Another factor to debunk global warming

[daveman]

An Inconvenient Truth cherry picked anomalies, stretched the truth and use skewed statistics to try to prove a point, typical Hollywood style. Good overall message, with out the hype and scare tactics it could have been better, but I didn't really care for the movie because it didn't stay 100% accurate. It still doesn't change the fact our planet has been warming since the last major ice age and the last minor ice age.

Aah ... but here's the thing ... all environut scientists do, and most do for more funding (as with many studies). It was actually an eye opener for many people, but not in helpful way to the hoaxers of GW. It demonstrated just how far the "love everything" people will go just to make a point, and money. When science gets too muddied with so much exaggeration and lies it becomes more and more difficult to find the truth, and the truth is never as simple as "if we do A then B will happen", as any real scientist will tell you.

Very true, that's why I'm not a big fan of computer modeling, but the facts remain the same, all data gathering shows were warming.

...because the data is cherrypicked to produce the desired result.

 

[daveman]

It's H20 Mr krotchdog.

That's some dangerous stuff! It should be outlawed!

 

[konradv]

Gore does'nt believe any of the crap that he has been saying. Proof is, he bought a Mansion that use's large amounts of Elec. , is in Calif. where the sea is supposed to rise. Use's private jet any time he wants.
He would be doing the opposite if he really did believe it.
What a hypocrite!

That's not proof of anything, but that you don't grasp the subject. Those that do, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore.

I believe in the real science not the junk science. It's natural and not man made.

This is how REAL SCIENCE works.

The infra-red absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

What's junk about that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What about the world base for data concerning tree rings?

Tree-Ring Data - World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

World Data Center for Paleoclimatology - Climate Reconstructions

You see Frank, that data is readily available for any that would care to use it. Your bunch of deniers do not care to use it for the reality that it records does not fit the idiocy that you fellows push. Nature cares not a whit for your political agenda.

So are these the tree rings that validate the discredited hockey stick graph?

 

[theHawk]

"Global Warming", referring to anthropogenic global warming, is a total hoax. That's why the enviro-wackos had to change it to "Climate Change". In a few years they'll change it to "Weather abuse."

 

[daveman]

That's not proof of anything, but that you don't grasp the subject. Those that do, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore.

I believe in the real science not the junk science. It's natural and not man made.

This is how REAL SCIENCE works.

The infra-red absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

What's junk about that?

Pretending that those are the only factors driving climate.

 

[westwall]

Kitten, that is what the article I posted says. That the temperature, because of the Milankovic Cycles, first warms the Arctic Ocean, then that outgasses CO2, creating a feedback effect, further warming the atmosphere.

Yep, that pretty much explains it all. A COMPLETELY NATURAL PROCESS BASED ON WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING HERE. As Chris would say "THANKS FOR VERIFYING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG" MAN INDEED HAS NO IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE...

Case closed yet again. Well done old fraud, you're turning to the dark side.

 

[konradv]

I believe in the real science not the junk science. It's natural and not man made.

This is how REAL SCIENCE works.

The infra-red absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

What's junk about that?

Pretending that those are the only factors driving climate.

Not pretending anything. Just trying to show the logic of the situation. What's wrong with what I said? Just because there are other factors effecting climate, doesn't change what I presented. They're irrelevant to the syllogism provided. Find the flaw and I'll come to your side. Warning, so far no one's been able to. Throwing out irrelevancies not dealing directly with the three lines presented isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

 

[peach174]

I agree that we do have gobal warming but you must take in all of the data and when you do
you will see that it's natural and no matter what humans do we can not stop it.
Nasa reports that Mars caps are melting just at fast as ours. Take into acount that our polar tilt is changing and that our magnitic field is getting ready to flip.
This is the way Earth stays alive by changing and renewing it's self.

 

[westwall]

This is how REAL SCIENCE works.

The infra-red absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

What's junk about that?

Pretending that those are the only factors driving climate.

Not pretending anything. Just trying to show the logic of the situation. What's wrong with what I said? Just because there are other factors effecting climate, doesn't change what I presented. They're irrelevant to the syllogism provided. Find the flaw and I'll come to your side. Warning, so far no one's been able to. Throwing out irrelevancies not dealing directly with the three lines presented isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

konrad we have presented plenty of factual scientific evidence that the theory of AGW is seriously flawed and if allowed to dictate the laws of the planet will have significant and detrimental effects.

You ignore all of that and stick to a very simplistic viewpoint while acknowledging that yes the climate is very complex but you believe that a very very very small amount of a critical element of life when "polluted" by mans touch will suddenly be the end of life as we know it.

We KNOW that the MWP was warmer than now.
We KNOW that the RWP was warmer than now.
We KNOW that the critters of the world did better then than they do now.
We KNOW that the CO2 concentrations rise AFTER the heat, by hundreds of years.
We KNOW that the lead scientists in the AGW arena have been fabricating data for years.
We KNOW that the lead scientists in the AGW arena, in partnership with Goldman Sachs and other "big name" financial groups, are pushing for worldwide legislation that will control the way you and everyone else lives, and make those same groups VERY VERY RICH.

