First I might recommend you look outside one source, the IPCC, for your data. You may poo poo those that have problems with their data, but by looking at only one source you bias your data, and your interpretation of the situation.
Regardless of anything else, I doubt the International Panel on Climate Change is going to release a report that says "Yup, everything is fine, nothing to worry about, you can start cutting our funding at any time." I'm not saying they are completely wrong, I'm simply saying they have a dog in this fight, and you can find plenty of reputable climatologist that take issue with them, a few months ago one resigned over his data that he felt they were misrepresenting. There have been other resignations, less formal than that.
Regardless, I'm not going to sit here and point for point you at 4:30 AM. I will say this though.
Figure 1 and 2: Second is the (in)famous Mann graph. Much disputed. There's lots to say about it, all of which you can easily find yourself. You may start at http://www.climateaudit.org/ Suffice to say. I might ask where in the second graph are the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age. You are aware that at least one data set in the graph was derived from a single tree.
Figure 3 and 4: I think you might have posted the wrong link. None of those graphs are about radiative emissions. They are about greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations, using leading graphs with scales that accentuate current increases.
Effect from volcanic eruptions that last only a few years are from aerosols. These are the same people (IPCC) that say that CO2 last for centuries in the atmosphere (I won't argue that at all), Volcanoes spew CO2, why does it not persist in the atmosphere like Man made CO2?, and how can they tell the difference from Volcanic and man made CO2?
The aerosol effect is a separate issue, there is little argument to be had there. Large volcano, lowered global temperatures. We have data on enough eruptions to show cause and effect. And yes the -aerosol- effect is limited to a few years. But that is not what I was talking about, I was talking about natural emissions of CO2.
You missed the point. I was replying to a poster who specifically asked for other factors. So far as I know he is not a climate scientist. In fact I highly doubt it.
I never said that they hadn't considered such facts. You been in the sauce or something. I haven't trashed any scientists. You seem to be ons ome sort of Luxan hyper-rage or something.
Ah I had a brain fart on the scale of 50 parts per million (too many numbers, I get confused). It is only off the scale because they decided to limit it by 10% or so.
Anyways, I notice you decided to comment on that minor gaf on my part. I notice no comment of accusing me of saying 450 years when I actually did say 450 thousand. Or any of the other points I made.
Oh and another point.
You said: "The real problem with permafrost melting is that the frozen ground in many of these places holds back massive amounts of greenhouse gasses,"
This in respons to me saying that the problem is the peat decomposing, THe PEAT is what is holding back the greenhouse gasses. And again, I already mentioned it, and it references the fact that if plant life grew there, it couldn't have always been frozen, hence not "perma" frost
But anyways to put Atmospheric CO2 levels in perspective.
During the Cambrian periood it peaked at 7000 ppm, a tad bit higher than our current 375 or so, I notice you didn't acknowledge your incorrect comment that it's higher now that it every has been.
That graph does not show a temprature scale on the left.
The idea that what we've done in the past 50 years ( 0.6C/1 F ) is equivelant to the change in 50 million years is so absurd I feel sick.
That scale reflects between 10.5C and 14C, and there are spikes that cover alomst the entire range. Less than a degree C would be hard to see in the thousand year averages reflected there. You wouldn't even be able to pick out the 20th century and it's changes if it was shown.
I'm sorry but that graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels higher than they are today (present time is on the far right hind of the scale, there are at least two peaks higher)
In addition sediment from Japan was recently measured to show atmospheric concentrations of CO2 100 times greater than present. So I would not say they 50% higher than ever before.
In addition no one expects them to go up by an additional 50% in any kind of reasonable time frame (hundreds of years). So nothing to worry about there. Particularly since CO2 levels were, again, higher in the past, going by that graph, and life went on.
It's interesting to note that most of the proxy data is counting of tree rings, and growth. Wider ring is more growth equals higher temperatures. So at least trees and plants have something to look forward to.
Oh yes and since we are picking scales in graphs and all. Your origianl link to Wikipedia was not of temprature over milions of years. The scale on the left is of oxygen isotopes, and the graph shows the ratio over time.
In oherwards your link had nothing to do with your comment. The comment was about temprature, the link was about Oxygen isotope concentrations in the atmosphere.
"however it is estimated that each 1 part per thousand change in ä18O represents roughly a 1.5-2 C change in tropical sea surface temperatures (Veizer et al. 2000)."
"in 450 thousand years" THat is not opinion, I did say that.
Since you can't edit posts on/. it's still up there for everyone to see and I couldn't have changed it. You said "A 1 degree change is something nature usually does over millions of years"
I showed 5 seperate changes of 6 orders of magnitude in 1/10th the time scale.
"However the evidence is for a very sudden acceleration in warming since 1960, and the sceptics need to explain that. "
Easy enough, late 60,s was at the bottom of 3 decade long cooling trend. Thos slopes of that trend down, and the previous slope up are not that far divergent from the current trend up, of which we peaked a couple of years ago, and we will now see 30 years of a cooling trend (slope unknown) which should net our Ruskies $10,000
Do I get extra points for bringing it back to the original article?
All of the things I metnioned are regularly discussed in climatoligists circles.
In fact if you would go to the article at the top of the page. You will see that they discuss sunspot effect on climate.
Cloud cover is a particualr issue, since no climate model now can use it as a variable. This is discussed quite a bit, amongst climatologists.
I've not mentioned anything that climatologist do not disuss on a daily basis.
If anything I would say they are things people like you, and the poster I was replying to, do not consider. IN fact I was directly answering the grandparents request for other "plausible" factors.
This shows 5 separate changes in excess of 6 Degrees C in 450 thousand years. This graph is supplied by the AGW crowd.
I don't know where you get the 1 degree change in a million years, I don't know of any scientific study that would claim such a thing. We regularly see greater changes than that in any time scale greater than a minute. Day, hour, month, year, decade, Century, Millennium. In fact we saw a change greater than 1 degree from 1850 to 1900.
As to the permafrost comment. A recent glacier receded in Greenland. They talked about how it had been there since the last Ice Age. They also mentioned that under the Ice was revealed a Viking Church. I don't know how to correlate the two comments, as the Vikings weren't around 10,000 years ago, since the church is tangible, and the comments is un-substantiated. I would go with the fact that the glacier was not there during Viking times, since I don't believe they would go through the trouble to build a church under a glacier.
As to the permafrost. The concern is the decomposing of the Peat underneath. Since peat is made of plants that cannot grow in permafrost, I would reckon that there never was much "perma" in permafrost. I would be greatly interested in any carbon dating of said peat.
A. Sun
"Wouldn't they be able to tell if the sun was having some kind of effect? Aren't they able to measure these kinds of things?"
Of course they can measure such things. Your skill at finding charts comparing other such things (CH and CO2 emissions in relation to temperature) is more than satisfactory. May I suggest you find a similar chart comparing solar output to global mean temperature. Sunspot activity would also be useful. The article should offer plenty of help in locating such information.
B. Water vapor
"I would think they could measure this also. If they can tell how many parts per million of CO2 is in the air, I would think they could do the same thing for water vapor."
Again of course. Usually water vapor levels are reported in weather reports using the term humidity. It is also well known that water vapor accounts for the majority of greenhouse warming, minimum I've seen is 60%+ up to 88%+ Some go even further into the 90% range, none are below 60%. IIRC water vapor alone accounts for about 30C warming making earth livable.
Concerning the 30C #, remembr the greenhouse effect is logarithmic.
C. Natural variation (Entropy, ringing)
"I don't know what this has to do with global warming, so I can't comment on it."
There are any factors to climate, I gave two examples of fluctuation that would be visible over a small (decades) time scale. Entropy can be seen with things like the 1998 El Nino, where large amounts or warm water, trapped deep in the Pacific, were suddenly released, causing an enormous spike in global temperatures. Ringing is the phenomenon whereby after a drastic change (the ending of an ice age for example). Thermal inertia can force temperatures beyond, or below what should be equilibrium, forcing a diminishing sine wave temperature change, independent of other factors.
D. Loss of cloud cover
"Wouldn't the loss of cloud cover be a result of other things? The loss of cloud cover wouldn't really cause global warming. It would merely be the byproduct of something else that was causing it."
