Answers wanted from "global warming" supporters

[ScreamingEagle]

1. Effects. Glaciers melting, Artic Ice melting. Outgassing of yedoma and permafrost. Outgassing of Arctic Ocean clathrates.

2. Look at the graph. Notice that there have been many periods when the temperature actualy declined for more than ten years. In fact, in the period of the intense industrialization of Europe, Japan, and North America, the temperature declined due to solar and reflectivity of sulphates put into the atmosphere.

However, in spite of the intense industrialization of Asia, and the resultant pollution, in spite of a record solar minimum for the last 180 years, and a strong La Nina in 2008, 2009, if you start from 1998, the last ten years have been flat. If you start from 1997, or 1999, there has been a rise.

So your statement is the result of a cherry picked starting point. The last decade has been the warmest decade on record.

But rejoice! The next decade will be even warmer.

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

I would like to know why you are so dumb as to purposely ignore the natural variatins in the graph where the temperature has gone done for over ten years in spite of increasing CO2. Then the temperature rises well above the previous highs.

I'm not ignoring natural variations. I was just questioning the obvious lack of correlation (as claimed by "global warmers") between the increasing CO2 emissions and the cooling global temperatures during that time period.

It appears to me (and as Caligirl pointed out) a whole lot more is going on than just CO2 emissions that control the earth's climate.....so perhaps CO2 emissions are not quite the driving force that the "global warmers" are claiming....

In the U.S. 1997 began a hike upwards in temperatures....this is about when all the hoopla got started about "global warming"....but last year and this year show a significant drop and temps seem to be back more in the "normal" range....

With it snowing in Copenhagen do you think the "global warmers" might take notice of this temperature drop and explain how it happened before their expensive program even got started?

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

 

[Zoom-boing]

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

So this is the chart that says there has been a steady rise in temps since 1998? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing rises and falls . . . as mother nature does her thing.

 

[The T]

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

So this is the chart that says there has been a steady rise in temps since 1998? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing rises and falls . . . as mother nature does her thing.

Yep. I too, see cycles. But with that graph I don't see reasons like Sunspot cycles, Volcano eruptions and other things. It's incomplete.

 

[Zoom-boing]

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

So this is the chart that says there has been a steady rise in temps since 1998? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing rises and falls . . . as mother nature does her thing.

Yep. I too, see cycles. But with that graph I don't see reasons like Sunspot cycles, Volcano eruptions and other things. It's incomplete.

That's just it, the charts never show reasons . . . .

The earth warms the earth cools; always has, always will. Whether man is the primary, or even a significant, cause . . . that's $100B question.

 

[Chris]

Have a link to back up that fraudulent claim?

I didn't think so.

Fradulent claim?

It is a scientific fact proven in 1859!

Being a stupid asshole on purpose again, I see.

Yes, you are.

 

[Chris]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically? -
One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

 

[code1211]

More ignorance on display.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859!

We have doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The North Polar ice cap is melting, inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

If the permafrost melts it will release enormous amounts of methane which is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.

1. 280 ppm to 380 ppm is not double.

2. Is the measure of CO2 today done by the same method as the measure of CO2 100,000 years ago?

3. Since the solar activity decreased, the Artice Sea ice extent has expanded.

4. The perma frost is melting right now and releasing more CO2 than the combined industry of the USA.

Assumptions, half truths, implications and inuendo. Please, present some facts.

 

[code1211]

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

That claim has been debunked for so long and so thoroughly, that only the terminal and willful moonbats cling to it.

Increased CO2 concentrations follow periods of warming, rather than precede them.

Continueing to show what a dumb fuck you are? The little ice age was a warm period? For that is what preceded the present period. The CO2 level went up from the burning of fossil fuels, then the temperature went up.

A dumb fuck like you cannot differentiate between the results of the Milankovic Cycles and the increased GHGs due to industrialization.

Wow. Are we on a fantasy flight? The cooling of the Little Ice Age ended right around 1700. Some proxies indicate earlier warming. Anyway, it was at this point, warming started again. It had been interupted by the sudden cooling which was the Little Ice Age.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

The Industrial Revolution started in the mid to late 18th Century, after the warming had started.

Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claiming that the future causes the past is not good science.

 

[edthecynic]

If rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...then why no warming during the last 10 years?

If there was no warming the last ten years, why were the last ten years the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement?????

No matter how many times the "no warming" the last 10-11 years lie is debunked on these boards, some moron keeps posting it.

 

[edthecynic]

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

I would like to know why you are so dumb as to purposely ignore the natural variatins in the graph where the temperature has gone done for over ten years in spite of increasing CO2. Then the temperature rises well above the previous highs.

I'm not ignoring natural variations. I was just questioning the obvious lack of correlation (as claimed by "global warmers") between the increasing CO2 emissions and the cooling global temperatures during that time period.

It appears to me (and as Caligirl pointed out) a whole lot more is going on than just CO2 emissions that control the earth's climate.....so perhaps CO2 emissions are not quite the driving force that the "global warmers" are claiming....

In the U.S. 1997 began a hike upwards in temperatures....this is about when all the hoopla got started about "global warming"....but last year and this year show a significant drop and temps seem to be back more in the "normal" range....

With it snowing in Copenhagen do you think the "global warmers" might take notice of this temperature drop and explain how it happened before their expensive program even got started?

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

Another dufuss who thinks the USA is the whole globe.

 

[code1211]

Just almost 100% of the scientists involved in climate research.

Have a link to back up that fraudulent claim?

I didn't think so.

Fradulent claim?

It is a scientific fact proven in 1859!

Well, if they proved it in 1859, we don't need to think about it anymore, do we.

We may rest assured that Piltdown Man was the missing link between monkeys and man, the bumps on our heads hold the prediction of our capabilities and futures, that a stick can find water 150 feet under ground and that all women are physically and intellectually inferior to men.

We may also assume, based on the conclusion of research done before the Civil War, that CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming.

This should save plenty of money knowing that any scietific research still being conducted is pointless as the Truths needed to live today were all revealed before 1859. Thank you, Chris, for this enlightening pronouncement.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The History of Phrenology
Dowsing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism

 

[code1211]

If rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...then why no warming during the last 10 years?

If there was no warming the last ten years, why were the last ten years the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement?????

No matter how many times the "no warming" the last 10-11 years lie is debunked on these boards, some moron keeps posting it.

I am currently the tallest that I have ever been in my life. I have not grown in about 40 years. I would assume that as my cartiladge compresses, I will shrink a little.

See? Both I and the climate can both be at the highest ever and not be increasing. Does this help unravel the mystery for you?

You must be a magician's dream audience.

 

[code1211]

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

PDO and NAO are likely reasons. Decadal ocean oscillations can explain the cooling circa 1945, circa 1975, and the steady temperatures now. If true, the temp will start rising dramatically again in the coning years. The el nino that has recently formed and is predicted through the spring also predicts a warm year next year.

Anyway, here is a paper for you. There is a figure in it that shows multidecadal temperature oscillations and these correlate with certain fish species dominating in the oceans, (that's the basis for the name of the article.)

From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal ... [Science. 2003] - PubMed result

It sounds as though the late nineties saw a return to a cooler pacific than in the 70's.

How does this jive with global warming, Anthropogenic or not? If the Pacific is cooling, and that's a whole big bunch of water and a pretty good percent of the global surface and ocean depths, an equally whole big bunch of water must be cooling.

This seems to support the notion that in truth the globe is not warming.

Along with you, I feel that there are numerous causes and effects on climate outside of the control of Man. What impact Anthropogenic CO2 has on the climate is debatable. What the total impact is, whether it is 1%, 10% or 100%, is a very important consideration in determining the response to be taken in changing the society and world economy.

That proponents of AGW are weak in this area and very strong in the proclaimation of dire consequence is troubling to me.


From your link:

In the Pacific Ocean, air and ocean temperatures, atmospheric carbon dioxide, landings of anchovies and sardines, and the productivity of coastal and open ocean ecosystems have varied over periods of about 50 years. In the mid-1970s, the Pacific changed from a cool "anchovy regime" to a warm "sardine regime." A shift back to an anchovy regime occurred in the middle to late 1990s. These large-scale, naturally occurring variations must be taken into account when considering human-induced climate change and the management of ocean living resources.

 

[Sinatra]

1. Is 1 degree of warming in 100 years really a Crisis? Why?

2. If rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...then why no warming during the last 10 years?

There is no crisis - and your question regarding that fact is spot on.

The only crisis involved is the economic shake-down being attemptd by UN nations and a crop of willing wester world leaders who see the CO2 boogyman as a means to increase government power and influence.

I used to laugh a bit at the one-world order folks.

Not anymore...

 

[edthecynic]

If rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...then why no warming during the last 10 years?

If there was no warming the last ten years, why were the last ten years the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement?????

No matter how many times the "no warming" the last 10-11 years lie is debunked on these boards, some moron keeps posting it.

I am currently the tallest that I have ever been in my life. I have not grown in about 40 years. I would assume that as my cartiladge compresses, I will shrink a little.

See? Both I and the climate can both be at the highest ever and not be increasing. Does this help unravel the mystery for you?

You must be a magician's dream audience.

You are certainly a CON$ dream audience.

This last decade was warmer than the previous decade. 2005 was the warmest year, 2007 tied 1998 as the second warmest year.

<global climate statement 2009>

2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE

Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).

 

[Sinatra]

1. Is 1 degree of warming in 100 years really a Crisis? Why?

2. If rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...then why no warming during the last 10 years?

There is no crisis - and your question regarding that fact is spot on.

The only crisis involved is the economic shake-down being attemptd by UN nations and a crop of willing wester world leaders who see the CO2 boogyman as a means to increase government power and influence.

I used to laugh a bit at the one-world order folks.

Not anymore...

---

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I would like to know why you are so dumb as to purposely ignore the natural variatins in the graph where the temperature has gone done for over ten years in spite of increasing CO2. Then the temperature rises well above the previous highs.

I'm not ignoring natural variations. I was just questioning the obvious lack of correlation (as claimed by "global warmers") between the increasing CO2 emissions and the cooling global temperatures during that time period.

It appears to me (and as Caligirl pointed out) a whole lot more is going on than just CO2 emissions that control the earth's climate.....so perhaps CO2 emissions are not quite the driving force that the "global warmers" are claiming....

In the U.S. 1997 began a hike upwards in temperatures....this is about when all the hoopla got started about "global warming"....but last year and this year show a significant drop and temps seem to be back more in the "normal" range....

With it snowing in Copenhagen do you think the "global warmers" might take notice of this temperature drop and explain how it happened before their expensive program even got started?

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

Another dufuss who thinks the USA is the whole globe.

No, I put that graph there on purpose and it was labelled properly as being U.S. At least you were smart enough to realize that....most people are fooled by the Al Gores of the world when shown that graph....of course the U.S. is pointed out as being the big culprit of "global warming"....and so therefore the U.S. must pay big buck$ to other countries for our "sin" of "dangerously" heating up the climate....what a friggin' farce....this is nothing more than a world-wide rip-off....BIG hoaxes that rip-off BIG money (& power) need BIG scare tactics...

The chart you put up only goes back to the 1800s.....it also is a chart that is misleading and shows only a short approx 150 year span which is only a blip in the world's temperature history....showing a short cool period and then a short warming period....this kind of graph is also used to get people hyped up about global warming....charts can be very misleading....

Here is a much bigger historical chart (timewise) which spans several thousand years for world temps....do you see any problem with "global warming" in this chart? I don't...the world's temperature seems to be within the normal parameters of history....i suspect Al Gore may have invented "global warming" instead of the internet.....

who knows what the next few years will bring.....could get colder or could get warmer....i don't see any threat from CO2.....actually i hope it will get warmer....that would actually be quite nice for mankind....cold periods can be quite hard on people...

 

[Sinatra]

Great job on this post!

