CDZ Climate Change effects already here, yet denial persists

[320 Years of History]

Red:
I see you are just sayin'. I wish you would kindly heed the simple request I made of you to just cease and desist with responding to me. I no longer have any interest in what you have to say. That of all that I wrote, the only thing you had to comment on is Steig is enough to show anyone why I have requested that of you.

There is the rub isn't it. You use sources that are KNOWN to be foul. Thus, by implication, everything you claim is judged in a similar light. "Once a perjurer, always a perjurer" is the legal term, and in a Court of law, once it is known that you have committed perjury you are no longer a useful witness. For ANYTHING.

If you wish to be taken seriously you must use sources that aren't KNOWN to be false.

Is there some reason you refrained from sharing the scholarly material that shows Steig's peers in science have discredited him? It it really asking too much for you to have merely posted the link to the peer reviews of the Steig document that I referenced?

More importantly, look at what I referenced from Steig. I didn't highlight or rely upon his actual research into climate change. I made note of his admonition that the distinction between and relevance of/need for absolute accuracy vs. relative accuracy. That's an admonition that any sage researcher, commentator, decision maker, or observer must heed, regardless of the topic. That Steig offered that missive with regard to climate change research has no bearing on the qualitative and quantitative validity of his, or anyone else's, actual research and analysis.

This is now the third (forth?) successive contextually "off point" remark you've made to me. Like the others, this one shows your unwillingness or inability (I have no idea which it is) to think critically before you share whatever thought happens to have popped into your head.

I have a couple specific questions to ask you...

• Why do you refuse to honor my request that you not respond to my posts on this topic?
• Are you truly, at the core of your being, just that disrespectful?

Here you go. I would think that someone claiming to be on top of research would KNOW this.
Retraction Watch
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online


Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch

Fine, Steig's research is lame. What has that to do with the merit of the general admonition regarding the two dimensions of critical analysis he wrote of? Those two dimensions are the only statements of his that were germane to my mention of Steig.

Steig is also unethical. Thus, NOTHING he presents is useful, nor germane to ANYTHING. That's the point.

Please now answer the two specific questions I asked you....

 

[westwall]

There is the rub isn't it. You use sources that are KNOWN to be foul. Thus, by implication, everything you claim is judged in a similar light. "Once a perjurer, always a perjurer" is the legal term, and in a Court of law, once it is known that you have committed perjury you are no longer a useful witness. For ANYTHING.

If you wish to be taken seriously you must use sources that aren't KNOWN to be false.

Is there some reason you refrained from sharing the scholarly material that shows Steig's peers in science have discredited him? It it really asking too much for you to have merely posted the link to the peer reviews of the Steig document that I referenced?

More importantly, look at what I referenced from Steig. I didn't highlight or rely upon his actual research into climate change. I made note of his admonition that the distinction between and relevance of/need for absolute accuracy vs. relative accuracy. That's an admonition that any sage researcher, commentator, decision maker, or observer must heed, regardless of the topic. That Steig offered that missive with regard to climate change research has no bearing on the qualitative and quantitative validity of his, or anyone else's, actual research and analysis.

This is now the third (forth?) successive contextually "off point" remark you've made to me. Like the others, this one shows your unwillingness or inability (I have no idea which it is) to think critically before you share whatever thought happens to have popped into your head.

I have a couple specific questions to ask you...

• Why do you refuse to honor my request that you not respond to my posts on this topic?
• Are you truly, at the core of your being, just that disrespectful?

Here you go. I would think that someone claiming to be on top of research would KNOW this.
Retraction Watch
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online


Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch

Fine, Steig's research is lame. What has that to do with the merit of the general admonition regarding the two dimensions of critical analysis he wrote of? Those two dimensions are the only statements of his that were germane to my mention of Steig.

Steig is also unethical. Thus, NOTHING he presents is useful, nor germane to ANYTHING. That's the point.

Please now answer the two specific questions I asked you....

Your two questions are

• Why do you refuse to honor my request that you not respond to my posts on this topic?
• Are you truly, at the core of your being, just that disrespectful

Because this is a free message board. If you don't want people to respond to your posts, then don't post here.

It is you who are being disrespectful. If your arguments are sound, then you shouldn't be afraid of having them challenged. If you are reduced to censoring response, your argument sucks, and you are disrespecting the spirit of this Forum.

 

[Anathema]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

Nothing that will mean anything before I'm long dead and gone; so why the hell should I care?

 

[320 Years of History]

Is there some reason you refrained from sharing the scholarly material that shows Steig's peers in science have discredited him? It it really asking too much for you to have merely posted the link to the peer reviews of the Steig document that I referenced?

More importantly, look at what I referenced from Steig. I didn't highlight or rely upon his actual research into climate change. I made note of his admonition that the distinction between and relevance of/need for absolute accuracy vs. relative accuracy. That's an admonition that any sage researcher, commentator, decision maker, or observer must heed, regardless of the topic. That Steig offered that missive with regard to climate change research has no bearing on the qualitative and quantitative validity of his, or anyone else's, actual research and analysis.

This is now the third (forth?) successive contextually "off point" remark you've made to me. Like the others, this one shows your unwillingness or inability (I have no idea which it is) to think critically before you share whatever thought happens to have popped into your head.