Cloud cover drastically effects the Earths albedo. It should be obvious. On cloudy days the lack of sunlight makes it cooler, on cloudless days you can feel the direct warming of the sun. I don't understand why you wouldn't see the effect this could have. It should be noted that an important variable that Mathematical climate models can not incorporate is cloud cover, it is accepted that cloud cover has a significant effect.
E. Natural emissions of greenhouse gasses
"Have there really been enough volcanoes in the last hundred years or so to produce the kind of effect that is happening?"
Quick numbers, by no means complete.
Human emissions of CO2 approx 500 million tons per year.
Mt. Etna, produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day. 12.775 million tons per year, or 2.5% of human emissions. From One volcano.
East of Naples are some CO2 emitting vents (not volcanoes) There are approximately 175. Just one emits 200 tons per day, or 73,000 tons per year. Even conservatively that one area emits just as much as Mount Etna (Which is nearby)
In 1986 a massive upwelling of CO2 at Lake Nyos in Cameron released an estimated 100 Million cubic feet (don't know conversion to weight) of Carbon Dioxide. In 1984 there was a similar eruption in Lake Monoun
"The climate has certainly changed many times before mankind was around. The question is, has it ever changed as drastically as has been reported?"
In the last 150 - 300 years? No. In the past, before man, yes, quite often actually. Research it, there have been dramatic climatic changes that put the current 1 degree F per century in perspective. Your second graph from NCDC even shows numerous extremely drastic deviations. On
Even after re-reading your post. You strongly insinuate that human emissions are the only thing that could cause such warming, to the point of asking the grandparent for and "plausible" examples of things that could cause such an amount of warming. Your entire post was basically that you cannot conceive of anything that would have such an effect
Hence your stance that there is nothing that could possibly have such an effect. I offered a variety of examples.
I'll let my position stand and others judge on what we've both written.
While there are some isues with that graph, lets not examine those for a moment. Lets look at some of that data. A smaller portion of the whole.
If you will look at the date of ~1940 until ~1975. You will not something. The temperature during that time actually drops from a high in the late 30s until approximately the Oil Crisis of the 70s.
To give some context to this time. This period starts right about the time Hitler was invading Poland, and the entry of the world into WWII. During the beginning of this period, much of the world, including the US, was still agrarian. Few people owned cars, even fewer had ever ridden on an airplane. This is shortly after the rural electricification program ended, prior to this there were many people in the US who didn't have electricity or indoor toilets (In rural areas). As we entered WWII industry the world over soared, this was a period of the greatest increase in industrial output in all of Human history, dwarfing anything we have now. This continued throughout WWII, and then after (How are you going to keep them on the farm after they've seen gay Parie). It was during this time that two cars per household became common. People that had not flown on a plane were in the minority, not just here, but the world over. More importantly this wasn't the "efficient" and "clean" industry of today, recall the muscle cars of the 60's. Then energy efficiency wasn't even thought of. More importantly they didn't have the materials or technology to make efficient boilers or engines like we have today. It was during this period that we had the largest increase of greenhouse gasses.
And it was also during this time that the global climate dropped in temperature, enough so that Newsweek published the concerns of scientists that People were causing the problem of Global Cooling. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf/.
As to the graph. This is the surface temperature record. One of the serious weakness of AGW (that is often glossed over) is that based on "Greenhouse theory" The atmosphere warms, warming the surface. What we see from direct measurement is that the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, precluding that greenhouse warming is causing the surface temperature increase, and that a large portion of the heat increase can be attributed to larger land development, and the closeness of the sensors to developed areas, and less in rural, or in wilderness. And before someone posts any articles referencing the recent UAH MSU data that corrects for atmosphere warming by allowing for satellite drift. Keep in mind that that number, even in the most optimistic interpretations, still does not bring atmospheric warming up to the same level as surface temperatures, and based on greenhouse theory, atmospheric temperatures should be ~30% higher than surface. Even with the correction they are still below surface temperatures.
"So, what's your plausible alternative warming mechanism,"
A. Sun (I know it's a crackpot theory, but some people actually do think the sun has something to do with Earths Climate, and the Suns output does vary)
B. Water vapor (Much greater greenhouse gas than either Methane or CO2, also dictated by the laws of Physics, also increasing over time through natural means)
C. Natural variation (Entropy, ringing)
D. Loss of cloud cover
E. Natural emissions of greenhouse gasses (Volcanoes, deepwater CO2 and Methane out-gassing)
Do you honestly think that's mans carbon emissions are the ONLY thing that effects climate. Do you think that the earth had no climate variations before man?
They aren't the w3g.gkss.de is the Scientific link, the U.S. House of Represenetatives webshites are letters calling for Mann et all to release their data, and models, as well as a little nipple twist to also release their source of Funding. Since in that paragraph I was talking about peer review.
"There are Stirling engines which will run on the temperature gradient between the palm of your hand and ambient air."
Yes for an infinitesimally small load and no power output. An IC engine idling in neutral also gets very high efficiency.
"Powergen (a UK power company) are rolling out Stirling engines across the country. Replacing...."
Good proof is in the pudding, we'll see how it works out. Saying it will definitely be better before it's been implemented is counting ones eggs before they hatch. Remember standard boilers have a lifetime between 20 - 30 years, you've got to beat that AND get better efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
I probably confused with U.S. Emissions. Still thin that's on the high end of the scale.
d f/
http://www.climatechangedebate.org/pdf/FanPaper.p
First I might recommend you look outside one source, the IPCC, for your data. You may poo poo those that have problems with their data, but by looking at only one source you bias your data, and your interpretation of the situation.
Regardless of anything else, I doubt the International Panel on Climate Change is going to release a report that says "Yup, everything is fine, nothing to worry about, you can start cutting our funding at any time." I'm not saying they are completely wrong, I'm simply saying they have a dog in this fight, and you can find plenty of reputable climatologist that take issue with them, a few months ago one resigned over his data that he felt they were misrepresenting. There have been other resignations, less formal than that.
Regardless, I'm not going to sit here and point for point you at 4:30 AM. I will say this though.
Figure 1 and 2: Second is the (in)famous Mann graph. Much disputed. There's lots to say about it, all of which you can easily find yourself. You may start at http://www.climateaudit.org/ Suffice to say. I might ask where in the second graph are the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age. You are aware that at least one data set in the graph was derived from a single tree.
Figure 3 and 4: I think you might have posted the wrong link. None of those graphs are about radiative emissions. They are about greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations, using leading graphs with scales that accentuate current increases.
Effect from volcanic eruptions that last only a few years are from aerosols. These are the same people (IPCC) that say that CO2 last for centuries in the atmosphere (I won't argue that at all), Volcanoes spew CO2, why does it not persist in the atmosphere like Man made CO2?, and how can they tell the difference from Volcanic and man made CO2?
The aerosol effect is a separate issue, there is little argument to be had there. Large volcano, lowered global temperatures. We have data on enough eruptions to show cause and effect. And yes the -aerosol- effect is limited to a few years. But that is not what I was talking about, I was talking about natural emissions of CO2.
And my point is, I have shown various examples where the earth has changed more than one degree in a century.
Fact of the matter is one degree is not all that signfigant.
It has happened in the past, and it has happened at a faster rate than it is currently happening.
Excuse me.
You missed the point. I was replying to a poster who specifically asked for other factors. So far as I know he is not a climate scientist. In fact I highly doubt it.
I never said that they hadn't considered such facts. You been in the sauce or something. I haven't trashed any scientists. You seem to be ons ome sort of Luxan hyper-rage or something.
You ARE the weekeast link. Goodbye.
Ah I had a brain fart on the scale of 50 parts per million (too many numbers, I get confused). It is only off the scale because they decided to limit it by 10% or so.
l imate.html/
Anyways, I notice you decided to comment on that minor gaf on my part. I notice no comment of accusing me of saying 450 years when I actually did say 450 thousand. Or any of the other points I made.
Oh and another point.
You said: "The real problem with permafrost melting is that the frozen ground in many of these places holds back massive amounts of greenhouse gasses,"
This in respons to me saying that the problem is the peat decomposing, THe PEAT is what is holding back the greenhouse gasses. And again, I already mentioned it, and it references the fact that if plant life grew there, it couldn't have always been frozen, hence not "perma" frost
But anyways to put Atmospheric CO2 levels in perspective.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_c
During the Cambrian periood it peaked at 7000 ppm, a tad bit higher than our current 375 or so, I notice you didn't acknowledge your incorrect comment that it's higher now that it every has been.
That graph does not show a temprature scale on the left.
The idea that what we've done in the past 50 years ( 0.6C/1 F ) is equivelant to the change in 50 million years is so absurd I feel sick.
That scale reflects between 10.5C and 14C, and there are spikes that cover alomst the entire range. Less than a degree C would be hard to see in the thousand year averages reflected there. You wouldn't even be able to pick out the 20th century and it's changes if it was shown.
I'm sorry but that graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels higher than they are today (present time is on the far right hind of the scale, there are at least two peaks higher)
In addition sediment from Japan was recently measured to show atmospheric concentrations of CO2 100 times greater than present. So I would not say they 50% higher than ever before.
In addition no one expects them to go up by an additional 50% in any kind of reasonable time frame (hundreds of years). So nothing to worry about there. Particularly since CO2 levels were, again, higher in the past, going by that graph, and life went on.
It's interesting to note that most of the proxy data is counting of tree rings, and growth. Wider ring is more growth equals higher temperatures. So at least trees and plants have something to look forward to.
Oh yes and since we are picking scales in graphs and all. Your origianl link to Wikipedia was not of temprature over milions of years. The scale on the left is of oxygen isotopes, and the graph shows the ratio over time.
In oherwards your link had nothing to do with your comment. The comment was about temprature, the link was about Oxygen isotope concentrations in the atmosphere.
"however it is estimated that each 1 part per thousand change in ä18O represents roughly a 1.5-2 C change in tropical sea surface temperatures (Veizer et al. 2000)."
I'm sorry to quote myself, but I said
/. it's still up there for everyone to see and I couldn't have changed it. You said "A 1 degree change is something nature usually does over millions of years"
"in 450 thousand years" THat is not opinion, I did say that.
Since you can't edit posts on
I showed 5 seperate changes of 6 orders of magnitude in 1/10th the time scale.
Almost forgot
"However the evidence is for a very sudden acceleration in warming since 1960, and the sceptics need to explain that. "
Easy enough, late 60,s was at the bottom of 3 decade long cooling trend. Thos slopes of that trend down, and the previous slope up are not that far divergent from the current trend up, of which we peaked a couple of years ago, and we will now see 30 years of a cooling trend (slope unknown) which should net our Ruskies $10,000
Do I get extra points for bringing it back to the original article?
And how fast is the Antarctic Ice Thickening?
e y.html?ex=1124769600&en=c2bcdd360a664063&ei=5070&o ref=login
And concerning polar bears. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/opinion/06tiern
Sorry New York time, login required. www.bugmenot.com is yoru friend.
All of the things I metnioned are regularly discussed in climatoligists circles.
In fact if you would go to the article at the top of the page. You will see that they discuss sunspot effect on climate.
Cloud cover is a particualr issue, since no climate model now can use it as a variable. This is discussed quite a bit, amongst climatologists.
I've not mentioned anything that climatologist do not disuss on a daily basis.
If anything I would say they are things people like you, and the poster I was replying to, do not consider. IN fact I was directly answering the grandparents request for other "plausible" factors.
Using a graph from another poster. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/carbdiox.html/
This shows 5 separate changes in excess of 6 Degrees C in 450 thousand years. This graph is supplied by the AGW crowd.
I don't know where you get the 1 degree change in a million years, I don't know of any scientific study that would claim such a thing. We regularly see greater changes than that in any time scale greater than a minute. Day, hour, month, year, decade, Century, Millennium. In fact we saw a change greater than 1 degree from 1850 to 1900.
As to the permafrost comment. A recent glacier receded in Greenland. They talked about how it had been there since the last Ice Age. They also mentioned that under the Ice was revealed a Viking Church. I don't know how to correlate the two comments, as the Vikings weren't around 10,000 years ago, since the church is tangible, and the comments is un-substantiated. I would go with the fact that the glacier was not there during Viking times, since I don't believe they would go through the trouble to build a church under a glacier.
As to the permafrost. The concern is the decomposing of the Peat underneath. Since peat is made of plants that cannot grow in permafrost, I would reckon that there never was much "perma" in permafrost. I would be greatly interested in any carbon dating of said peat.
