Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not additive in that the equation is not linear. and minimized by other mechanisms in play, of which water vapor is a major player.

This is what I'm referring to.

The black line on the graph represents mean data for each year (with some allowance for missing data points). The green and red oscillating lines are the result of natural “breathing” by the Earth throughout the year. In winter, when leaves drop and people burn coal, wood and oil for heating, the CO2 goes up. In summer, as the leaves reappear and there is less fossil fuel burned, the CO2 concentration drops. (This is Northern hemisphere, of course. There is less CO2 in the Southern hemisphere due to lower population, but the pattern will be similar.)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Did you like your PM?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did you like your PM?

Lets stick to the logic of science and keep politics out of it. I'd also rather we avoid pasting anything except when necessary to demonstrate what we are talking about.

[luckytxn 2,265]

American Thinker, Bill? Can you not find a climate science publication that supports your argument?

There are a lot of reports to prove that Global warming is bunk but no publication that supports GW will publish them or their ad dollars from the new industries sprouting up will dry up. The new industries are propped up with out tax dollars and have ex politicians (including Al Gore) on their boards. Trillions of dollars to spread around makes a lot of greed. Greed that makes many toe the line.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is what I'm referring to.

The black line on the graph represents mean data for each year (with some allowance for missing data points). The green and red oscillating lines are the result of natural “breathing” by the Earth throughout the year. In winter, when leaves drop and people burn coal, wood and oil for heating, the CO2 goes up. In summer, as the leaves reappear and there is less fossil fuel burned, the CO2 concentration drops. (This is Northern hemisphere, of course. There is less CO2 in the Southern hemisphere due to lower population, but the pattern will be similar.)

There is a natural source of CO₂ nearby.

Mauna Loa (pronounced /ˌmɔːnə ˈloʊ.ə/ or /ˌmaʊnə ˈloʊ.ə/ in English, [ˈmounə ˈloə] in Hawaiian) is the largest volcano on Earth in terms of volume and area covered and one of five volcanoes that form the Island of Hawaii in the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi in the Pacific Ocean. It is an active shield volcano, with a volume estimated at approximately 18,000 cubic miles (75,000 km3),[2] although its peak is about 120 feet (37 m) lower than that of its neighbor, Mauna Kea. The Hawaiian name "Mauna Loa" means "Long Mountain". Lava eruptions from Mauna Loa are silica-poor, thus very fluid: and as a result eruptions tend to be non-explosive and the volcano has relatively shallow slopes.

The volcano has probably been erupting for at least 700,000 years

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is a natural source of CO₂ nearby.

Yes, and do you know why Charles Keeling chose that area? The answers are there for you, Bill, but now you're teetering on silliness by dismissing the reasonability of the scientists at SCRIPPS to not use reliable methodology.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes, and do you know why Charles Keeling chose that area? The answers are there for you, Bill, but now you're teetering on silliness by dismissing the reasonability of the scientists at SCRIPPS to not use reliable methodology.

Tell me, please. I am all a quiver in anticipation!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a more detailed graph of Charles Keeling's data that might make more sense to you.

Clearly the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. Equally clearly, the rate of increase is increasing. In 1960 the rate of increase per year was 0.71 PPM (parts per million). The 2005 rate of increase was 2.14 PPM per year. However, the increase is not perfectly steady. The Pinatubo volcanic eruption of 1991 is credited with the slowing of the increase for a few years. The massive release of sulfur dioxide resulted in an increase in cloud cover which resulted in cooling which increased the solubility of carbon dioxide in sea water. The resulting slight pause beginning in 1992 is visible. The pause, whatever its origin, was canceled by an acceleration in the next decade. The Southern Oscillation also known as the El Niño--La Niña cycle also seems to have an effect. The general trend, however, is unmistakable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tell me, please. I am all a quiver in anticipation!

Bill, this is no longer arguing, but sandbox antics. I think I've demonstrated and argued my points clearly for anyone to read this thread to see. I didn't set out to convince you of anything, but to at least see what and where you take issue with the science of Global Warming, and I've walked away with a more complete understanding of it. In my honest opinion, your understanding of scientific methods seems skewed by a disbelief in the aptitude of the very scientists who study such phenomena. I'm not sure where that comes from given that you do accept some methodologies while dismissing others. Anyhow, overall it's been a good discussion.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here's a more detailed graph of Charles Keeling's data that might make more sense to you.

Of course, if you "normalize" the graph, it doesn't look near as ominous, and you can actually see the sinusoidal nature of the data plotted correctly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Of course, if you "normalize" the graph, it doesn't look near as ominous, and you can actually see the sinusoidal nature of the data plotted correctly.

Rate of change...the current slope (2.14) is what matters most when predicting where CO2 levels will be in ten years if the current trends continue. From the chart you can clearly that CO2 levels have been steadily increasing over the last 50 years so again, I'm not sure what you are disputing here except your general dismissiveness of the scientific methodology. Charles Keeling was very skeptical that his data would show any clear trends, but was surprised with the results. That's how scientists approach this...collect the data and letting the computer models show the bigger picture.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Rate of change...the current slope (2.14) is what matters most when predicting where CO2 levels will be in ten years if the current trends continue. From the chart you can clearly that CO2 levels have been steadily increasing over the last 50 years so again, I'm not sure what you are disputing here except your general dismissiveness of the scientific methodology. Charles Keeling was very skeptical that his data would show any clear trends, but was surprised with the results. That's how scientists approach this...collect the data and letting the computer models show the bigger picture.

Climatology requirements:

A masters degree in Geology, Climatology, Meteorology, Physics, Environmental Science

Completion of mathematics through ordinary differental equations

Demonstrated knowledge of at least one higher-level computer programming language

Letters of recommendation from at least three former professors or supervisors

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Climatology requirements:

A masters degree in Geology, Climatology, Meteorology, Physics, Environmental Science

Completion of mathematics through ordinary differental equations

Demonstrated knowledge of at least one higher-level computer programming language

Letters of recommendation from at least three former professors or supervisors

Bill, what are you disputing here? The accuracy of the data? The methodology?

[luckytxn 2,265]

I would dispute the methods and accuracy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would dispute the methods and accuracy.

How about NASA's methods and accuracy? They are in fact a government agency.