Debunking the Deniers

[Old Rocks]

The warming started ...

The warming? This is one of the fundamental things I don't understand about the discussion. Why can't there be more than one reason that there is warming? Obviously there are natural mechanisms and cycles. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone say that (if it exists) man made climate change some how turns them off. As we start solar cycle #24, will the sun have an effect on the atmosphere? Sure. Does that somehow prove that human-produced CO2 is having no effect? Surely not.

Gremlin, there are many factors that can influence the climate, and the amount of warming or cooling of the whole globe.

However, most of them have been ruled out.

Solar influence. The sun has had a slight decrease in Total Solar Irradiance over the last fifty years. That should have resulted in a very slight cooling. 2008 represented a long solar low, with hardly any sunspots at all. At the same time, we had a strong and persistant La Nina. We should have had a very cold year, one that should have at least been in the lower one quarter of the warm years. Instead, 2008 was either the eighth or tenth warmest on record.

By the Milankovic Cycles, we should be slowly descending into another ice age. In fact, the last 2000 years saw a gradual cooling trend until the last 150 years. Then, as we burned fossil fuels, and increased the GHGs in the atmosphere, it has began to warm.

If you wish to really research the subject, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics that traces the history of the investigations of GHGs;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

that man is the major cause of it is up for a bit more debate.
------------------------------------

What's debatable? There are potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that aren't found in nature. Where did they come from, if not from man? You are also drawing a conclusion in your statement, unsupported by any facts, that it would only be a concern if man were a "major cause". That begs the questions: what would be a "major cause" and how do you know a minor contribution by man wouldn't lead to runaway GW? After all, the small warming we've seen so far is leading to the melting of permafrost and consequent release of trapped methan, another potent greenhouse gas.

Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - Science and Tech - The Atlantic

Without trying to steer you too close to reality, it is worth noting that the temperatures at the end of every previous interglacial have been higher than today and the CO2 was lower.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying.

And I am just sayng that you are purposely spinning the truth. Until we started burning fossil fuels, the CO2 was at 280 ppm. The last interglacial saw 300 ppm. And a much warmer period with a higher sea level. The present level of just CO2 has not been seen in the atmosphere in 15 million years. Not only that, but the level of CH4 is far higher than it has been for at least that long. And there were no industrial GHGs at that time.

Where we are at is above the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2. And it takes 30 to 50 years for the inertia of the oceans and atmosphere to feel the full effects of what is in the atmosphere right now.

 

[Old Rocks]

And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well
-----------------------------------

What talking points have I presented? I speak for on one else but myself, so please limit it to that. I presented a logical syllogism, which can either be valid or invalid, if it has a flaw. If you can find it, please do, but don't dismiss it as a talking point. It's the way real scientists do real science. Talking points are the realm of the political flack and 99.9% of the AGW deniers.

From a previous post by you:

"As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up. "


It's difficult to find something in this statement that is not a "talking point".

Code, what scientific society denies AGW? What National Academy of Science? What major University?

The scientific arguement is over and has been for 20 years.

 

[code1211]

The warming started ...

The warming? This is one of the fundamental things I don't understand about the discussion. Why can't there be more than one reason that there is warming? Obviously there are natural mechanisms and cycles. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone say that (if it exists) man made climate change some how turns them off. As we start solar cycle #24, will the sun have an effect on the atmosphere? Sure. Does that somehow prove that human-produced CO2 is having no effect? Surely not.

The logic of the debate goes something like this:

1. CO2 is the primary forcer of warming.
2. Due to Anthropogenic emission of CO2, an equilibrium that maintained a perfect temperature was pushed past a tipping point.
3. If Anthropogenic CO2 emissions were cut back far enough, the equilibrium would be restored and the climate would revert back to perfection.

Allowing that other factors or many other factors influence climate opens the door to the consideration that the reduction of CO2 emissions might not have an effect on the climate. The magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate, and, more specifically, the effect of the Anthropogenic CO2 on the climate is at the center of the debate.

