So just why is GW of such interest to Socialist International?

Lost User

Ka?l wrote:

Today's the weather is hotter than yesterday. Following your logic, we are now back to a warming!

Do you mean globally or locally? If you mean locally, and limit yourself to the northern hemisphere then since we have passed the shortest day it will be warming. However, we are still on a cooling trend this interglacial. Check out the vostock ice core data.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Lost User

Cant answer can you. You havent got a clue have you. You dont know jack shit about this do you. You just regurgitate stuff you read on Hansens lackies website.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

phannon86

Since when did two measurements make a trend?

He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man

hairy_hats

Phannon wrote:

Since when did two measurements make a trend?

You must be new here.

phannon86

:laugh: I don't venture to the soapbox often, but I gather this about sums up the strength of their argument?

He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man

hairy_hats

Yes and no, depending on who you talk to and what colour socks your postman's granny's cat's vet's neighbour's brother is wearing that day. Hope that helps! :laugh:

KaRl

Ask Mr Fat Boy. I just want to tell you good luck. We're all counting on you.

Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr

KaRl

If you look at Vostok data, you'll see that for the last 440,000 years CO2 level never exceeded ~300 ppm. We are now exceeding 380 ppm. If you look at EPICA and Vostok data, you'll see there's an evident correlation between CO2 proportion in the atmosphere and the temperature. Please explain why the current, exceptional rise of CO2 would this time have no effect at all whatsover on the climate?

When the pitcher falls upon the stone, woe unto the pitcher, when the stone falls upon the pitcher, woe unto the pitcher : whatever befalls, woe unto the pitcher

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

KaRl

So newbie, have made yourself an opinion yet? :P Welcome to the club :-D

How do you own disorder? Fold with us! ¤ flickr

Lost User

Are we or are we not in a 10,000 year cooling trend?

Ka?l wrote:

Please explain why the current, exceptional rise of CO2 would this time have no effect at all whatsover on the climate

Because the rise is very slight in terms of total atmospheric concentration. 0.03 to 0.038 percent to be exact and although CO2 absorbs IR its effect is not linear so further increase in CO2 will not trap any more IR and thus not cause any extra radiated warming. The very sloght warming CO2 causes is masked by many other factors, particularly albedo, which is affected by aerosols. Look at the post war cooling as proof of how much more powerfull aerosols are than CO2. It is also likely that the sun affects albedo since it has been known for a long time that sun spots cause an increase in temperature. (Herschel noticed this as long ago as 1805)

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

KaRl

If you want the trend you can get from Vostok daa: here they are[^]. From the data[^], on the last 240 samples representing ~10,000 years 60 show higher temperature than today and 180 show colder ones. On the last 100 samples, 14 show higher temperature when 86 show colder ones.

fat_boy wrote:

Because the rise is very slight in terms of total atmospheric concentration. 0.03 to 0.038 percent to be exact and although CO2 absorbs IR its effect is not linear so further increase in CO2 will not trap any more IR and thus not cause any extra radiated warming.

nice try, but you don't answer my question. I repeat: Vostok data show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature: why this time would there be no correlation?

When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

Lost User

KaЯl wrote:

Vostok data show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature

And temperature precedes CO2 by centuries. Are you saying higher temperatures cause higher CO2 because thats what the data suggests.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

John Carson

fat_boy wrote:

Cant answer can you. You havent got a clue have you. You dont know jack sh*t about this do you. You just regurgitate stuff you read on Hansens lackies website.

http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2870850[^]

John Carson

Oakman

Well, if you were looking for a little new proof of the ties between the two - and perhaps a sign that the US is about to dismember what is left of its industrial base, try this: Obama climate czar has socialist ties[^] or, simply google on Obama socialist climate[^]

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

BoneSoft

Exactly. It's their best argument to date for a global government. AGW isn't the concern, hell it isn't even real, it's just turned out to be a very powerful tool to further their socialist agenda. But then, the stance of the left on most issues, and the issues they choice to stand on all point to that same agenda as well. Funny how they work so hard to hide their real agenda behind other issues, they know their true wish wouldn't be accepted by most people.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

KaRl

You won't answer my question will you?

When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

BoneSoft

Dalek Dave wrote:

After the Fall of the USSR, the world had nothing to fear

The west's biggest mistake, and exactly what the Kremlin wanted the world to think. Russia didn't go away with the wall fell, they just comitted all their resources and efforts into clandestine approaches to further their agenda. They abandoned Lenon (bloody take over) for Gramsci (turn em' from the inside out). They still want a world socialist government, and they're making far more progress than anybody imagines. The fall of the Union gave them a lot of power, just because people stopped looking at them. And what are they doing now?

Dalek Dave wrote:

People are being manipulated because they are too stupid to see they are being herded into the gas chambers again.

Very very true, though even those of us who see it still don't know for sure who's pulling the strings.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

Lost User

Karl: "Please explain why the current, exceptional rise of CO2 would this time have no effect at all whatsover on the climate? " Me: "Because the rise is very slight in terms of total atmospheric concentration. 0.03 to 0.038 percent to be exact and although CO2 absorbs IR its effect is not linear so further increase in CO2 will not trap any more IR and thus not cause any extra radiated warming. The very slight warming CO2 causes is masked by many other factors, particularly albedo, which is affected by aerosols. Look at the post war cooling as proof of how much more powerfull aerosols are than CO2." Karl: "nice try, but you don't answer my question. I repeat: Vostok data show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature: why this time would there be no correlation?" Me: "And temperature precedes CO2 by centuries. Are you saying higher temperatures cause higher CO2 because thats what the data suggests." I answered your question why I think the current CO2 rise will have a minimal effect and then I answered your question about CO2 temperature correlation and how you have it backwards. What more do you want me to answer?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

KaRl

fat_boy wrote:

"Because the rise is very slight in terms of total atmospheric concentration.

vostok data show a correlation CO2/temperature with a much smaller of CO2 proportion into the atmosphere. Why this time, when the level of CO2 reaches values never seen in the last 650,000 years, would there be no correlation?

fat_boy wrote:

I answered your question

You did not, and twice. No, 3 times now.

When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

Lost User

Ka?l wrote:

vostok data show a correlation CO2/temperature

Where temperature precedes CO2 by many centuries. Around 8 on average.

Ka?l wrote:

when the level of CO2 reaches values never seen in the last 650,000 years

But no where near the values it attained prior to 650,000 years ago, like 5000 plus PPM.

Ka?l wrote:

would there be no correlation

There isnt a correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 150 years. CO2 has shot up, temperature hasnt. And yes, there isnt a warming trend globally for the last 100 years. Some regions have got warmer, colder and warmer (much of the northern hemisphere) and some have got warmer and colder (like some places in the southern hemisphere). And its not surprising since CO2 has a slight affect on temperature.

Ka?l wrote:

You did not, and twice. No, 3 times now.

If you keep changng it each time I answer it you wont ever get a satiffactory response.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription