@Elizabeth: As someone deeply expert in the physics related to how radar operates, I confess that I fell down laughing while reading your post. You apparently have no clue how far away your 'helicopter' would have to be to return an ping in .25 seconds, let alone .9. Your assertion that the lag in the relationship between CO2 and temperature, evident in the ice core data, represents a phase delay in excess of 360 degrees would, of course, invalidate the entire AGW argument. The length of the cycle you allude to is in excess of 100k years. By your logic, any (dubious) current warming would have to be driven by events some 110K years ago (long before humans had any effect on atmospheric CO2). Moreover, any current human activities would have effects on the climate not seen until approximately the year 112,013.
I am still laughing.
You have convinced me that belief in global warming requires not only the suspension of rational thought, but incalculable ignorance, as well.
In physics and mathematics the terms 'lag' and 'lead' have very specific meanings. They relate to cyclical phenomena and the phase of the response. The fact that CO2 increases 'lag' temperature does not mean that CO2 is not responsible for a temperature rise. It is this lack of basic understanding of what the terms scientifically mean that has led many skeptics to incorrectly conclude that CO2 cannot be responsible for temperature rises. The terms 'lag' and 'lead' do not imply cause and effect. They imply a relationship in terms of a cycle or feedback loop.
Let's give an example to show how misunderstanding the terms can lead to the wrong conclusion being drawn. I have a radar system. It sends out a pulse of (very slow, for the purposes of the example!) microwaves every second. But there's a helicopter hovering off in the distance which reflects those waves.
Ping ... out goes a pulse. And 0.25 seconds later the reflected waves from the chopper arrive back. Ping ... out goes another pulse. And 0.25 seconds after that, the reflected wave returns. In this case the return lags the ping, and you could argue that the returned wave (effect) happens after the ping (cause).
Now, I move the helicopter farther away. Ping ... out goes a pulse. And 0.9 seconds later I get the return signal. Followed by another ping. And in this case the returned wave leads the ping by 0.1 seconds. Why? Because the returned signal happens more than 180 degrees out of phase with the ping (more than 0.5 seconds), and hence physicists and mathematicians refer to the phase relationship as a 'lead'.
What the skeptics are arguing is that since the returned signal 'leads' the ping, this implies the 'effect' precedes the 'cause'. On this flawed logic, the argument would be that the reflected signal can't be caused by the ping. Which isn't true. It just isn't caused by *that* ping but the one before.
So the real question isn't whether temperature tracks CO2. And, since I know you like the CO2 lags temperature argument, I decided to tackle that one before you got going again on it. The question isn't even 'are we in a warming trend'. The real question is 'is there a decreasing ratio between energy leaving and energy received by our planet'. And the answer to that from our satellite systems is yes, less energy is leaving, and that's due to our emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
@Caliservative: I think you have mistaken an example of phase lag and lead for an in-depth analysis of how radar systems operate. Hence I said the microwaves in the example are 'very slow'. I could take the speed of light, divide it by four for 0.25 second return signal, and halve that to account for the distance the waves traveled to the helicopter and back (about 32500 km) but that wasn't the point of the argument. CO2 and temperature are locked in a cycle. CO2 rises, temperature rises. Temperature rises, CO2 levels rise due to the oceans. The fact that CO2 lags temperature in this cycle a) doesn't tell you anything about cause and effect and b) doesn't tell you anything about whether human-related CO2 emissions are causing a temperature rise. It is the association of the terms 'lead' and 'lag' with 'cause' and 'effect' that isn't scientifically valid when discussing cyclical phenomena. Which I thought my example did a pretty good job of showing why. Returning to my example, the fact that the returned signal can 'lead' the next ping doesn't imply I can't up the power of the transmitter. Similarly, the fact that CO2 lags temperature (or temperature leads CO2) doesn't imply that adding more CO2 into that cycle won't increase the temperature of the planet. It might not change the phase relationship (CO2 still lags temperature) just as increasing the power of the radar transmitter doesn't change the time for the returned signal, but it does have an impact.
No question - Increased atmospheric CO2 increases mean global temperature and AGW is real.
>>C: Show all of us scientifically. What you have said is just regurgitated opinions.<<
You have no right to make this demand until you can:
1. Define ‘statistical significance’ mathematically;
2. Explain ‘statistical significance’ in English;
3. Explain the scientific concept of knowledge;
4. Scientifically show us that the earth is round;
5. Scientifically show us that gravity is real;
6. Scientifically show us that electricity is real; and
7. Scientifically show us that global warming is not real.
And, besides, what’s the point of his showing you something that you cannot understand?