I have a couple specific questions to ask you...

• Why do you refuse to honor my request that you not respond to my posts on this topic?
• Are you truly, at the core of your being, just that disrespectful?

Here you go. I would think that someone claiming to be on top of research would KNOW this.
Retraction Watch
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online


Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch

Fine, Steig's research is lame. What has that to do with the merit of the general admonition regarding the two dimensions of critical analysis he wrote of? Those two dimensions are the only statements of his that were germane to my mention of Steig.

Steig is also unethical. Thus, NOTHING he presents is useful, nor germane to ANYTHING. That's the point.

Please now answer the two specific questions I asked you....

Your two questions are

• Why do you refuse to honor my request that you not respond to my posts on this topic?
• Are you truly, at the core of your being, just that disrespectful

Because this is a free message board. If you don't want people to respond to your posts, then don't post here.

It is you who are being disrespectful. If your arguments are sound, then you shouldn't be afraid of having them challenged. If you are reduced to censoring response, your argument sucks, and you are disrespecting the spirit of this Forum.

Red:
I'm not fearful of having my remarks challenged. I welcome challenges to my comments, just not sophomoric ones. I'm frustrated and annoyed with having to respond, out of nothing but politeness, to inane challenges to my posts, not challenges in general. I don't beg folks to reply to me, but I would like those who do and whom I cannot ignore to have something of equal rigor and coherence to say.

Evidence of my willingness to face and respond to challenges is seen in my reply to your fellow staff member. flacaltenn raised the point of temporal resolution, and though it missed the mark in terms of how he applied and weighed it vis a vis the other material factors in evaluating the verity and impact of climate change, temporal resolution is at least a valid consideration in doing so even if it's not reliably a strong basis for refuting the entirety of the findings in the body of climate change investigation.

Your remarks on this topic, in contrast, don't rise to that level. That and only that is why I've asked you to stop responding to my posts on this topic. For anyone else, I'd simply use the "ignore" feature and save myself the bother of becoming frustrated with their silly remarks. I suspect in time, they'd figure out by my recurring failure to respond to them that I have added them to my ignore list. Unfortunately, as you are as staff member, the "ignore" feature doesn't work.

Blue:
I assure you that my desire to no longer encounter your thoughts has nothing to do with the merit of my thoughts and everything to do with the lack thereof in yours. As I wrote before, I don't know why -- be it lack of will or lack of wherewithal -- you post such poorly developed ideas, particularly seeing as you are a staff member, but truly I don't care why. I just don't care to encounter poorly developed and ill conceived (with regard to any and all pertinent contexts) expressions of others' ideas.

 

[westwall]

Here you go. I would think that someone claiming to be on top of research would KNOW this.
Retraction Watch
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online


Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1,000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch

Fine, Steig's research is lame. What has that to do with the merit of the general admonition regarding the two dimensions of critical analysis he wrote of? Those two dimensions are the only statements of his that were germane to my mention of Steig.

Steig is also unethical. Thus, NOTHING he presents is useful, nor germane to ANYTHING. That's the point.

Please now answer the two specific questions I asked you....

Your two questions are

• Why do you refuse to honor my request that you not respond to my posts on this topic?
• Are you truly, at the core of your being, just that disrespectful

Because this is a free message board. If you don't want people to respond to your posts, then don't post here.

It is you who are being disrespectful. If your arguments are sound, then you shouldn't be afraid of having them challenged. If you are reduced to censoring response, your argument sucks, and you are disrespecting the spirit of this Forum.

Red:
I'm not fearful of having my remarks challenged. I welcome challenges to my comments, just not sophomoric ones. I'm frustrated and annoyed with having to respond, out of nothing but politeness, to inane challenges to my posts, not challenges in general. I don't beg folks to reply to me, but I would like those who do and whom I cannot ignore to have something of equal rigor and coherence to say.

Evidence of my willingness to face and respond to challenges is seen in my reply to your fellow staff member. flacaltenn raised the point of temporal resolution, and though it missed the mark in terms of how he applied and weighed it vis a vis the other material factors in evaluating the verity and impact of climate change, temporal resolution is at least a valid consideration in doing so even if it's not reliably a strong basis for refuting the entirety of the findings in the body of climate change investigation.

Your remarks on this topic, in contrast, don't rise to that level. That and only that is why I've asked you to stop responding to my posts on this topic. For anyone else, I'd simply use the "ignore" feature and save myself the bother of becoming frustrated with their silly remarks. I suspect in time, they'd figure out by my recurring failure to respond to them that I have added them to my ignore list. Unfortunately, as you are as staff member, the "ignore" feature doesn't work.

Blue:
I assure you that my desire to no longer encounter your thoughts has nothing to do with the merit of my thoughts and everything to do with the lack thereof in yours. As I wrote before, I don't know why -- be it lack of will or lack of wherewithal -- you post such poorly developed ideas, particularly seeing as you are a staff member, but truly I don't care why. I just don't care to encounter poorly developed and ill conceived (with regard to any and all pertinent contexts) expressions of others' ideas.

