Global Warming

Tom Kunich wrote:
I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools
playing at knowledge they don't have.

rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and not in
large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

Baby you can drive my car.

William Asher wrote:
Eating beef is ok, but if you *really* want to increase your carbon
footprint, have kids. Lots of kids. This is what separates the real
skeptics from the wanna-be's. Very few are willing to pony up and
procreate just to prove Jim Hansen is wrong. So if you are serious, take
your dick out of your hand and put it where it belongs.

Not in a squash court.

William Asher wrote:
It's sort of like having a knock-up by yourself in a squash court. It's
great for working out the kinks in your strokes, running drills, or
loosening up before a match,

Ah so there is a new marketing niche for the TOM9000 as a training
simulator of argumentive US customers for Indian help desk operators.

On Apr 15, 1:47*am, Howard Kveck wrote:


* *HP calculators? Bah. I have (and still use) one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/6g9hjt

* *Note the last line in the 'comments' section...

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * Whatever happened to
* * * * * * * * * * * * Leon Trotsky?
* * * * * * * * * * * * He got an icepick
* * * * * * * * * * * * That made his ears burn.

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?


Howard I wish I still had them I'd ship you each one. I was keeping a
couple of vintage, huge cold cathode display calculators in the
basement just because, along with a couple of cool of tube radios with
great cases. Still kinda sorry I sold the lot off to a collector.
Think he took the calculators to get the radios though.
Bill C

wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools playing at
knowledge they don't have.

OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and
not in large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png



Robert--

Maybe I'm thick, but I'm having trouble figuring out the coordinates on
these graphs. Could you briefly explain?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On Apr 15, 7:57 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png


Maybe I'm thick, but I'm having trouble figuring out the coordinates on
these graphs. Could you briefly explain?

Year runs from 1958 to 2007.

Temp is the global mean surface temp (in C) from the GISS adjusted Jan-
Dec annual average.

CO2 are the annual average concentrations measured at Mauna Loa.

Sunspots are the annual averages of the monthly means from the NOAA
NGDC.

Tom started this whole thread off by claiming that global warming was
determined by solar cycles. Sunspots are a proxy for total solar
irradiance, and you can see that sunspots vary up and down while the
temperature mostly just goes up. In fact, before the last few decades,
the link between solar activity and global temperature was much
stronger -- that the relationship now appears to be de-linked is
evidence that something other than solar cycles is at play.

Robert Chung wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:57 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

Maybe I'm thick, but I'm having trouble figuring out the coordinates on
these graphs. Could you briefly explain?

Year runs from 1958 to 2007.

Temp is the global mean surface temp (in C) from the GISS adjusted Jan-
Dec annual average.

CO2 are the annual average concentrations measured at Mauna Loa.

Sunspots are the annual averages of the monthly means from the NOAA
NGDC.

Tom started this whole thread off by claiming that global warming was
determined by solar cycles. Sunspots are a proxy for total solar
irradiance, and you can see that sunspots vary up and down while the
temperature mostly just goes up. In fact, before the last few decades,
the link between solar activity and global temperature was much
stronger -- that the relationship now appears to be de-linked is
evidence that something other than solar cycles is at play.

OK, so what is the unit of measure for dumbassedness?
And what is the correlation between rbr dumbassedness
and 'bot activity?

Bob Schwartz

On Apr 15, 7:57*am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools playing at
knowledge they don't have.

OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and
not in large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

Robert--

* * * * Maybe I'm thick, but I'm having trouble figuring out the coordinates on
these graphs. *Could you briefly explain?

In addition to Robert's explanation: you read across to find
which variable is on the vertical axis and down to find
which is on the horizontal axis. So the right hand column
is, from top, temp, CO2, and sunspots as a function of
year. Temp and CO2 are pretty much going up, while
sunspots oscillate on the 11 year solar cycle. (You can
see that temp has year to year variability due to weather
patterns while CO2 has a much longer time constant.)
The Sun is brighter at solar max (more sunspots) although
sunspots themselves don't make the sun brighter, they're
just a tracer of the solar cycle.

Ben

Robert Chung wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:57 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

Maybe I'm thick, but I'm having trouble figuring out the coordinates on
these graphs. Could you briefly explain?

Year runs from 1958 to 2007.

Temp is the global mean surface temp (in C) from the GISS adjusted Jan-
Dec annual average.

CO2 are the annual average concentrations measured at Mauna Loa.

Sunspots are the annual averages of the monthly means from the NOAA
NGDC.

Tom started this whole thread off by claiming that global warming was
determined by solar cycles. Sunspots are a proxy for total solar
irradiance, and you can see that sunspots vary up and down while the
temperature mostly just goes up. In fact, before the last few decades,
the link between solar activity and global temperature was much
stronger -- that the relationship now appears to be de-linked is
evidence that something other than solar cycles is at play.


I didn't know that sunspots were used as a proxy for irradience. I
seem to remember as a kid that sunspot incidence occurred in a
more-or-less predictable 11-year cycle. I could still be remembering wrong.
Bear with me--looking at the plots on this page, columns and rows, the
plot in second column first row is temp. vs. CO2 conc; third column
first row is temperature vs. sunspot activity.
OK, I think I've figured it out. Second column fourth row is same as
4th column second row, just flipped. Sorry to be so thick.
BTW, why would Mauna Loa be considered a representative place to
measure CO2 concentration?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:57 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools playing at
knowledge they don't have.
OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and
not in large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png
Robert--

Maybe I'm thick, but I'm having trouble figuring out the coordinates on
these graphs. Could you briefly explain?

In addition to Robert's explanation: you read across to find
which variable is on the vertical axis and down to find
which is on the horizontal axis. So the right hand column
is, from top, temp, CO2, and sunspots as a function of
year. Temp and CO2 are pretty much going up, while
sunspots oscillate on the 11 year solar cycle. (You can
see that temp has year to year variability due to weather
patterns while CO2 has a much longer time constant.)
The Sun is brighter at solar max (more sunspots) although
sunspots themselves don't make the sun brighter, they're
just a tracer of the solar cycle.

Ben



Thanks. Should have read this before replying. Reassuring that I
remembered the bit about the 11-year sunspot cycle. Of course, when
you're going senile you remember 4th grade but can't recall what you've
eaten for breakfast.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001