Oh dear, Elizabeth. You have really outdone yourself this time.
First problem, if you are talking about phase lag then that presupposes that the signals are cyclic. Are you now claiming that GW is cyclic? You have talked disparagingly about cycles in the past.
Second problem, if glacial periods are 100,000 years apart and CO2 "lag" is 1000 years, then the current temperature variations were caused by the CO2 changes 99,000 years ago - not by man now. I don't think you believe that either.
I think it is true to say that CO2 lags temperature on all time scales. So the greenhouse gas theory might be beautiful but, as Feynman said ...
"If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/f101.a...
" Q: Is there really cause for serious concern? A: Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:
Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.
Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.
Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.
Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.
Q: What country is the largest source of global warming pollution? A: The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/iplayer/epis...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xztbr...
Orbit - Earth's Extraordinary Journey explains how every step of the Earth’s 940 kilometre, one-year journey around the sun is essential to maintaining life as we know it, giving us the ever-changing weather and seasons that transform our planet. In terms of maintaining life on our planet, 23° is truly the magic number. Without this unique tilt, our world would never experience climatic change – the equatorial regions would eternally roast, while the poles would be frozen solid. Orbit - Earth's Extraordinary Journey charts the entire progress of Earth as it undertakes it's incredible annual journey. From stunning space imagery to in-your-face storm chasing, this series will showcase the incredible power of our seasons and weather, and what drives them to both incredible creation and devastating destruction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xztbr...
http://m.livescience.com/40019-global-wa...
Orbit - Earth's Extraordinary Journey - YouTube
? 3:06? 3:06
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sorFIOMttFk
16 May 2013 - Uploaded by BBCONDVDAU
Right now, you're hurtling around the Sun at 64000 miles an hour. In the next year, you'll travel ...
From stunning space imagery to in-your-face storm chasing, this series showcases the ...Orbit - Earth's Extraordinary Journey - YouTube
?
3:06? 3:06
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sorFIOMttFk
16 May 2013 - Uploaded by BBCONDVDAU
Right now, you're hurtling around the Sun at 64000 miles an hour. In the next year, you'll travel ...
2012 BBC Orbit Earths Extraordinary Journey 2of3 13 40 - YouTube
? 0:24? 0:24
...
Climate Science will believe what they want to believe.
Back in the day (30 years ago or so) the word "science" meant 'the study of something'. Nowadays it seems to mean 'listen to us. We know what we are talking about'.
Science has become a dictator of public policy only because of their self-proclaimed "elitism". They still don't have a clue about what drives temperatures otherwise they wouldn't try and use climate models and present empirical evidence.
I could make a scientifically based guess that we have reached a plateau. I would base that on natural temperature trends over the past 1200 to 1400 years.
Whether we are in a warming trend depends on the time period you are looking at.
Whether temperature tracks CO2 is also a separate question. It is pretty well established that CO2 would cause the planet to warm. How much is a separate question. It is possible that the amount of warming from CO2 is insignificant compared to the larger warming trend from other causes.
CO2 follows the temperature, or else when ice age ended and CO2 rose, temperature would have kept rising in a self sustaining cycle.
Solar activity is a much stronger "driver" of temperature change, than CO2, and most of the AGW movement is based on propaganda and hidden agendas, regrettably...not on true science.
The real question is when do you spend time with grandkids and mowing the lawn, and polishing your walking cane and reading glasses (e.g. things you can do without being a certified bald-faced lying ignoramus) and finally lay off your very stale, from endless recycling, Luddite anti-science, faux Christianity, pretend conservatism, and 4th rate pitifully shallow copy-pasted fake questions here?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
The science you utterly and moronically deny, and endlessly pretend not to deny, is right here where it's been for years. You can believe in your school report cards with all the Fs. The rest of can either read those science books you never cracked in your life, or believe hundreds of Nobel Prize winning scientists:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Low level Ozone, CFCs, and HCFCs are the primary driver of AGW
AGW is a reality that can't be altered by obstinate denial.
The temperature trend has not been tracking the Sun or PDO. It has been tracking carbon dioxide.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Since I used GISS. (Razzberry sound effects.)
But, I suppose that if I want to prove a point, I should use HadCRUT3 or UAH as my temperature data source.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
If you look at the graphs, they show the same temperature trend.
Zippi's answer is wrong, politics is the dictator of science, politics tells science what questions to ask and what answers to give, true independent unbiased science has almost disappeared.
Still whining about Al Gore? If you must recite your false rhetoric, at least update it. You're boring as well as wrong
no.