If the effect is huge and the largest forcer among all causations by far, then the warmers are justified in campaigning to change the entire world to change this current course. If, on the ohter hand, CO2 is one of many causal factors and is only as strong a forcing agent as the proof would indicate, then draconian actions are not demanded or warrented or justified or even conscienable.

Accepting that there might be some small effect from anthropogenic CO2 is justified, but accepting that the entire warming is caused by CO2 even the majority is just silly.

 

[code1211]

that man is the major cause of it is up for a bit more debate.
------------------------------------

What's debatable? There are potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that aren't found in nature. Where did they come from, if not from man? You are also drawing a conclusion in your statement, unsupported by any facts, that it would only be a concern if man were a "major cause". That begs the questions: what would be a "major cause" and how do you know a minor contribution by man wouldn't lead to runaway GW? After all, the small warming we've seen so far is leading to the melting of permafrost and consequent release of trapped methan, another potent greenhouse gas.

Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - Science and Tech - The Atlantic

Without trying to steer you too close to reality, it is worth noting that the temperatures at the end of every previous interglacial have been higher than today and the CO2 was lower.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying.

And I am just sayng that you are purposely spinning the truth. Until we started burning fossil fuels, the CO2 was at 280 ppm. The last interglacial saw 300 ppm. And a much warmer period with a higher sea level. The present level of just CO2 has not been seen in the atmosphere in 15 million years. Not only that, but the level of CH4 is far higher than it has been for at least that long. And there were no industrial GHGs at that time.

Where we are at is above the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2. And it takes 30 to 50 years for the inertia of the oceans and atmosphere to feel the full effects of what is in the atmosphere right now.

As always, it takes no spinning to connect statements and debunk the panic.

The last intergalcial was at 300 ppm CO2. It takes 30 to 50 years to overcome the inertia.

We blew past 300 ppm CO2 in 1960. Unless i'm mistaken, 50 years ago. Florida is not under water. The problem with developing a longer range of data to check is that it is there to check. Using data, there is no foundation for the panic. It is only with the predictions of dire consequence that a compelling case for your cause cam be built.

Thank you, by the way, for at least implying the dire consequence.

 

[code1211]

And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well
-----------------------------------

What talking points have I presented? I speak for on one else but myself, so please limit it to that. I presented a logical syllogism, which can either be valid or invalid, if it has a flaw. If you can find it, please do, but don't dismiss it as a talking point. It's the way real scientists do real science. Talking points are the realm of the political flack and 99.9% of the AGW deniers.

From a previous post by you:

"As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up. "


It's difficult to find something in this statement that is not a "talking point".

Code, what scientific society denies AGW? What National Academy of Science? What major University?

The scientific arguement is over and has been for 20 years.

Thje argument may be over, but the successful predicting of climate change has yet to begin.

What scientific society has successfully predicted the warming? What National Academy of Science? What major university?

The scientific failure has been going on for more than 20 years.

 

[gslack]

an unsound hypothesis unsupported by real data,
-------------------------

You're just repeating talking points. Everyone knows that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. The concentrations in the atmosphere, including some not found in nature, have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is INEVITABLE. It's the simple, logical application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. The data is extensive and no misrepresentation by deniers can touch it in the long run.

Talking points or not the they are nonetheless true. And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well. Especially in light of the latest findings of data padding, and misrepresentations of reports.

Links? To real scientists, not raving lunatics.

The reality is despite the fact we were a non-factor before, the planet was warmer both millions of years ago and just a few hundred years ago.

The amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere very nicely tracks the highs and lows in geological history. This is from the recent American Geophysical Union convention;



It was warmer and due to the warming the permafrost melted, causing the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere which resulted in more warming until a saturation point was reached the planet cooled.

You really need to research what you are talking about. You can begin here:



Why is it there is no consideration of the sun and our position at various points in time in the solar system and galaxy in any IPCC report or study?

Look fellow, look up the Milankovic Cycles. And while you are at it, you might look up Total Solar Irradiance. You see, for the last 30 years, the TI has actually declined slightly.


