Regarding cooling since 2000:
/quote
?This is nothing like anything we?ve seen since 1950,? Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. ?Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn?t have one.?
/end quote
That would be just about on time wouldn't it?
-- >D from BC >myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com >BC, Canada >Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
of
This is an incomplete quotation. For the full text, look at
-natural-variability/
where Swanson is quoted as going on to say
"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it=92s just a hiccup, and that humans=92 penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.
=93When the climate kicks back out of this state, we=92ll have explosive warming,=94 Swanson said. =93Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.=94
which isn't quite the message that your deceitful text-chopping is intended to convey.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
IIRR volcanoes are currently pumping out about 1 unit CO2 for every hundred units of CO2 that we are injecting into the atmosphere by burning fossil carbon.
2.htmlBig eruption do push out enough sulphur dioxide to make a difference for a year or so. The most recent was Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which injected more aerosols into the atmosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
=A0 =A0 Mike
-=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson
=A0 | =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |
=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|
=A0|
=A0 =A0 =A0 |
Or Thompson. At least I've still got enough neurones left to be able to spell his name the same way he does.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
I chopped the wild fantasy.
If these guys are saying they don't know the mechanism for the current cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10 years ahead.
Me, I blame the sun as usual. Solar cycle 24 is very late.
d - e
son of
en
gWhat you think is wild fantasy, because you don't understand enough to follow the elementary loic involved.
Actually, they do know the mechanism - ocean currents are moving heat around, along with the atmospheric circulation.Unfortunately they don't know enough about the ocean currents to be able to make short term climate predictions. People are busy sinking strings of flow and temperature sensors in the oceans in order to get a more detailed idea of what is going on, but there aren't yet enough of them in place to give all that much information.
Predicting the broad long term effect of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is easier - the surface of the earth is going to get warmer
- than precisely predicting which bits are going to get warmer and when.
But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't produce useful predictions.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
I remember that storm well. It took me about 20 hours to get home from work that night. Got stuck in a firehouse in downtown Poughkeepsie overnight. The volunteer brigade had beer in the Dr. Pepper slot in the vending machine. ;-)
SNIP
I understand the AGW argument, it just isn't settled or science.
That's a crap argument I've seen many times. Moving the heat around doesn't affect global temperature. X joules of heat on the planet is X joules whether it's in the ocean or the atmosphere.
The top 6 metres of the oceans store as much energy as the whole atmosphere. The oceans account for 90+% of energy storage. Anyone who claims AGW without having meassured the oceans properly is an idiot.
Easier and almost irrelevent. If ocean currents can more than compensate for CO2 for the next 30 years, according to Swanson, then CO2 forcing isn't much to write home about.
The AGW climate predictions up until the last couple of years were for continuous warming. Can't say their predictions have been accurate or useful.
Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less, roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.
Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance. "Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved beyond that with general education.
Jon
-- Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.
wanson of
then
...
wing
ive
d"continuous"?
"Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant." As in those who believe in AGW ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their behavior is of a religious nature. Thus, like all religious nut- cases, they should be culled from the fraternity and dispatched.
As usual you are missing the point.
my quote was:
?This is nothing like anything we?ve seen since 1950,? Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. ?Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn?t have one.?
The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an explanation for current global cooling.
If you wish to discuss that do so. Trying to distract from the point by claiming I'm trying to misdirect is pathetic.
Again you equate solar to insolation, I presume so you can dismiss the sun out of hand.
of
The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the "global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.
I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved by the AGW lobby.
However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.
ave
son of
en
The AGW claim is that ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere should - over the long term - give increasing global temperatures.
The distinction between "long term" and "short term" can be seen here
Would you like to find a different straw man argument?
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ave
son of
en
Ever increasing CO2 should lead to a rising baseline trend impressed on the long-observed year-to-year variations.
wanson of
then
...
wing
ive
dYou claim - unconvincingly - to understand the the AGW argument. If you actually understood it you would appreciate that the the scientific argument is over, and we are just filling in the detail.
Heat loss by radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. If there is a larger temperature difference between the equator and the poles, the earth will radiate more heat than it would if the difference were smaller.
You may like to think so.
Swanson's claim was that it might compensate for up to thirty years, which isn't quite the same thing. Despite the fact that the oceans can - and do - store a lot of heat, CO2 forcing does happen to be important. In the long term, the heat the earth absorbs from the sun has to balance the heat it radiates, and various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere determine the surface temperature, despite the thermal inertia of the oceans and the body of the planet.
You are mistaken. The climate modellers involved in predicting the effects of anthropogenic global warming don't claim to make short-term weather predictions, and the claim they do make - a warming of 1.1 to
6.4 =B0C (2.0 to 11.5 =B0F) during the twenty-first century - isn't particularly precise.Whiat is important is the rather more reliable prediction that if we do keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we will eventually raise global temperatures by 4=B0C and make something of a mess of our world.
I'm aware that you don't want to believe this, but your scepticism is not well-founded.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
As you quoted earlier:
"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years."
Is that long term enough for you?
No. those who deny it.
=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson
=A0 | =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |
=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|
=A0|
=A0 =A0 =A0 |
Jim's "inquisitive mind" seems to give him an almost religious confidence that he can explain the behaviour of leftist weenies in terms that don't require him to take them seriously. If he has ever attempted to prove such a case, I've yet to see his proof. I don't expect to ever see it. I could imagine that Jim might cull himself if he ever got to realise that his denialism was not well-founded, but only if my imagination gets to be a lot more flexible and creative than it is at the moment.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.