Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy
if you were to release a single molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere.
this would increase the temp (by about 1.2X10-20,000 but still)
in the same way that if a speeding train coasting along hits a fly, it will slow down.
this is called Physics.
did u even click link?
@sang.
1. a dif of 1.1-6.6 is a world of difference to 100-1000 times.
your using multiplication, so its a Huge diff.
eg if your start with 10
your saying that it is anywhere between 1000-10,000.
thats a range of 9000 from a start point of just 10.
if we start at 100 your looking at 10,000-100,000
a range of 90,000!
this is a margin of error over 100% thus any conclusion taken from this is automatically invalid
2. i dont care if he is the pope.
that is not a scientific document
it is a report written with intent.
it is propoganda
|
And the IPCC reports aren't? Michael Mann and Dr Johnson's written reports say that global temperatures have been steadily increasing, while amongst themselves they say that it isn't? (and, that that is somehow a "travesty?) The CRU's Siberian tree-ring temperature records indicate the global warming stopped occurring in 1961, so when you look at Dr Johnson's temperature charts, the tree-ring temperature line is terminated in the middle of nexus of other lines, so the overall chart won't show any decline. This was the famous "Nature trick" which was mentioned in the the hacked emails. Since tree-ring data was not showing any global warming (and was actually indicating a temperature decline, do you wonder why an ice age was being predicted in the 1970's?), Dr Johnson and friends decided not to show it on their graphs, and replaced it with ground station data.
This ground station data would not have shown any increase either, except that Dr Johnson and company cherry picked their weather stations, the majority of which were located in urban areas, because urban areas have been getting warmer. This sham was revealed by Russia's IEA in the news last week, when Russia claimed that the temperature data which the CRU had obtained from Russia had "been tampered with". Since Russia makes up 15% of the world's land mass, any temperature trends in Russia are important.
Sorry if my math is a little fuzzy, but even at the minimum estimates by IPCC scientists, ancient C02 levels were at times much higher than modern levels. And, yes, the IPCC's report on global warming has a prediction with a 600% error rate, which turns out to have been too small, as there has been global cooling since the report was published.
Co2 has increased in the atmosphere steadily over the last decade, yet temperatures have declined. If you are right in assuming that Co2 is a major greenhouse gas, shouldn't the opposite have occurred? I suppose that Co2 caused global warming is at fault for much of North America having the coldest summer in recorded history? Despite an El Nino effect?
This winter in Japan is noticeably colder than last winter, in my neighborhood we've had 2 hard frosts already, last winter we didn't have any, and it's only December, the coldest months are yet to come. Global warming is becoming increasingly hard to sell.
Show me a chart which shows the world is getting warming since 1998. Of course, now that date is in dispute, it turns out that the hottest year on record may have actually been 1934. In either case, the world in 2009 is a cooler place then either of those years.