I don't post "ideas". I post facts. You post computer derived "studies". Those are, by definition "ideas". The only studies that matter are those of an empirical nature. That is not a sophomoric attitude, that is a scientific certainty.

 

[Ray9]

I confess I have not read this entire thread. No one denies climate change. The real issue is to decide with scientific rigor if human activity is changing climate to a degree that threatens the continued existence of the human race. Extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A better question to ask would be do the Earth's resources have the ability to support a human population of 11 billion humans by 2050? Simple observation would deliver a conclusion that whatever humans are doing they have improved the climate to a state where there are more humans now than at any time in the history of the human race. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop a worldwide manhatten project to reduce the world's population? Using bribed science to convinced people that a world government can use taxation to save the world seems ridiculous. Did the Neanderthals go extinct because they had a bad tax program?

 

[320 Years of History]

Question for the climate change skeptics/deniers:

• What observations or evidence would you consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Simple observation would deliver a conclusion that whatever humans are doing they have improved the climate to a state where there are more humans now than at any time in the history of the human race. W

You believe that procreation by people living in abject poverty is evidence of improved climate? Barely fed, hardly any water, no health care, no education system. Hundreds of millions live like that. Hardly evidence of success of anything but fucking and making babies.

How about that climate.
How could burning billions of tons of carbon (oil and coal) NOT have an effect on climate?

 

[320 Years of History]

No one denies climate change.

??? Say what? Denial need not only take the form or "it's simply not happening." In the case of denial about climate change and its impacts, the denial ranges in sophistication (assuming a speaker presents the most coherent mode of argument they can) from silly, to naive, to specious, to scientific. In terms of the taxonomy of argumentative structure, the types of denial include:

• There's nothing happening
• We don't know why the climate changes we observe are happening
• Climate change, of the sort we observe now, is natural
• Climate change, of the sort we observe now, is not bad
• Climate change, of the sort we observe now, can't be stopped

A few examples:

• Silly to naive, depending on the quality of the objection presented by a given individual:
  • The scientists aren’t even sure
    • Line of argument:
      Even the scientists don’t know that the climate is changing more than normal and if it’s our fault or not. If one reads what they write it is full of “probably,” “likely,” “evidence of” and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don’t know for sure, why should we worry yet?
      
    • Why it's silly/naive:
      Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.
      
      But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.
      
      But how well established is the greenhouse effect?
      
      Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, one will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain.”
      
      But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.
      
      The rest of the issue — how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be — is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.
  • Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
    • Line of Argument:
      The kind of drastic actions required to mitigate global warming risk the destruction of the global economy and the deaths of potentially billions of people.
      
    • Why it's silly/naive:
      Is this supposed to mean the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be wrong? One cannot come to a rational decision about the reality of a danger by considering how hard it might be to avoid. First things first: understand that the problem is real and present.
      
      Once one acknowledges the necessity of addressing the problem, taking action suddenly become less daunting. There is no point in discussing the best solutions or the cost of those solutions with someone who does not yet acknowledge the problem.
      
      But even if mitigating global warming would be harmful, given that famine, droughts, disease, loss of major coastal cities, and a tremendous mass extinction event are on the table as possible consequences of doing nothing, it may well be we are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. I challenge anyone to conclusively demonstrate that such catastrophes as listed above await us if we try to reduce fossil fuel use.
      
      Now, in terms of conservation and a global switch over to alternative fuels, the people who oppose doing this for climate change mitigation are forgetting something rather important. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and as such we have to make this global economic transformation regardless, whether now or a bit later. Many bright minds inside the industry think we are already at peak oil. So even if it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later.
      
      Can you say "win-win situation?"
• Naive to specious, depending on the quality of the objection presented by a given individual
  • One hundred years is not enough
    • Line of Argument:
      One hundred and some years of global surface temperatures is not long enough to draw any conclusions from or worry about anyway.
      
    • Why it's naive:
      The reliable instrumental record only goes back 150 years in the CRU analysis, 125 in the NASA analysis. This is a simple fact that we are stuck with. 2005 was the warmest year recorded in that period according to NASA, a very close second according to CRU. Because of this limit, it is not enough to say today that these are the warmest years since 150 years ago, rather one should say ‘at least’: 1998 and 2005 are the warmest two years in at least the last 150.
      
      
      
      But there is another direct measurement record available that can tell us things about temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements. This involves drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature of the earth at various depths. It gives us information about century-scale temperature trends, as warmer or cooler pulses from long term surface changes propagate down through the crust.
      
      
      
      It is possible to make reconstructions of temperature much further back, using what are called proxy data. These include things like tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, and others. The reconstructions available are all slightly different and provide sometimes more and sometimes less global versus regional coverage over the last one or two thousand years. Note: this covers what is often referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. As noted, all these reconstructions are different, but … they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
      
      
      
      The only other candidate for a higher temperature period — going back through the entire Holocene (~10,000bp to now) — is called the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 6,000 years ago. It is not known exactly what the temperatures were then; the farther back in time we try to look, the greater the uncertainties. Even so, the Holocene Climatic Optimum has long been cautiously thought to be almost as warm or even warmer than now.
      
      That conclusion is starting to look less likely, as it has been determined that the anomalous warmth of that time was actually confined to the northern hemisphere and occurred only in the summer months.
      