A. Sun "Wouldn't they be able to tell if the sun was having some kind of effect? Aren't they able to measure these kinds of things?"
Of course they can measure such things. Your skill at finding charts comparing other such things (CH and CO2 emissions in relation to temperature) is more than satisfactory. May I suggest you find a similar chart comparing solar output to global mean temperature. Sunspot activity would also be useful. The article should offer plenty of help in locating such information.
B. Water vapor "I would think they could measure this also. If they can tell how many parts per million of CO2 is in the air, I would think they could do the same thing for water vapor."
Again of course. Usually water vapor levels are reported in weather reports using the term humidity. It is also well known that water vapor accounts for the majority of greenhouse warming, minimum I've seen is 60%+ up to 88%+ Some go even further into the 90% range, none are below 60%. IIRC water vapor alone accounts for about 30C warming making earth livable.
Concerning the 30C #, remembr the greenhouse effect is logarithmic.
C. Natural variation (Entropy, ringing) "I don't know what this has to do with global warming, so I can't comment on it."
There are any factors to climate, I gave two examples of fluctuation that would be visible over a small (decades) time scale. Entropy can be seen with things like the 1998 El Nino, where large amounts or warm water, trapped deep in the Pacific, were suddenly released, causing an enormous spike in global temperatures. Ringing is the phenomenon whereby after a drastic change (the ending of an ice age for example). Thermal inertia can force temperatures beyond, or below what should be equilibrium, forcing a diminishing sine wave temperature change, independent of other factors.
D. Loss of cloud cover "Wouldn't the loss of cloud cover be a result of other things? The loss of cloud cover wouldn't really cause global warming. It would merely be the byproduct of something else that was causing it."
Cloud cover drastically effects the Earths albedo. It should be obvious. On cloudy days the lack of sunlight makes it cooler, on cloudless days you can feel the direct warming of the sun. I don't understand why you wouldn't see the effect this could have. It should be noted that an important variable that Mathematical climate models can not incorporate is cloud cover, it is accepted that cloud cover has a significant effect.
E. Natural emissions of greenhouse gasses "Have there really been enough volcanoes in the last hundred years or so to produce the kind of effect that is happening?"
Quick numbers, by no means complete. Human emissions of CO2 approx 500 million tons per year. Mt. Etna, produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day. 12.775 million tons per year, or 2.5% of human emissions. From One volcano. East of Naples are some CO2 emitting vents (not volcanoes) There are approximately 175. Just one emits 200 tons per day, or 73,000 tons per year. Even conservatively that one area emits just as much as Mount Etna (Which is nearby) In 1986 a massive upwelling of CO2 at Lake Nyos in Cameron released an estimated 100 Million cubic feet (don't know conversion to weight) of Carbon Dioxide. In 1984 there was a similar eruption in Lake Monoun
These are only three examples. For a list of active volcanoes (not including vents or other geologically active areas) http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/world.html/
"The climate has certainly changed many times before mankind was around. The question is, has it ever changed as drastically as has been reported?"
In the last 150 - 300 years? No. In the past, before man, yes, quite often actually. Research it, there have been dramatic climatic changes that put the current 1 degree F per century in perspective. Your second graph from NCDC even shows numerous extremely drastic deviations. On
Even after re-reading your post. You strongly insinuate that human emissions are the only thing that could cause such warming, to the point of asking the grandparent for and "plausible" examples of things that could cause such an amount of warming. Your entire post was basically that you cannot conceive of anything that would have such an effect
Hence your stance that there is nothing that could possibly have such an effect. I offered a variety of examples.
I'll let my position stand and others judge on what we've both written.
While there are some isues with that graph, lets not examine those for a moment. Lets look at some of that data. A smaller portion of the whole.
If you will look at the date of ~1940 until ~1975. You will not something. The temperature during that time actually drops from a high in the late 30s until approximately the Oil Crisis of the 70s.