Why do they consider the sun the primary reason we even have a climate at all a non-factor in climate change now?

Because the very slight decline in the total energy the earth recieves from the sun is not significant.

Simple, it doesn't help them tax you on life....

Fellow, before you post your ignorance for all to see, do some simple research.

Oh Good, I love a googlemaniac....

1. The CO2 does not the cause the warming. Its is an effect of warming.... The chart the now infamous hockey stick graph has already been shown to be a fraud.

a. The hockey stick graph did not show the medieval warming period correctly even the so-called experts had to revise it.

b. The graph was superimposed on the CO2 graph incorrectly to give the false impression that the CO2 caused the warming when in reality it trailed the warming by 400 years in most cases more in some.



2. The Milkanovic Cycles are a small part of an over all much larger scenario. Solar variance is not just about solar cycles and sunspot activity. Along with the simple 11 year cycle there is a larger 22 year cycle, the natural tracking of our solar system in the galaxy, and the position relative to other celestial bodies.



3. All data released from the NOAA, the NIPCC, the USGS, and whoever else you want to name including NASA have to been corrected every single time.... its not a talking point its a fact. The scream out an alarmist headline based on preliminary flawed data, then they fix it and do so without a headline...

Fellow, next time you want to try and pretend that YOU actually researched anything about this, make sure you avoid posting from the very same people who make the mistakes that have to be corrected....

Sorry but I haven't made enough posts here yet to put up urls yet..and in a day or so i can post the actual links if you need them... Sorry but i have a life outside of a web forum...

 

[mdn2000]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Let's assume, for purposes of advancing the discussion that everybody agreed that Global Wamrning (or I think Climate Chaos is actually a more descriptive term) was a fact., and let us also assume that we were prepared to do whatever it takes to stop it.

Now what?

I do NOT think Cap and Trade is the solution. Do you?

I personally think that once this climate destabilizes enough, science's ability to grasp what happens next is fairly tenuous

As to whether we have arrived at some tipping point where what we can do in response will guarantee us happy outcomes?

Hey, you guess is as good as mine.

Read about choas theory and you'll eventually (if you don't already, I mean) understand why I think we're lost up some creek (which may or may not be that famous "shit creek") without a paddle.

Chaos theory completely destroys global warming alarmist.

 

[mdn2000]

Talking points or not the they are nonetheless true. And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well. Especially in light of the latest findings of data padding, and misrepresentations of reports.

Links? To real scientists, not raving lunatics.

The reality is despite the fact we were a non-factor before, the planet was warmer both millions of years ago and just a few hundred years ago.

The amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere very nicely tracks the highs and lows in geological history. This is from the recent American Geophysical Union convention;



It was warmer and due to the warming the permafrost melted, causing the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere which resulted in more warming until a saturation point was reached the planet cooled.

You really need to research what you are talking about. You can begin here:



Why is it there is no consideration of the sun and our position at various points in time in the solar system and galaxy in any IPCC report or study?

Look fellow, look up the Milankovic Cycles. And while you are at it, you might look up Total Solar Irradiance. You see, for the last 30 years, the TI has actually declined slightly.


Why do they consider the sun the primary reason we even have a climate at all a non-factor in climate change now?

Because the very slight decline in the total energy the earth recieves from the sun is not significant.

Simple, it doesn't help them tax you on life....

Fellow, before you post your ignorance for all to see, do some simple research.

Oh Good, I love a googlemaniac....

1. The CO2 does not the cause the warming. Its is an effect of warming.... The chart the now infamous hockey stick graph has already been shown to be a fraud.

a. The hockey stick graph did not show the medieval warming period correctly even the so-called experts had to revise it.

b. The graph was superimposed on the CO2 graph incorrectly to give the false impression that the CO2 caused the warming when in reality it trailed the warming by 400 years in most cases more in some.