      Thus, we can reasonably believe it is warmer now than at any other time in at least the last 10,000 years. Before the current interglacial, the planet was in the grip of a much colder glacial period with ice sheets well down into the continental U.S. This period ended just some 11,000 years ago. The record of glacial-interglacial cycles can be read in Antarctic ice core analysis, and it shows these cycles over many 100Kyr periods. The IPCC offers a good version of this graph.
      
      
      
      If our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years. And that is a bit more than 100 years. It is, in fact, the entire history of our species.
  • Climate models are unproven
    • Line of argument:
      Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that have never had a prediction confirmed? Talk to me in 100 years.
      
    • Why it's naive:
      Given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some large time machines, we can’t test a 100-year temperature projection. Does that mean the models can’t be validated without waiting 100 years? No.
      
      The climate is an extremely complex system. Our observations of it are by no means complete -- even with regard to what’s going on today. This is a shortcoming we need to work hard to correct, but it is also an opportunity for validating model predictions: Find a measurement we’ve never taken, see how the models say it should turn out, and then go take it and compare.
      
      Still, there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896,Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.
      
      Arrhenius overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.
      
      Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted[PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
      
      And let’s face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable.
      
      Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:
      • models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
      • models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree — but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
      • models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
      • models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
      • models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
      • models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
      • and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.
      It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don’t have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.
      
      If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model’s predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past — say, the turn of the 20th century — and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events.
      
      Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.
      
      Would a prediction made in 1900 of temperature for year 2000 have been validated? Would politicians in 1900 have been wise to heed the warnings of science, had science had today’s climate models then? Clearly, yes in both situations.
  • The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing
    • Line of Argument:
      The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What’s so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better.
      
    • Why it's naive/specious:
      I don’t know if there is a meaningful way to define an “optimum” average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it’s even better with no ice caps anywhere.
      
      It doesn’t matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving. Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.
      
      This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before — that sounds reassuring, right?
      
      Not so much. Once one looks at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.
      
      What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes — up or down or sideways — are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.
• Specious lines of argument:
  • Yes, the last ice age started thawing over 20,000 years ago, but that stopped a long time ago
    • Line of argument:
      Global warming has been going on for the last 20,000 years.
      
    • Why it's specious:
      It is true that 20,000 years ago the temperature was some 8 to 10° C colder than it is today. But to draw a line from that point to today and say, “look, 20K years of global warming!” is dubious and arbitrary at best.
      
      If one looks at the "Holocene" graph presented earlier, starting at a point when we were finishing the climb out of deep glaciation, one can clearly see that rapid warming ceased around 10,000 years ago (rapid relative to natural fluctuations, but not compared to the warming today, which is an order of magnitude faster). After a final little lift 8,000 years ago, temperature trended downward for the entire period of the Holocene. So the post-industrial revolution warming is the reversal of a many-thousand-year trend.
      
      A closer look at today’s trend, within the context of the last 1,000 and 2,000 years, makes it even clearer that today’s trend is striking — opposite to what one would expect without anthropogenic interference.
      
      If one really wants to play the “global warming started X years ago” game, one should talk about how we’re reversing a 5-million-year cooling trend -- or go crazy and track global temperatures right back to the origins of the planet! Not that there’d be much point …
  • There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence
    • Line of argument:
      Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.
      
    • Why it's specious:
      There is no “proof” in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.
      
      In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century. Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.
  • Consensus is collusion
    • Line of argument:
      More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.
      
    • Why it's specious:
      The growing confluence of model results and the increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system from model to model may well look like sharing code or tweaking ’til things look alike. But it is also perfectly consistent with better and better understanding of the underlying problem, an understanding that is shared via scientific journals and research. This understanding is coming fast as we gather more and more historical and current data, all of which provides more testing material for model refinement.
      
      Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but it is also consistent with having the right answer.
  • CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
    
    • Line of argument:
      In glacial-interglacial cycles, CO2 concentration lags behind temperature by centuries. Clearly, CO2 does not cause temperatures to rise; temperatures cause CO2 to rise.
      
    • Why it's specious:
      When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.
      
      Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them.
      
      The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (theMilankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change — reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface — led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism.
      
      (Go here for a discussion of exactly this question by climate scientists, with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature.)
      
      So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributedto them — and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.
      
      This raises a warning for the future: we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process took place repeatedly over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates are out-gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils, and methane from melting permafrost.
  • The CO2 rise is natural
    
    • Line of argument:
      It’s clear from ice cores and other geological history that CO2 fluctuates naturally. It is bogus to assume today’s rise is caused by humans.
      
    • Why it's specious:
      We emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and, lo and behold, there is more CO2 in the air. Surely it is not so difficult to believe that the CO2 rise is our fault. But if simple common sense is not enough, there is more to the case. (It is worth noting that investigation of this issue by the climate science community is a good indication that they are not taking things for granted or making any assumptions — not even the reasonable ones!)
      
      It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.
      
      By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years! Check the plot below for a dramatic juxtaposition of the slow glacial termination versus the industrial revolution.
      
      
      
      There is still more to the case. By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human “fingerprint.” What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as “old” carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with “young” oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating — just as common sense tells us.
      
