CO2 levels may have been higher in the distant past but the Sun was also dimmer so it didn't provide as much energy input then. That's one part of the explanation.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas but it can't drive climate because it's concentration in the atmosphere is limited, primarily by temperature. CO2 is the 2nd most important GHG and it has no such limitation. The atmosphere could be 100% CO2.
One scientist recently described CO2 levels as the big dial on climate and other things affecting it are the vernier dials.
The Holocene climate optimum occurred during a period when the axial tilt was 24 degrees (23.44 degrees now) and perihelion was during the northern hemisphere summer. That amounts to about 8% more solar radiation during the northern summer. Areas in the tropics and the southern hemisphere were colder and the overall temperature was probably lower than present day temperatures. The 4 C increase for the HCO was for the North Pole, not the globe as a whole.
Which probably would produce quite a bit of warming, due to the exothermic chemical reactions involved.
Not even close. The energy coming daily from the sun far outstrips anything humans can muster. At most you might have a relatively short term regional effect.
As are ice cores. Which show CO2 concentration following temperature by several hundred years.
What evidence do you have that that precludes CO2 driving temperature change? It's not enough to say that's the way it's always been, you have to give some evidence that it can't be the other way around.
There's quite a bit of historical evidence that humans did very well in previous warm periods.
CO2 levels are much higher now than they have ever been in humans existence on the planet. Current science indicates the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now was over 15 million years ago. The genus Home didn't come into existence until around 2.5 million years ago.
Scientists are well aware of the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature. They don't ignore it, they just say that changes in solar activity are not big enough to explain the climate changes we are observing. Solar activity rose some during the first half of the 1900's then leveled off and remained pretty steady during the last half. That's not to say the solar cycles didn't happen, just that lately the variations each cycle were equivalent and a long term trend line of the activity is nearly level.
What is the cost of not going carbon free? What is the cost if global warming reduces the wheat harvest in Kansas by 25%? What is the cost if sea level is up 3 feet in 2100? What is the cost if ocean acidification reduces the seafood harvest by 50%? Unless you take into account the natural systems that sustain our civilization you cost calculations are bogus.
I have to laugh every time you guys bring up the 1970's global cooling scare. A study of papers relevant to the subject from 1967 to 1979 found over 40 papers supportive of global warming and fewer than 10 about cooling. And a couple of those were projecting what could happen if the levels of SO2 and other industrial aerosols continued to rise which they didn't. The 70's global cooling scare is a story that got sensationalized by Time and Newsweek but it was not a leading idea in the scientific community.
Please see my previous post on surfacestations.org. An analysis based on surfacestations ratings showed a slight negative bias on temperature trends in records from poorly sited weather stations. It is perfectly acceptable to correct "primary data" if you know of quantifiable systemic errors or changes in instruments that can also be quantified. Those are the sorts of reasons data is corrected, not because it doesn't match some predetermined conclusion. Do you really think correcting for known errors is wrong?
I don't know that they're refuting Watts so much as using the data he collected on surface station quality to help analyze the reliability of their data. Of course Watts doesn't like their conclusions so much.
But look it up and compare to CO2 levels 2 thousand or more years ago. They were higher than today and they were lower than today.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! (My reaction when I read that line).
As AC said direct measurement of CO2 from ice cores going back 800,000 years shows levels were never higher than 300 ppm. Further paleo research indicates it's been 15 million years since CO2 levels have been as high as they are now. The genus Homo only evolved into existence about 2.5 million years ago. Homo Sapiens only evolved around 200,000 years ago. So humans have never existed on this planet with the CO2 level as high as it is now.
CO2 blocks very little solar radiation. It is transparent to the visible light that makes up most of the spectrum. Some of that incoming visible light energy is absorbed by the surface and re-radiated as infrared energy which CO2 does block.