To give some context to this time. This period starts right about the time Hitler was invading Poland, and the entry of the world into WWII. During the beginning of this period, much of the world, including the US, was still agrarian. Few people owned cars, even fewer had ever ridden on an airplane. This is shortly after the rural electricification program ended, prior to this there were many people in the US who didn't have electricity or indoor toilets (In rural areas). As we entered WWII industry the world over soared, this was a period of the greatest increase in industrial output in all of Human history, dwarfing anything we have now. This continued throughout WWII, and then after (How are you going to keep them on the farm after they've seen gay Parie). It was during this time that two cars per household became common. People that had not flown on a plane were in the minority, not just here, but the world over. More importantly this wasn't the "efficient" and "clean" industry of today, recall the muscle cars of the 60's. Then energy efficiency wasn't even thought of. More importantly they didn't have the materials or technology to make efficient boilers or engines like we have today. It was during this period that we had the largest increase of greenhouse gasses.
And it was also during this time that the global climate dropped in temperature, enough so that Newsweek published the concerns of scientists that People were causing the problem of Global Cooling. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf/.
As to the graph. This is the surface temperature record. One of the serious weakness of AGW (that is often glossed over) is that based on "Greenhouse theory" The atmosphere warms, warming the surface. What we see from direct measurement is that the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, precluding that greenhouse warming is causing the surface temperature increase, and that a large portion of the heat increase can be attributed to larger land development, and the closeness of the sensors to developed areas, and less in rural, or in wilderness. And before someone posts any articles referencing the recent UAH MSU data that corrects for atmosphere warming by allowing for satellite drift. Keep in mind that that number, even in the most optimistic interpretations, still does not bring atmospheric warming up to the same level as surface temperatures, and based on greenhouse theory, atmospheric temperatures should be ~30% higher than surface. Even with the correction they are still below surface temperatures.
"Global warming is happening. That is fact. Don't try to dispute it, or you'll look like an even bigger idiot."
From what date/time to when.
From Noon today till now (8:30 PM) I have noticed considerable cooling.
From December 2004 till 2005 I have noticed considerable Warming
From 1971 till 2005 I have noticed considerable warming.
From 1939 till 2005 records show little change in either direction
From 1998 till 2005 I have noticed slight cooling
All of this considers only the present era.
"So, what's your plausible alternative warming mechanism,"
A. Sun (I know it's a crackpot theory, but some people actually do think the sun has something to do with Earths Climate, and the Suns output does vary)
B. Water vapor (Much greater greenhouse gas than either Methane or CO2, also dictated by the laws of Physics, also increasing over time through natural means)
C. Natural variation (Entropy, ringing)
D. Loss of cloud cover
E. Natural emissions of greenhouse gasses (Volcanoes, deepwater CO2 and Methane out-gassing)
Do you honestly think that's mans carbon emissions are the ONLY thing that effects climate. Do you think that the earth had no climate variations before man?
They aren't the w3g.gkss.de is the Scientific link, the U.S. House of Represenetatives webshites are letters calling for Mann et all to release their data, and models, as well as a little nipple twist to also release their source of Funding. Since in that paragraph I was talking about peer review.
Tehn your probably contributing to Atmospheric CO2.
Wheras here in North America we are a carbon sink.
YEah Nuclear power Whoo Hooo!!
Not thatthe life giv en CO2 is ereally a problem.
Am I the only one that realizes that this concept points out that the Sun is the Primary mover in Earths Climate, not the minor greenhouse gas CO2
No he's not talking about Politicians, Enviornmentalists and other activists grous.
He's talking about amongst climatoligists and other real scientists who realize repeating Consensus over and over again doesn't make it real.
People amongst who realize that there is a scientific debate, and that peer review is an important part of scientific debate.
Hey just think if we didn't do that Gasoline would cost more than $0.35 a gallon we pay now.
Wait, what do we pay?
Sure deal with the spelling not the issues.
"There are Stirling engines which will run on the temperature gradient between the palm of your hand and ambient air."
Yes for an infinitesimally small load and no power output. An IC engine idling in neutral also gets very high efficiency.
"Powergen (a UK power company) are rolling out Stirling engines across the country. Replacing...."
Good proof is in the pudding, we'll see how it works out. Saying it will definitely be better before it's been implemented is counting ones eggs before they hatch. Remember standard boilers have a lifetime between 20 - 30 years, you've got to beat that AND get better efficiency.
Funny how trolls always seem to call anyone with a dissenting opinion trolls.
Your opinion is political, as such is not related in any way to reality.