      For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate’s article on how we know the CO2 is ours.
      
      Of all the pillars holding up the theory of anthropogenic global warming, this is one of the most unassailable.
• Scientific:
  • Water vapour is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas
    
    • Line of argument:
      H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.
      
    • Why it's scientifically invalid:
      According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.
      
      Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate. While water is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas warmer, it is condensable and so is a “slave'” to the non-condensable greenhouse gases, primarily CO2.
      
      There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour’s role in the Earth’s Greenhouse effect and it’s role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA’s page about forcings in its GCM, you won’t find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.
      

As you can see, the nature of denial ranges from the childish to the more refined, but make no mistake, it's all denial.

 

[flacaltenn]

The claim that an 800,000 yr Ice Core study can show the complete VARIANCE in CO2 levels is false. At least, it has not been done yet. Because in a study that LONG -- the data (ice slices) are too UNDERSAMPLED to have sufficient TEMPORAL resolution to show anything about levels or rates that existed in LESS than 300 or 500 year periods. In essence -- THAT record is a wandering "mean value" of Atmos CO2. So a 100 yr event like OURs -- would NEVER be captured in the article you quoted. And even 200 yr event would never show the full RANGE of peak variance (or rise/fall rates) . (those metrics would be greatly attenuated)

You know, it seems never to fail that if I provide a simple "layman's" variant of a scholarly study, such as the one to which you referred someone having a predilection for a differing point of view will invariably attempt to discredit the researcher's results, inferences and conclusions with some "pearl" of what they presumably think is a flash of brilliance or perhaps just, as they see it, common sense. In your case here, you've remarked on a brief summarization of one such report and the methodology that underpins it -- while you notably had nothing to say about the other three references I shared -- and concluded that the methodology used (or not used) is sufficient to refute the entire body of conclusions offered by paleoclimatology.

Moreover, you didn't submit any reference that matches the credibility of the study underlying the summary to which I linked as though we all are supposed to take your word for it rather than that of the researchers who performed the study. The temerity of your having done that is astounding. Even the Pope doesn't accord himself that degree of infallibility.

On other occasions when, on the other hand, I present a full study, folks just don't read the thing -- and it's very clear when they don't for their remarks don't align with or address the specific content of the study and do so in contextually accurate/relevant way -- yet they exhibit the gall of continuing to refute the findings. Like you, they share their opposing point(s) -- often, as is the case with the other member, with less coherence than you displayed in the post quoted in part above, but all the same without any reference to the methodology used to arrive at the reported findings or to anything that credibly invalidates that methodology -- of view as though we readers here are to accept them as "the" authority on the matter. Now they may be among "the" authorities on a given matter, but if that's so, then where's their research that shows as much and/or that refutes the content of the studies with which they take exception? One'd think they'd at least link to them regardless of whether they claim to be the/an author of them.

Lastly, to date, I've seen plenty of folks hone in on "this or that" element of uncertainty associated with the measurements and methods of climate science. I have yet to see anyone address in detail how or why those factors they cite -- such as the temporal resolution factor you've raised -- should be rightly weighted so as to invalidate the findings and inferences drawn by researchers (apparently just shy of 100% of them) into climate change. Knowledgeable and sage readers may be willing to accept others' cogently and credibly made assertions in that regard, but certainly not on the basis of a handful of short, often incoherent and ambiguous paragraphs (if that) bolstered by nothing other than the writer's mere say so.


As far as I can tell -- you've not shared enough thought for it to be unambiguous -- the driver to your remarks is the timescale uncertainty extant in ice core air bubble analysis. In general, for ice core timescales based on counting of seasonal cycles (in δ18 O, sulfate, etc.), uncertainty will increase with depth (i.e. time) in an ice core. However, near volcanic marker horizons of independently-known age (e.g. the Tambora eruption of 1815) this uncertainty will be reduced. The magnitude of the uncertainty depends on the degree of ambiguity in identifying seasonal markers, and the likelihood of missing layers; both are functions of snow accumulation rate and, to a lesser extent, location. In general, where snow accumulation rates are <10 cm (ice equivalent)/year, identification of annual layers begins to be problematic.

Steig et al. emphasized the need to distinguish absolute accuracy from relative accuracy. In the 200-year-long U.S. ITASE ice cores from West Antarctica, they showed that while the absolute accuracy of the dating was ±2 years, the relative accuracy among several cores was <±0.5 year, due to identification of several volcanic marker horizons in each of the cores. In this case the cores can be averaged together without creating additional timescale uncertainty, since any systematic errors in the timescale would affect all the cores together.

Without exception, it appears to me that you and every other "denier" of the existence and impacts of climate change derive from two root causes:

• Awareness that some degree of uncertainty exists.
• Failure to distinguish between relative and absolute accuracy.

While nobody can stop you from "driving down that road," the folks who
(1) aren't "mental midgets" and/or
(2) who care more about the "big picture" of planetary scale climate change than they do about "blips" here and there, and/or
(3) who don't have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo
will see that is a damning flaw in the lines of argument folks here have put forth, including your "temporal resolution" line, which is admittedly a relevant consideration even if you've overvalued its importance in the greater scheme of things. How so? What you've done is assume that ice core observations lead to the predictions about climate change. That's a major failing. The predictions about climate change come from models and simulations. Ice core data is used to verify the accuracy of the predictions the models/simulations have made. You've gotten totally backwards the role and relevance of ice core air bubble analysis.