We KNOW these things. And you are still trying to tell us that the world is going to end over a trace gas that is in such a miniscule amount that it takes extremely expensive instruments to even detect it. The AGW crowd has had thirty years of saying the world is going to end but there has been no measurable increase in the overall worlds temperature since 1998 (in fact it has gone down) and yet a single good eruption like that in Iceland can drop worldwide temps in a matter of weeks.

So continue to keep your head in the sand but my friend it is YOUR choice to do so.
The evidence is there and plain to see if you will only open your eyes.

 

[konradv]

Pretending that those are the only factors driving climate.

Not pretending anything. Just trying to show the logic of the situation. What's wrong with what I said? Just because there are other factors effecting climate, doesn't change what I presented. They're irrelevant to the syllogism provided. Find the flaw and I'll come to your side. Warning, so far no one's been able to. Throwing out irrelevancies not dealing directly with the three lines presented isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

konrad we have presented plenty of factual scientific evidence that the theory of AGW is seriously flawed and if allowed to dictate the laws of the planet will have significant and detrimental effects.

You ignore all of that and stick to a very simplistic viewpoint while acknowledging that yes the climate is very complex but you believe that a very very very small amount of a critical element of life when "polluted" by mans touch will suddenly be the end of life as we know it.

We KNOW that the MWP was warmer than now.
We KNOW that the RWP was warmer than now.
We KNOW that the critters of the world did better then than they do now.
We KNOW that the CO2 concentrations rise AFTER the heat, by hundreds of years.
We KNOW that the lead scientists in the AGW arena have been fabricating data for years.
We KNOW that the lead scientists in the AGW arena, in partnership with Goldman Sachs and other "big name" financial groups, are pushing for worldwide legislation that will control the way you and everyone else lives, and make those same groups VERY VERY RICH.

We KNOW these things. And you are still trying to tell us that the world is going to end over a trace gas that is in such a miniscule amount that it takes extremely expensive instruments to even detect it. The AGW crowd has had thirty years of saying the world is going to end but there has been no measurable increase in the overall worlds temperature since 1998 (in fact it has gone down) and yet a single good eruption like that in Iceland can drop worldwide temps in a matter of weeks.

So continue to keep your head in the sand but my friend it is YOUR choice to do so.
The evidence is there and plain to see if you will only open your eyes.

All that matters is whether it's true or not. What's untrue about what I said?

 

[daveman]

This is how REAL SCIENCE works.

The infra-red absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

What's junk about that?

Pretending that those are the only factors driving climate.

Not pretending anything. Just trying to show the logic of the situation. What's wrong with what I said? Just because there are other factors effecting climate, doesn't change what I presented. They're irrelevant to the syllogism provided. Find the flaw and I'll come to your side. Warning, so far no one's been able to. Throwing out irrelevancies not dealing directly with the three lines presented isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

You've got it backwards. It's up to the AGW cultists to prove their case. So far, they haven't. All the revelations about cherrypicked and skewed data and models created to arrive at a predetermined conclusion only prove that the science simply isn't there.

 

[westwall]

Not pretending anything. Just trying to show the logic of the situation. What's wrong with what I said? Just because there are other factors effecting climate, doesn't change what I presented. They're irrelevant to the syllogism provided. Find the flaw and I'll come to your side. Warning, so far no one's been able to. Throwing out irrelevancies not dealing directly with the three lines presented isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

konrad we have presented plenty of factual scientific evidence that the theory of AGW is seriously flawed and if allowed to dictate the laws of the planet will have significant and detrimental effects.

You ignore all of that and stick to a very simplistic viewpoint while acknowledging that yes the climate is very complex but you believe that a very very very small amount of a critical element of life when "polluted" by mans touch will suddenly be the end of life as we know it.

We KNOW that the MWP was warmer than now.
We KNOW that the RWP was warmer than now.
We KNOW that the critters of the world did better then than they do now.
We KNOW that the CO2 concentrations rise AFTER the heat, by hundreds of years.
We KNOW that the lead scientists in the AGW arena have been fabricating data for years.
We KNOW that the lead scientists in the AGW arena, in partnership with Goldman Sachs and other "big name" financial groups, are pushing for worldwide legislation that will control the way you and everyone else lives, and make those same groups VERY VERY RICH.

We KNOW these things. And you are still trying to tell us that the world is going to end over a trace gas that is in such a miniscule amount that it takes extremely expensive instruments to even detect it. The AGW crowd has had thirty years of saying the world is going to end but there has been no measurable increase in the overall worlds temperature since 1998 (in fact it has gone down) and yet a single good eruption like that in Iceland can drop worldwide temps in a matter of weeks.

So continue to keep your head in the sand but my friend it is YOUR choice to do so.
The evidence is there and plain to see if you will only open your eyes.