Apples and oranges. A 10 year period does not describe a climate trend, just natural variability. 150 years is long enough to describe a climate trend. 1850 was chosen somewhat arbitrarily as a time when there were enough weather stations with a good enough geographical spread to be able to compile the data into a global picture. Records at some of the stations go back to the 1700's. NASA/GISS starts their data in 1880.
Yet a recent scientific study that specifically uses the surfacestations.org data to analyze the reliability of surface temperature trends shows if anything a slight negative trend bias from the poorly sited weather stations. The paper is "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" (PDF) by Menne, Williams and Palecki and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2010. It specifically cites surfacestations.org and Watts. Watts has done the scientific community a service by forcing them to examine the reliability of their measurements more closely and the result is it strengthens confidence in reliability.
Abstract Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
Yet a recent scientific study that specifically uses the surfacestations.org data to analyze the reliability of surface temperature trends shows if anything a slight negative trend bias from the poorly sited weather stations. The paper is "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" (PDF) by Menne, Williams and Palecki and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2010. It specifically cites surfacestations.org and Watts.
Abstract Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
While I agree with most posters here that it's a silly rule I would point out that the fax header orientation in this case is opposite of the body orientation. If what is in the header is important to the USPTO (timestamp?) they may have a minor point.
You and I pay attention to those sorts of things but many, maybe most people do not. And there are a myriad of ways to conceal that sort of thing in corporate structures. I'd just as soon make it illegal for anyone but a citizen to contribute to a political campaign. Corporations are not citizens. They have plenty of opportunity to influence the political process through lobbying.
You nailed it. I think it's projection. If the other guys are doing it then it's ok if I do it so they twist things to sound like the others are and so it's never their fault. The right just wants worker drones educated just enough to do their work.
Slashdot Mirror
If he was the zit on his ass that kept him from being drafted he'd be recursive.
No, disuede is two tone leather apparel having a particular napped finish. What you want is dissuede.
Doesn't the government have to insure nuclear plants because the private sector won't?
Yup.
CO2 levels may have been higher in the distant past but the Sun was also dimmer so it didn't provide as much energy input then. That's one part of the explanation.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas but it can't drive climate because it's concentration in the atmosphere is limited, primarily by temperature. CO2 is the 2nd most important GHG and it has no such limitation. The atmosphere could be 100% CO2.
One scientist recently described CO2 levels as the big dial on climate and other things affecting it are the vernier dials.
I wouldn't say the terrorists have won yet but they've been accomplishing many of their goals like bankrupting the US.
The Holocene climate optimum occurred during a period when the axial tilt was 24 degrees (23.44 degrees now) and perihelion was during the northern hemisphere summer. That amounts to about 8% more solar radiation during the northern summer. Areas in the tropics and the southern hemisphere were colder and the overall temperature was probably lower than present day temperatures. The 4 C increase for the HCO was for the North Pole, not the globe as a whole.
Which probably would produce quite a bit of warming, due to the exothermic chemical reactions involved.
Not even close. The energy coming daily from the sun far outstrips anything humans can muster. At most you might have a relatively short term regional effect.
As are ice cores. Which show CO2 concentration following temperature by several hundred years.
What evidence do you have that that precludes CO2 driving temperature change? It's not enough to say that's the way it's always been, you have to give some evidence that it can't be the other way around.
There's quite a bit of historical evidence that humans did very well in previous warm periods.
CO2 levels are much higher now than they have ever been in humans existence on the planet. Current science indicates the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now was over 15 million years ago. The genus Home didn't come into existence until around 2.5 million years ago.
Scientists are well aware of the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature. They don't ignore it, they just say that changes in solar activity are not big enough to explain the climate changes we are observing. Solar activity rose some during the first half of the 1900's then leveled off and remained pretty steady during the last half. That's not to say the solar cycles didn't happen, just that lately the variations each cycle were equivalent and a long term trend line of the activity is nearly level.
What is the cost of not going carbon free? What is the cost if global warming reduces the wheat harvest in Kansas by 25%? What is the cost if sea level is up 3 feet in 2100? What is the cost if ocean acidification reduces the seafood harvest by 50%? Unless you take into account the natural systems that sustain our civilization you cost calculations are bogus.
I have to laugh every time you guys bring up the 1970's global cooling scare. A study of papers relevant to the subject from 1967 to 1979 found over 40 papers supportive of global warming and fewer than 10 about cooling. And a couple of those were projecting what could happen if the levels of SO2 and other industrial aerosols continued to rise which they didn't. The 70's global cooling scare is a story that got sensationalized by Time and Newsweek but it was not a leading idea in the scientific community.
Please see my previous post on surfacestations.org. An analysis based on surfacestations ratings showed a slight negative bias on temperature trends in records from poorly sited weather stations. It is perfectly acceptable to correct "primary data" if you know of quantifiable systemic errors or changes in instruments that can also be quantified. Those are the sorts of reasons data is corrected, not because it doesn't match some predetermined conclusion. Do you really think correcting for known errors is wrong?
Also, CO2 is a plant food.
So is shit.
I like that. Can I use it?
I don't know that they're refuting Watts so much as using the data he collected on surface station quality to help analyze the reliability of their data. Of course Watts doesn't like their conclusions so much.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! (My reaction when I read that line).
As AC said direct measurement of CO2 from ice cores going back 800,000 years shows levels were never higher than 300 ppm. Further paleo research indicates it's been 15 million years since CO2 levels have been as high as they are now. The genus Homo only evolved into existence about 2.5 million years ago. Homo Sapiens only evolved around 200,000 years ago. So humans have never existed on this planet with the CO2 level as high as it is now.
CO2 blocks very little solar radiation. It is transparent to the visible light that makes up most of the spectrum. Some of that incoming visible light energy is absorbed by the surface and re-radiated as infrared energy which CO2 does block.
Apples and oranges. A 10 year period does not describe a climate trend, just natural variability. 150 years is long enough to describe a climate trend. 1850 was chosen somewhat arbitrarily as a time when there were enough weather stations with a good enough geographical spread to be able to compile the data into a global picture. Records at some of the stations go back to the 1700's. NASA/GISS starts their data in 1880.
Yet a recent scientific study that specifically uses the surfacestations.org data to analyze the reliability of surface temperature trends shows if anything a slight negative trend bias from the poorly sited weather stations. The paper is "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" (PDF) by Menne, Williams and Palecki and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2010. It specifically cites surfacestations.org and Watts. Watts has done the scientific community a service by forcing them to examine the reliability of their measurements more closely and the result is it strengthens confidence in reliability.
Yet a recent scientific study that specifically uses the surfacestations.org data to analyze the reliability of surface temperature trends shows if anything a slight negative trend bias from the poorly sited weather stations. The paper is "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" (PDF) by Menne, Williams and Palecki and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2010. It specifically cites surfacestations.org and Watts.
While I agree with most posters here that it's a silly rule I would point out that the fax header orientation in this case is opposite of the body orientation. If what is in the header is important to the USPTO (timestamp?) they may have a minor point.
Well, the easy way is that the header information that the fax machine adds to the fax will have the opposite orientation from the body of the fax.
Just think how I felt about 1984 (born in 1952).
You and I pay attention to those sorts of things but many, maybe most people do not. And there are a myriad of ways to conceal that sort of thing in corporate structures. I'd just as soon make it illegal for anyone but a citizen to contribute to a political campaign. Corporations are not citizens. They have plenty of opportunity to influence the political process through lobbying.
You nailed it. I think it's projection. If the other guys are doing it then it's ok if I do it so they twist things to sound like the others are and so it's never their fault. The right just wants worker drones educated just enough to do their work.
If I could use my mod points here you'd get an (ironically) insightful mod from me.
Money != speech. It is merely an amplifier of speech. Why should Bill Gates have 200,000* times as much free speech as I do?
*Estimate based on estimated net worth.