Red:
"Show[ing] the complete variance" in historic CO2 levels requires not sampling to "this or that" degree of temporal resolution and making rational inferences based on the degree confidence corresponding to the sampling approach used, but rather 100% population observation. If observations taken from the entire population of air bubbles available for all 800K years for which we have ice cores is the level of confidence you require to feel comfortable that science's claims about the causes and occurrence and stated implications of climate change, well, you do.

More reasonable and rational folks don't. They don't and won't because by the time they've done that for 800K years of ice and air, if the calamity foreseen is happening, even if a bit slower from a human temporal standpoint, it may well be too late to anything about it. The time to do something to ameliorate the ill effects of, say, a hurricane is not when the thing is making landfall. The same principle is so re: planetary climate change's effects, but the requisite lead times are far, far greater.

You and the other member are advocating for doing nothing because we are not yet 100% certain. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't cotton to that rationale. The matter scale and scope (temporal and physical) -- given that I don't have another planet to go to and there are no landmasses on this one that would be unaffected -- the level of certainty we have is good enough. I might feel differently were the matter one of a bad storm and localized flooding (even to somewhat regional extent, like, say, just Florida, or several islands), but that's not at all the scale we're talking about.

Blue:
As far as I know, establishing the levels of temporal resolution you seem to demand over the span of the past 800K years has not been part of the epistemological scope of past studies of ice core air bubbles. Though I will not attempt to with 100% certitude and in a "broad brush" way address why that has been so, I'm of a mind that ice core analysis reliable at the level of detail at which it's been performed.

• Reliability of ice-core science: historical insights -- The purpose and conclusion are briefly noted below....I'll leave it to you to read the reasons for the conclusion.
  • The Journal of Glaciology is a disciplinary or archival journal. More often than not, papers with the highest impact and highest press coverage are published elsewhere, but the fundamental science underlying those ‘news’ papers is published in the Journal or the Annals of Glaciology. The value of such disciplinary journals is too often underestimated; they represent an absolutely essential part of science.
    
    Based on anecdotal evidence and personal experience, I doubt that the public has ever had a deep and broad understanding of the large number and great strength of the procedures we scientists use to make it as hard as possible for us to fool ourselves. However, I believe that over my career there has been a decrease in the number of people willing to assume that we have such procedures and that we do due diligence implementing them....
    
    ....More work remains to be done, and as increasingly precise measurements on increasingly small samples are developed, some of the issues discussed above may become more important. However, the main results of ice-core science have not been overturned despite being tested in many ways by many groups over many years and decades, and the main results are based strongly on physical understanding of relatively simple systems. Thus, these results are especially robust.
    
    Knowledge of history, including the history of papers published in the Journal of Glaciology, shows that ice-core science is indeed reliable. The value of disciplinary journals such as the Journal of Glaciology is shown very clearly.
• Ice cores and climate change
  • Direct and continuous measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere extend back only to the 1950s. Ice core measurements allow us to extend this way back into the past. In an Antarctic core (Law Dome) with a very high snowfall rate, it has been possible to measure concentrations in air from as recently as the 1980s that is already enclosed in bubbles within the ice. Comparison with measurements made at South Pole station show that the ice core acts as a faithful recorder of atmospheric concentrations....
    
    ....Ice cores provide direct information about how greenhouse gas concentrations have changed in the past, and they also provide direct evidence that the climate can change abruptly under some circumstances. However, they provide no direct analogue for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO2 comparable to those of the next century.
• Testing the effects of temporal data resolution on predictions of the effects of climate change on bivalves -- This is a study that tests one of the falsifiable propositions of climate change, with regard to the relevancy of the available temporal resolution, by taking an implication of the propositions and examining whether they, as would be expected, hold true for a specific species of bivalve. The short is that the expected behavior predictions held true.

That said, I'm aware of some research into achieving even greater levels of temporal resolution.

• Improving the Temporal Resolution Problem by Localized Gridpoint Nudging in Regional Weather and Climate Models
• Ice Cores That Tell the Past
  
• Optimal site selection for a high-resolution ice core record in East Antarctica -- This study details a systematic method for selection of a new ice core site -- in this instance, one with annual resolution and an ice age of 1000–2000 years at 300 m depth.

I'm also aware that abrupt changes can occur in short periods of time; however, logically speaking, that they can and have does not mean the abrupt changes we have observed in recent times are of the same ilk as past ones. And yes, it also doesn't mean they are not. The risk of inaction due to having incorrectly (as judged by hindsight) presumed the current changes are among the "routine" abrupt ones that can occur.

Other:
Various ice core datasets that are available.

You're not as far along as you IMAGINE you are.

