What would you like to know about the temperature? That it has increased massively? It has. If you want to say that it's not due to the massive increases in CO2, you can't, as it's been shown by laser absorption spectroscopy that CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation extraordinarily efficiently. I don't think anyone is worried about the positive effects, but the negative ones. But we have controlled the climate, without even being aware of it. Mankind has generated billions of tons of CO2, which is proven, and CO2 absorbs high amounts of infra-red energy, which is also proven. So we can, we did, and now we need to do so again.
Although I haven't addressed this point at all in the past so I'm not sure to what you're referring, CO2 has a log relationship, and you're right. Unfortunately any damage occurs long before the chart flattens out. Well it's difficult to say that with certainty -- although most arguments for the extinction of dinosaurs involve some form of climate change. Actually it is proven. You can even do the experiments yourself. CO2 molecules by their very nature absorb IR, then re-emit it in a random direction. I even posted the chart of energy absorption of CO2 showing that it absorbs IR in two separate ways due to its bonds. Would you like the graph again? Unfortunately that's not the end of the story as water vapor levels can also contribute to warming. Show us. I can't see if your point has merit unless you link, yes.
Ok, I'm bored, and quite irritated by this line of argument. Let's say that CO2 absorbs IR , where would the effects of this be most seen? Answer: The Atmosphere. http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd5feb97_1.htm I typically avoid bashing people's religion, but this shit is out of hand. I challenge you to find recent data for this .... I'm bored, but not that bored
Your graph is out of date, from almost ten years ago, from the NASA archive and even then it has a massive red splotch on the right side of it (which means much warmer). It's worth noting on your small graph that 1998 was an el-nino year. Worse yet, your graph is from the TIROS satellite -- I addressed this just a few posts back. If you'd like to see why the satellite measures were already found to be inaccurate, just read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170 Here's the real, long term graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ Now that you've seen the whole graph, rather than the old archive graph, what does it look like to you?
This guy just doesn't quit. That graph is straight out of nutcase Hansen's discredited report. The temp data are erroneous. I showed this about 30 pages back. It is part and parcel of hansen's erroneous claim about the last ten years being warmest on record. Basically anything connected to hansen's NASA goddard operation is useless. His models have been found to be faulty and his data erroneous. Arguing with dave is pointless, as he is just here on assignment from who knows where to spread disinformation. He did the same thing during the election, then disappeared for a while, probably until he landed another internship or maybe a paying job in your federal government. Say dave, is it true that a lot of the campaign volunteers are pissed off about getting screwed out of jobs in favor of journos and children of big contributors? I know quite a few Obamatons who feel betrayed. Of course, they still get the shivers up the leg when they are allowed close to him.
1- what damage? Another .8C warming? That's less than the error range Dave. Do you know the significance of that? 2- IOW, you don't know why you threw that out there in the first place.... 3- yes, CO2 increases the retention of long wave radiation. That's not in dispute. But it's insignificant compared to the effects of water vapor and clouds. And OUR changes in total CO2 is insignificant to the total CO2 levels. Our contribution is estimated at next to nothing. 4- now you're agreeing with me that wv is THE significant cause of GW? And that you admit that to answer that the solar cycle to be at a minimum "right now" is foolish cuz we're talking longer term? 5- so then you admit that you have no idea what the main objections to MMGW is? This is the crux of our disagreement, and you admit here that you have no idea why we say what we say. I know what the believers in MMGW say, why aren't you at least a little bit familiar with the position that someone who disagrees with you has to say? The lack of skepticism on your part is staggering.... Google is your friend, Dave. Do some research and make your own decisions before you humiliate yourself any further by preaching what you've read on the DNC website.
I'll tell you what it looks like to me: Earlier in the thread, I mentioned that there was a cooling period between 1940-80, and you disputed it. Now this graph shows that clear as day. Your credibility just got destroyed....... by you. This ability to disregard this fact when it goes against your religious beliefs is what is known as cognitive dissonance. You're a useful idiot, Dave.
That's very awkward given that Feenix just quoted NASA. Feenix, would you like to address AAA's contention that NASA doesn't understand science? I have a few days to kill and this is a pretty straightforward concept that can be explained to anyone. This is more of an observational experiment about trading, to be honest. I'm not a subscriber to the "efficient market" school of thought.and so I'm wondering about trading styles. It's kind of an experiment to see how far out traders can get. I've never been an Obama volunteer. Actually, and we've had this conversation before, I'm a fiscal conservative and social moderate which is why I won't be voting for the Republican party any time soon.
As you can see the graph is centered on "zero" temperature anomaly. Temperature anomalies close to zero are not cool, they are normal, therefore you were wrong. Not really, you'd have to misunderstand the graph. There are a few years in there which had a lower than zero temperature anomaly, but not the range between 1940 and 1980. The entire range from 1940 -1947 has a positive temperature anomaly (ie, above average temperatures) along with a cluster of years around 1960. It's not measuring the absolute temperature, but how much higher above normal the temperature is, thus only the part of the graph below zero would indicate a cooler year (and yes, some years are cooler and some are hotter, just not a forty year stretch of cooler years as you claimed.) Further, cherry picking a small range from a graph and trying to pretend that it reflects a trend (such as pretending that the Earth got cooler from 1940-1980) does not help your case.