All that matters is whether it's true or not. What's untrue about what I said?

What's untrue about what I posted?

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Dave, old boy, show me a Scientific Society that claims that AGW is unproven.

 

[daveman]

OK, Dave, old boy, show me a Scientific Society that claims that AGW is unproven.

Oh, you mean a scientific society that isn't dependent on government grants and whose publications aren't tightly managed by the AGW cult?

Well...you got me there.

You know, you cultists always screech "Follow the money!" when it comes to people who haven't swallowed your crap. But you never follow the money when it comes to the cult, do you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Need more tinfoil for your hat, dingus?

 

[westwall]

OK, Dave, old boy, show me a Scientific Society that claims that AGW is unproven.

Show me one organisation that supports it that doesn't rake in millions of dollars of taxpayer money to fund their "studies". Also no legit scientific organisation would say that. They will say as many more will begin to, "that the science of AGW is at this time unsupported by fact. In the future with better scientific instrumentation (and ethical scientists...OK, I added that part!) AGW theory may become supported by fact. But currently it is not.

 

[daveman]

Need more tinfoil for your hat, dingus?

If I do, I'll borrow yours, cultist.

 

[code1211]

An Inconvenient Truth cherry picked anomalies, stretched the truth and use skewed statistics to try to prove a point, typical Hollywood style. Good overall message, with out the hype and scare tactics it could have been better, but I didn't really care for the movie because it didn't stay 100% accurate. It still doesn't change the fact our planet has been warming since the last major ice age and the last minor ice age.

What do you think the planet is supposed to do after an ice age? Cool down?

By the normal Milankovic Cycles we should have already started a slow cooling prepatory to entering another glacial cycle a few thousand years down the world. We should not be seeing the rapid warming that we are seeing.

We are far above the previous high for CO2. 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was at 300 ppm. Today we are above 385 ppm. When we were at 300 ppm in the previous interglacial, the sea level was about 3 meters higher than today.

And I am concerned about the effects on the food supply for nearly 7 billion humans. We are already seeing effects there.

The experts would disagree with that:

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<snip>

Since orbital variations are predictable,[15] if one has a model that relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a model forward to "predict" future climate. Two caveats are necessary: that anthropogenic effects may modify or even overwhelm orbital effects and that the mechanism by which orbital forcing influences climate is not well understood.

The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years. A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years.

Code inserts here: Lower eccentricity=more circular orbit. More circular orbit=higher insolation and therefore a warmer globe.

Changes in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity &#949;. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause an ice age, are expected in the next 50,000 years.


An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[16]

More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[17]

The best chances for a decline in Northern hemisphere summer insolation that would be sufficient for triggering an ice age is at 130,000 years or possibly as far out at 620,000 years.[18]

 

[code1211]

Ice core data also shows that we are in normal patterns of temperature flucuations. In fact it shows there were periods of much greater warmth than was experienced by the recent solar maximium.

Ice core data also shows that CO2 is a symptom not a cause of warming. The CO2 rise follows warming.

File:Vostok 420ky 4curves insolation.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The skeptic argument...Joe Barton to Al Gore: "An article from Science magazine explains a rise in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. Temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa." (Source: Office of Congressman Joe Barton)

What the science says...
The CO2 record confirms both the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2 and how sensitive climate is to change.


Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.


Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise

Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).

The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming sunlight). When springtime insolation increases in the southern hemisphere, this coincides with rising temperatures in the south, retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the southern hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007).

The current Interglacial may not be like the previous interglacials of the last million or so years. In fact, it is not. It has already lasted far longer than the previous recent Interglacials:

File:Vostok 420ky 4curves insolation.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The major Milankovitch cycle of eccentricity, shape of the orbit, is most heavily controlled by the gravitational pulls of Jupiter and Saturn. This controlling effect has changed somewhat, apparent in the graph from the departure from the sharp peak in temperature and sudden drop following the peak, and may not allow another ice age to grip the planet for several millenia.

The problem with nature is not that it is too simple to predict, but that it is too complex to predict. Add to the list of variables in predicting the global climate in the distant future the impact of the shape of our orbit as dictated by the gravitational pulls of Jupiter and Saturn and the Sun and the Moon.

According to the chart above, we have remained at a sustained 8 to 10 degrees above the temperature of an Ice Age Earth for about 10,000 years. The effect of releasing sequestered CO2 over that long a period of time should cause an increase in atmospheric CO2. No?

The fact that there was a dramatic cool down between about 1200 AD and about 1700 AD should have caused a dramatic increase in the sequestration of CO2. No?

We know that the Earth is naturally releasing 97% of the CO2 and we, Mankind, release only about 3% of the overall total.

Might it not be reasonable to assume that a warmer Earth will be a higher CO2 Earth simply because the opportunities for natural sequestering are more rare?

To save our planet from global warming, all we need to do is change the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.

Turn on the tractor beam, Scotty.