I made no quantified attestation of "how far along" I imagine myself to be. My remarks were about the insufficiency -- qualitative and quantitative -- of the comments the other member made. The remarks that member made are of a nature such that s/he was offering illustrations of short term predictive inaccuracy as a basis for the invalidity of scientists' conclusions about the occurrence and impacts of a natural process that the very same scientists describe as one that occurs over a long term. I'm not even taking exception with yours or his/her literal breadth of knowledge on the matter of climate change or science in general. My dismissive remarks accrue in large (not sole) part from the generally inept cognitive rigor with which the other member responded to me.

One need not be a scientist, or even that familiar with the science topic in question, to know that is just ludicrous reasoning. So however "far along" I imagine myself being, it's far enough along that within this context where I'm not known to anyone, I'll neither offer on the strength of my own knowledge (i.e., citing no credible reference material to support my claim) such a lame argument, nor will I accept an argument of that sort from others who are, for all intents and purposes, strangers to me. I don't hold myself out as a scientist, but even if I were to do so, I'd at least need to share with folks the papers I've published so they can have a legit sense of the nature and scope of my credibility. That's why I routinely provide credible (scholarly) references to support my remarks. I at least have that much respect for others, and I expect that much be accorded to me. But that's not what I received from the other member, and that too contributes to why I asked s/he not respond to my posts on this topic.

For better or worse, I'm just not willing to allow people who either (1) say "stupid sh*t", something befitting what one might expect a child or teen to say, to me or (2) say potentially meritorious "sh*t" in a stupid way, which is again about what a child/teen does. It doesn't really matter to me which approach one offers; I'm not going to be positively or neutrally responsive to either. I deserve better than that of others. I think everyone who cares enough to engage on a topic does; thus I try to give better than that when I share my thoughts. I will not accept less than from others and I with genuine honesty try to not to give less than that to others.

You managed to glaciate my eyes completely over with that snow job, but I give you credit for your research. Although you never refuted a single point I made. For example -- that reference about "Optimum Site Selection" is just ONE of the ways you get better proxy reconstruction of temp. and CO2 from Ice cores. But you missed the important context there -- if you actually read it -- because finding a site that has a long run 10 inches of ice accumulation per year is a very rare thing. Since Antarctica is actually a DESERT with virtually no precipt at all.. So let's file that in the "novelty" section of science.

Here's the reward and the NUT I'll toss back..

Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey


Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Similiar HIGH resolution proxies exist for CO2 concentration. All done on SHORTER periods of time than the 800,000 yr graph with virtually NO VARIANCE in it -- that is trotted out to make breathless claims in Press Releases about "UNPRECEDENTED rates and levels of our modern times"..

ALL of public perception of GW is WARPED by activists in labcoats tossing off generalizations that their "SCIENCE" does not actually show ---- when it comes to measurements of CO2 and temperature in the past..

From your "Ice Core Science" link that you quoted ---

....More work remains to be done, and as increasingly precise measurements on increasingly small samples are developed, some of the issues discussed above may become more important. However, the main results of ice-core science have not been overturned despite being tested in many ways by many groups over many years and decades, and the main results are based strongly on physical understanding of relatively simple systems. Thus, these results are especially robust.

I certainly appreciate that this is simple science. Not more difficult than the biochem tools I develop for the Med community now. And nobody is INDICTING anything. You just can't pick up a random graph from a random paper and BELLOW to the public that it PROVES "current levels of CO2 FAR EXCEED in measure and rate" ANYTHING that's been "Measured" in 800,000 yrs.

It doesn't even pass the 10th grade science test. IF 10th grade science covered "an Ice Age". Because DURING an Ice Age, 90% of the NATURAL Carbon cycle of Gtons of CO2 that NATURE produces ON HER OWN was locked under miles of ice. You would expect VERY little variance on the majority of that data. Since an Ice Age is about 85% ICE and only 15% "climatic optimum" where you expect to find a "normal healthy yearly recycling of CO2 from the lands and the oceans". The fact that the 800,000 year study does not show a lot more VARIANCE in the climatic optimums than it does with Mother Nature frozen to hell, is a "dead giveaway" for any Nat Geo or Science Mag reader..

And that's why the couple dozen "activists in labcoats" have not gotten away with the fraud they helped to enable on the public.. It's just too BLATANT and anti-science to even be DEBATED..

Where's the DEBATE? It's suppressed. WHY is it suppressed? Because too much lying and misrepresentation has taken place and it would be embarrassing..

 

[flacaltenn]

If this chart gives you a warm fuzzy --- please enjoy it. But don't neglect all those brightly colored squiggly lines. BECAUSE THEY are the proxy studies. Not the black line "average" of them.

They are all "recalibrated" to meet the modern day records. So the INDIVIDUAL and many different proxies in each study -- "line up". THAT ALONE will give you a "flat line" cohort average.

And AGAIN -- NONE of those GLOBAL studies have either the temporal or in this case SPATIAL sampling resolution to show a mere 100 yr event such as ours. Would not fully resolve any dynamics in the measurement for events UNDER 500 years or so in duration..

Each of those studies uses less than 150 sample sites across the globe, poorly distributed and using mud bug shells in one region and tree rings in another.

Now if take just ONE of those studies --- say the pretty light blue line , and look at ONE TYPE of proxy in that one study -- you get MUCH ESTIMATION of the LOCAL historical conditions. Because Forcing this to be GLOBAL study --- takes an awful lot "scientific evidence" and buries it into a high mound of shit..

