Home /
Reply to Message
One out of six correct...bad score!
riverat1, The only thing you say that is correct is that uranium is not a fossil fuel. Of course I should have said that it is a non-renewable energy resource along with the fossil fuels.
Let me now challenge each of your other points in turn:
(1)"If you removed all CO2 from the air the average temperature on the Earth would rather quickly drop below freezing."
That is a HYPOTHESIS that needs to be tested against real world DATA. The only practical test is to see if man-made CO2 has raised the world mean temperature alarmingly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, a period during which it is widely accepted by almost everyone that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by around 40%. So if removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere would cause a drop of 33degC (a figure that is widely claimed), increasing it by 40% since 1750 should presumably have shown up by now as a really alarming temperature rise, of lets say at least 10 degrees! The FACT is that there isn't any sign in the temperature record of significant warming, just a very unalarming natural variation (see below).
(2)"I don't see how you can say the average rate of temperature increase per century is 0.4C when the increase since 1900 has been a bit over 0.8C."
I can say it because it is true. See: http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html
The blue linear regression line shows a long term linear trend since 1850 of 0.41degC per century over the full 161 year period.
The only way you got your figure of 0.8degC (a rise of 0.7deg/century) is by choosing a conveniently shorter period, thus exaggerating the contribution from the upswing that occurred between 1970 and 2000 - an upswing that got the alarmists in a dither and the whole man-made global warming bandwagon under way. You could have chosen an even shorter period. How about 1970 to 2011 - a whopping 1.5degC/century warming? Or I could have chosen the period from 1940 to 1980 - a negligible 0.01degC/century warming. It's called cherry picking. It is NOT SCIENCE.
Of course, the 1970 to 2000 upswing has now ceased, and is most likely going to be trending down for the next 25 years. But, instead of bringing happy smiles of relief to the faces of the alarmists, this has got them into even more of a dither as they see their radiative transfer HYPOTHESIS being slowly but surely negated by FACTS.
(3)"And I don't see how you can claim there hasn't been any warming in 15 years when the warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010 and the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998."
You really know the warmist film script off by heart don't you. Just take a look at the grey plot between 1998 and 2010 on the temperature graph I linked to above. I will leave it to readers to decide just what level of nonsense you are talking. By the way, since there has been an entirely unalarming natural rising temperature trend of 0.4degC per century for at least the last 200 years, OF COURSE the temperature record will be broken (unalarmingly) every few years. Duh!
(4)"The atmospheric CO2 curve is not strictly linear but has curved upwards over time. The current rate is closer to 3 ppm/year than 1.5 ppm/year."
Well here are some FACTS. The Mauna Loa rate-of-CO2-increase figures for each of the last 10 years in ppm/year are as follows: 2.1, 2.5, 1.7, 2.3, 2.1, 1.8, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8, 2.4, 1.8. I calculate that to be an average rise of 1.8ppm/year. I will leave it to the more mathematically inclined reader to decide whether 1.8ppm/year is nearer to my 1.5ppm/year than it is to your 3.0ppm/year.
(5)"Scientists have estimated with BAU that we will have doubled CO2 from the starting 280 ppm to 560 ppm sometime in the 2070's."
Ah! "Scientists have estimated..." It seems that futurism is all that warmists have left since the FACTS have inconveniently started pointing in the opposite direction. But the real point is that the exact rate of CO2 rise doesn't matter anyway - because the FACTS of the temperature record show that CO2 does not appear to be affecting temperature significantly, if at all.
I know that none of the above will persuade you. But as I have said many times to you in our encounters over the last couple of years, let's just wait and see which of us is right by 2020.
If the trend has drifted upwards alarmingly by 2020, it will be game set and match to the alarmists. But if, as many now believe, the trend is downwards...what then will the alarmists do for a living?
Cheers.
Let me now challenge each of your other points in turn:
(1)"If you removed all CO2 from the air the average temperature on the Earth would rather quickly drop below freezing."
That is a HYPOTHESIS that needs to be tested against real world DATA. The only practical test is to see if man-made CO2 has raised the world mean temperature alarmingly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, a period during which it is widely accepted by almost everyone that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by around 40%. So if removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere would cause a drop of 33degC (a figure that is widely claimed), increasing it by 40% since 1750 should presumably have shown up by now as a really alarming temperature rise, of lets say at least 10 degrees! The FACT is that there isn't any sign in the temperature record of significant warming, just a very unalarming natural variation (see below).
(2)"I don't see how you can say the average rate of temperature increase per century is 0.4C when the increase since 1900 has been a bit over 0.8C."
I can say it because it is true. See: http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html
The blue linear regression line shows a long term linear trend since 1850 of 0.41degC per century over the full 161 year period.
The only way you got your figure of 0.8degC (a rise of 0.7deg/century) is by choosing a conveniently shorter period, thus exaggerating the contribution from the upswing that occurred between 1970 and 2000 - an upswing that got the alarmists in a dither and the whole man-made global warming bandwagon under way. You could have chosen an even shorter period. How about 1970 to 2011 - a whopping 1.5degC/century warming? Or I could have chosen the period from 1940 to 1980 - a negligible 0.01degC/century warming. It's called cherry picking. It is NOT SCIENCE.
Of course, the 1970 to 2000 upswing has now ceased, and is most likely going to be trending down for the next 25 years. But, instead of bringing happy smiles of relief to the faces of the alarmists, this has got them into even more of a dither as they see their radiative transfer HYPOTHESIS being slowly but surely negated by FACTS.
(3)"And I don't see how you can claim there hasn't been any warming in 15 years when the warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010 and the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998."
You really know the warmist film script off by heart don't you. Just take a look at the grey plot between 1998 and 2010 on the temperature graph I linked to above. I will leave it to readers to decide just what level of nonsense you are talking. By the way, since there has been an entirely unalarming natural rising temperature trend of 0.4degC per century for at least the last 200 years, OF COURSE the temperature record will be broken (unalarmingly) every few years. Duh!
(4)"The atmospheric CO2 curve is not strictly linear but has curved upwards over time. The current rate is closer to 3 ppm/year than 1.5 ppm/year."
Well here are some FACTS. The Mauna Loa rate-of-CO2-increase figures for each of the last 10 years in ppm/year are as follows: 2.1, 2.5, 1.7, 2.3, 2.1, 1.8, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8, 2.4, 1.8. I calculate that to be an average rise of 1.8ppm/year. I will leave it to the more mathematically inclined reader to decide whether 1.8ppm/year is nearer to my 1.5ppm/year than it is to your 3.0ppm/year.
(5)"Scientists have estimated with BAU that we will have doubled CO2 from the starting 280 ppm to 560 ppm sometime in the 2070's."
Ah! "Scientists have estimated..." It seems that futurism is all that warmists have left since the FACTS have inconveniently started pointing in the opposite direction. But the real point is that the exact rate of CO2 rise doesn't matter anyway - because the FACTS of the temperature record show that CO2 does not appear to be affecting temperature significantly, if at all.
I know that none of the above will persuade you. But as I have said many times to you in our encounters over the last couple of years, let's just wait and see which of us is right by 2020.
If the trend has drifted upwards alarmingly by 2020, it will be game set and match to the alarmists. But if, as many now believe, the trend is downwards...what then will the alarmists do for a living?
Cheers.
Edited by cosserat@...
Updated - 8th Sep