I'm not ignoring natural variations. I was just questioning the obvious lack of correlation (as claimed by "global warmers") between the increasing CO2 emissions and the cooling global temperatures during that time period.

It appears to me (and as Caligirl pointed out) a whole lot more is going on than just CO2 emissions that control the earth's climate.....so perhaps CO2 emissions are not quite the driving force that the "global warmers" are claiming....

In the U.S. 1997 began a hike upwards in temperatures....this is about when all the hoopla got started about "global warming"....but last year and this year show a significant drop and temps seem to be back more in the "normal" range....

With it snowing in Copenhagen do you think the "global warmers" might take notice of this temperature drop and explain how it happened before their expensive program even got started?

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

Another dufuss who thinks the USA is the whole globe.

No, I put that graph there on purpose and it was labelled properly as being U.S. At least you were smart enough to realize that....most people are fooled by the Al Gores of the world when shown that graph....of course the U.S. is pointed out as being the big culprit of "global warming"....and so therefore the U.S. must pay big buck$ to other countries for our "sin" of "dangerously" heating up the climate....what a friggin' farce....this is nothing more than a world-wide rip-off....BIG hoaxes that rip-off BIG money (& power) need BIG scare tactics...

The chart you put up only goes back to the 1800s.....it also is a chart that is misleading and shows only a short approx 150 year span which is only a blip in the world's temperature history....showing a short cool period and then a short warming period....this kind of graph is also used to get people hyped up about global warming....charts can be very misleading....

Here is a much bigger historical chart (timewise) which spans several thousand years for world temps....do you see any problem with "global warming" in this chart? I don't...the world's temperature seems to be within the normal parameters of history....i suspect Al Gore may have invented "global warming" instead of the internet.....

who knows what the next few years will bring.....could get colder or could get warmer....i don't see any threat from CO2.....actually i hope it will get warmer....that would actually be quite nice for mankind....cold periods can be quite hard on people...

 

[Chris]

More ignorance on display.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859!

We have doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The North Polar ice cap is melting, inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

If the permafrost melts it will release enormous amounts of methane which is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.

1. 280 ppm to 380 ppm is not double.

2. Is the measure of CO2 today done by the same method as the measure of CO2 100,000 years ago?

3. Since the solar activity decreased, the Artice Sea ice extent has expanded.

4. The perma frost is melting right now and releasing more CO2 than the combined industry of the USA.

Assumptions, half truths, implications and inuendo. Please, present some facts.

No, these are facts.

1. It's now over 385. Don't worry we will soon double it.

2. Yes, the way they measure CO2 in the Antarctic ice cores is the same, and CO2 levels are higher now than at anytime in the last 600,000 years.

3. Yes, the Sun does effect the temperature of the earth. I have started several threads about the Sun being at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. I am glad you read them.

4. The permafrost methane is much more dangerous than the increase in CO2. I have warned about it many times.

I know that the facts disagree with your worldview. When this happens, people resort to personal attacks.

 

[Si modo]

More ignorance on display.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859!

We have doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The North Polar ice cap is melting, inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

If the permafrost melts it will release enormous amounts of methane which is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.

1. 280 ppm to 380 ppm is not double.

2. Is the measure of CO2 today done by the same method as the measure of CO2 100,000 years ago?

3. Since the solar activity decreased, the Artice Sea ice extent has expanded.

4. The perma frost is melting right now and releasing more CO2 than the combined industry of the USA.

Assumptions, half truths, implications and inuendo. Please, present some facts.

No, these are facts.

1. It's now over 385. Don't worry we will soon double it. ....

On what do you base this claim. That means don't just type something, provide a reference that supports what you type.

.... 2. Yes, the way they measure CO2 in the Antarctic ice cores is the same, and CO2 levels are higher now than at anytime in the last 600,000 years.

3. Yes, the Sun does effect the temperature of the earth. I have started several threads about the Sun being at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. I am glad you read them.

4. The permafrost methane is much more dangerous than the increase in CO2. I have warned about it many times.

I know that the facts disagree with your worldview. When this happens, people resort to personal attacks.

Christ, don't just type, provide references. Folks learn that in junior high school.