Except with the logarithmic increase in temps from additional CO2, the amount of warming is so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.
Socialists in a Panic
- Thread starter china
- Start date
You, who else? You pretended to misunderstand my points so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, which then means I need to simplify it for you so you can't pretend that again.
If you look at the graph you'll notice that the temp baseline (the one that says 0) is at the same point as the beginning of the CO2 365 ppm. That indeed does result in the starting temp at up near 0.6 and 0.8°C as you said. What, you can't understand the differernce between a baseline and a starting point?:roll: Are you just playing dumb again?
Yes, they could have put the start of a line down at 0, but since there are two different temperature records that aren't quite the same, how could that be done? Plus the fact that if the temps did start at the 0 point they would be much farther down necessitating a doubling of the graph size. And then the purpose of this graph (showing the relationship, if any, between CO2 and temperature change) would be much more difficult to see.
You can't figure that out? Are you really that dumb?8O
No, you aren't. As I said, I couldn't believe you misunderstood me last time, and this time is all just a put-on too.
Give it up for a while. It gets tiresome.
Realclimate is your source????:lol:
The propaganda arm of the climate fraudsters is a trustworthy source??? LOL:lol:
You should have read more than the thread title. It refers to the socialist panic over climategate, so the posts are pretty well on topic.
They are two axis. The temperature axis has nothing to do with where carbon dioxide begins.
You're a retard. There are three time series on that graph. One is the atmospheric carbon dioxide, one is HadCRUT, the other is UAH. They are all time series, they all start at 1998. In 1998, the carbon dioxide is 366 ppm, which has F all to do with the axis reporting temperature. It's simply an artifact of the interval chosen with these three time series. If you changed the time series from the period in the graph, to say ten years earlier, then the zero for temperature would be lining up with a different atmospheric concentration. The temperature anomalies are not zero when carbon dioxide is 366 ppm, which would be where they were if you were correct about the baseline. There has to be a zero on that axis, to accompany the anomalies of the two temperature products time series. The left axis has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. What you said was:
The amount of actual temperature change is different for each temperature time series, obviously they do not share the same baseline, as I said earlier, the different products each have their own baselines. That graph does not have it's own baseline for the two temperature time series.
That graph is not constructed by correlating anything. It's three time series, all starting in 1998, and UAH and HadCRUT have different baselines for the temperature anomalies reported, but they use the same axis because they are related.
See, if you have ever made a graph like this before, you would know how stupid your comments are.
Last edited:
The logarithmic response to increasing carbon dioxide is in the forcing, not the temperature. When the increase in concentration is occurring exponentially, the forcing remains the same; each time the amount added doubles, the forcing is the same, up to a very high concentration, somewhere around 1000ppm. So the temperature increase is linear. Learn some algebra already.
Are they wrong?
If so prove it, I'd like to know what they said that isn't true since you already know.
Thanks.
Well let's see what it says.
That's the opening line. What's the myth? Can't see it in there.
Maybe you meant another line. Let's see if the next one qualifys.
Well that can't be it. The "deniers" don't claim there's no global warming, just that we aren't causing enough of it to be a problem.
Let's try the next line.
Well actually the evidence is that Antarctic sea ice is increasing hugely, in fact it's greater than any time since records have been kept. And that isn't being used to say there's no global warming either. Once again, no denier myth is evident.
Shall we try again?
Nothing in here that would qualify as a myth, only the fact (did they just now learn this??) that ice can flow. That's been well known for a long time, in fact, flow rates increase when ice depth increases.
No, I'm afraid I can't find any "denier" myth in that article.
Lots of misrepresentation of Moncton in that article, all you need to do is read it and follow links.
And how does that disqualify anything said in the interview, since you seem to think it does.
Yes, I know you've come up with an idea that you believe will support your ideological stance, but there's a problem with it. The effect of CO2 on temps is an initially rapidly decreasing exponential curve, and once we get to current concentrations, any increased effect is minimal. The exponential increase in CO2 concentrations is a very slow and gradual exponential curve, not great enough to make the temp increase linear.
Oops, a slight oversight on your part. I'll just correct it for you. After all, you wouldn't want people to think you were selective in your criticisms, would you?
Except that that's where the person who constructed it decided to locate it.
Yeah, we've already established that.:roll:
Which is pretty much a given, considering what I've already said. All one needs to do is look a the graph to realize that.
Duh. I already said that. What are you getting at? (by the way the graph actually starts CO2 at 365ppm)
No they would not. The baseline (the line against which anomalies are judged) is zero. It isn't a measurement of anomalies, it's just a line. The anomalies as starting on the graph are placed at 0.6 and 0.78 respectively.
Yeah, that's what I said. That's what a baseline is, the point from which the anomalies can be measured.
Again, that was my point.
What I said was (in so many words) the same as you have just reiterated.
Sure it does. Two different temperature measurements, one surface (I think) and one troposphere. The reason they don't show the same temperature changes is they aren't measuring the same things, but they're both graphed in relation to the same zero point baseline. Makes for a good visual comparison of the two measurements.
If they didn't have the same baseline (the zero line) you wouldn't be able to tell how they were related. Similarly, if the baseline (zero) was not placed at the 365ppm mark for the CO2 graph, it wouldn't be so easy to see the correlation (or lack thereof) between the temps and CO2.
Oh, by the way, seems there's been a subsequent developement.
Emphasis mine. Notice the same author at the bottom of your article.
Here's another comment on the same subject:
World Climate Report » Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite EraWhere are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?
The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.
Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.
Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).
The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.
It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).
But not a peep.
But such is not always the case—or rather, such is not ever the case when ice melt is pushing the other end of the record scale.
For instance, below is a collection of NASA stories highlighting record high amounts of melting (or in most cases, simply higher than normal amounts in some regions) across Greenland in each of the past 3 years, as ascertained by Marco Tedesco (the lead author of the latest report on Antarctica):
NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland
“In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using satellite observations….”
NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places
“A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S…”
Melting on the Greenland Ice Cap, 2008
“The northern fringes of Greenland’s ice sheet experienced extreme melting in 2008, according to NASA scientist Marco Tedesco and his colleagues.”
And lest you think that perhaps NASA hasn’t had any data on ice melt across Antarctica in past years, we give you this one:
NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland
“On the world’s coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves. In a new NASA study, researchers [including Marco Tedesco] using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica’s largest ice shelf.”
But this time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer).
So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?
(These are not meant as rhetorical questions)