 

[320 Years of History]

that reference about "Optimum Site Selection" is just ONE of the ways you get better proxy reconstruction of temp.

??? That document wasn't presented as support for refutation of your remarks.....

 

[320 Years of History]

I repeat:

Question for the climate change skeptics/deniers:

• What observations or evidence would you consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

 

[flacaltenn]

I repeat:

Question for the climate change skeptics/deniers:

• What observations or evidence would you consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

CO2 CAN cause rising temperatures. Rising TEMPERATURES can cause increases in CO2.

My contention is that effect is bounded by the basic calculation that is found in almost atmos physics textbook. And that is that the GHouse effect will enhance about about 1.1degC for every DOUBLING of concentration of CO2.

And VOILA -- if CO2 is 50% of our warming spike -- all ACTUAL measurements (not models, not reanalysis) VERIFY that's the track we are on since the last Solar minimum. Which is another story, since the sun has run up to a relative max and stay there between 1700 and about 1960. And having a steady higher forcing WILL run up temperature in a system with storage and delays..

But --- getting back to REAL science --- we have not yet finished the FIRST doubling since the industrial age began. Started at about 280ppm -- will complete at 560ppm. Because it is LOGARITHMIC -- the next doubling won't require just 280ppm --- it will require 560ppm. So you tell me --- when do we hit 560ppm? When will we hit 1120ppm? And how far ABOVE those basic calculations will the temperature be?

Be sure to add in the HIGHLY PROBABLE solar minimum that is NOW being forecast..

It is NOT the GH theory I'm skeptical of. I'm actually DEFENDING the GH theory. All these horrendous speculations about ACCELERATIONS and runaway positive feedbacks have not been seen since the last Ice Age thaw. And if the Earth didn't runaway and destroy itself on those last four chances it had to commit suicide ---

What makes you think it will do so for you on FAITH this time?

Total of 3 questions. KIS, GO !!!!

 

[westwall]

Question for the climate change skeptics/deniers:

• What observations or evidence would you consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

A controlled laboratory experiment that actually measured the actual increase in temperature, or lack thereof, of a 400 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2. Not a computer model, an actual real lab experiment. Don't bother to trot out those ridiculous "experiments" where they pump the little bottle full of CO2. That is merely an example of the Ideal Gas Laws which are entirely different.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Question for the climate change skeptics/deniers:

• What observations or evidence would you consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

Considering that you continue to have a doctrinal attitude, bordering on theological, about how one single factor is the prime mover of planetary weather there really is nothing to discuss.

If you're going to throw out temperature variations of the sun, cloud coverage, ocean temperatures, core temperature variations, vegetation coverage, polar ice coverage, volcanic emissions, etc,... as factors that affect the climate and that the sole item that does is your CO2centric version of reality then we might as well go back to the dark ages and the inquisitions.

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas... Is it a prime mover for climate change, or global warming, on this planet? NO.

Is China's coal pollution helping slow down global warming?

How do volcanoes affect world climate?

Stating that one factor in a multifactor equation is the only variable that will affect the whole is poor science. To understand fully how our weather system works is a process that will take decades, if not centuries, to fully understand. A volcanic eruption, such as Krakatoa of 150 years ago, threw the southern hemisphere into a cooling spell for nearly a decade. The sun rings like a bell when it comes to radiation released and can be followed by the sunspot activity. While cloud cover reflects the suns radiation back into space. Even the intensity of the electromagnetic field surrounding the earth affects the temperature on the surface and we'd all die of without it. All these factors are important when talking about climate change. So limiting the discussion to how CO2 is the only factor that affects the temperature of the planet is not only dishonest but poor science the moment you threw out any factors that affect the weather as unimportant in your climate change model.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I repeat:

Question for the climate change skeptics/deniers:

• What observations or evidence would you consider “proof” that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

My question to you is, What is the percentage of CO2 increase, that has caused such an increase in GW? Please elaborate.

 

[Ray9]

There is no way to tax the Sun. There is no way to tax volcanic emissions.There is no way to tax the orbital relationship relationship between the Earth and the moon and the stabilizing effect of the tides. But there is a way to tax the people endlessly and blame them for the weather. There is a way to use taxation to indoctrinate little children in school to believe humans are the cause of the end of the world. As usual it's all about the money and who gets it. It's the same old story.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Stating that one factor in a multifactor equation is the only variable that will affect the whole is poor science

Maybe you could point out WHEN in the history of this earth, man has ever mined billions of tons of carbon (oil and coal), burnt that carbon and put it back into the atmosphere.

When has that happened before and what was the result?

It's never happened before and represent the one variable of which there can be no accounting.

We are in the midst of an experiment and do not know what the outcome will be. But it's not looking like burning all that oil and coal is doing the planet any good.

 

[Wilbur Right]

So limiting the discussion to how CO2 is the only factor that affects the temperature of the planet is not only dishonest but poor science the moment you threw out any factors that affect the weather as unimportant in your climate change model.

Disallowing that man's burning of billions of tons of carbon (which hasn't happened before) plays virtually no effect is dishonest evaluation.

How could burning all that oil and coal not have an effect?