7929 -
Interesting cite, but still doesn't address the point I made that the appearance of global warming can be obtained merely by closing many of the more rural stations (and/or opening more urban stations), which has been the case during the last couple of decades.
Close rural stations, open urban stations....average temperature from remaining stations goes up. Isn't science fraud grand? 7931. concerned - 4/19/2012 10:48:03 PM Btw, I see that the Berkeley site references this guy Muller who was recently exposed as a global warming fraudster. 7932. Wombat - 4/20/2012 1:19:56 AM In what way? 7933. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2012 12:50:57 PM "Interesting cite, but still doesn't address the point . . ."
Wrong. Muller's work EXACTLY addresses the point. Muller examined the readings from "very rural" stations, and those readings confirmed an increase in global temperatures independent of any readings from stations in "urban heat islands".
Nor has Muller been "exposed" as being anything other than a scientist who bases his conclusions on actual fact. That's heresy to global warming skeptics, I know, but it's not "fraud".
|