2. The Milkanovic Cycles are a small part of an over all much larger scenario. Solar variance is not just about solar cycles and sunspot activity. Along with the simple 11 year cycle there is a larger 22 year cycle, the natural tracking of our solar system in the galaxy, and the position relative to other celestial bodies.



3. All data released from the NOAA, the NIPCC, the USGS, and whoever else you want to name including NASA have to been corrected every single time.... its not a talking point its a fact. The scream out an alarmist headline based on preliminary flawed data, then they fix it and do so without a headline...



Fellow, next time you want to try and pretend that YOU actually researched anything about this, make sure you avoid posting from the very same people who make the mistakes that have to be corrected....

Btw, make sure you look over all the PDF's on the next link. Its a lot of corrected data regarding the "hockey stick graph"..... Start there its a good place to learn something junior...



Sory but I havent made enough posts here yet to put up urls yet..and in a day or so i can post the actual links if you need them... Sorry but i have a life outside of a web forum...

After I saw your response to Old Crock I had to see how many posts you have to your credit. I knew you were new here.

Old Crock is suffering Dementia, he is the Old Man in the corner drooling all over himself, we love him, just like we love grandma and grandpa, we each take turns feeding him by spoon because at his age and with advanced Dementia Old Crock cannot feed himself.

You can ignore Old Crock or join the family and help spoon feed the old guy.

He got to me at first but now I just pick up the spoon and help Old Crock eat his banana pudding.

You can ignore Old Crock's posts, if you want to see his ignorance search my posts or go to energy and read my responses to Old Crock, its great when grandpa posts a link, it contradicts the point Old Crock thinks he has made.

Here Old Crock, open your mouth and eat your Banana pudding.

 

[gslack]

Well thank you, I have been to other forums similar to this, I realized then it was best to just swing back poked... or poke em before the get ya!

No worries, I grew up in a huge family and got 3 kids of my own who will speak their minds any time... I got a thick skin...

 

[Si modo]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Debunking the Deniers

What are the 'deniers' denying?

 

[Old Rocks]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Debunking the Deniers

What are the 'deniers' denying?

reality

 

[Old Rocks]

reality

 

[Old Rocks]

Well thank you, I have been to other forums similar to this, I realized then it was best to just swing back poked... or poke em before the get ya!

No worries, I grew up in a huge family and got 3 kids of my own who will speak their minds any time... I got a thick skin...

Thick skull, also

g, even scientists with multiple degrees after their names give referances and sources when making a statement. When you make statements without a backup, my assumption is that you pulled them out of your ass.

 

[Si modo]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Debunking the Deniers

What are the 'deniers' denying?

reality

If you don't even know what the 'deniers' are denying (which I must assume you don't as I rarely get an answer), then it is idiotic to use the term.

It's a simple question, yet you and others cannot answer it. That's what those interested in honest discussion do. Clarify through questions and answers.

I wonder why this question baffles you.

 

[Intense]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Where You lose My support is the classification of CO2 as a Pollutant. Clean Coal Technology addressed the issues of Mercury and Lead which is a monumental improvement over the past. Your agenda stands in the way of science and reason. Your assumptions and profiling reveal little more than the root of your prejudices.

 

[Old Rocks]

Without trying to steer you too close to reality, it is worth noting that the temperatures at the end of every previous interglacial have been higher than today and the CO2 was lower.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying.

And I am just sayng that you are purposely spinning the truth. Until we started burning fossil fuels, the CO2 was at 280 ppm. The last interglacial saw 300 ppm. And a much warmer period with a higher sea level. The present level of just CO2 has not been seen in the atmosphere in 15 million years. Not only that, but the level of CH4 is far higher than it has been for at least that long. And there were no industrial GHGs at that time.

Where we are at is above the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2. And it takes 30 to 50 years for the inertia of the oceans and atmosphere to feel the full effects of what is in the atmosphere right now.

As always, it takes no spinning to connect statements and debunk the panic.

The last intergalcial was at 300 ppm CO2. It takes 30 to 50 years to overcome the inertia.

We blew past 300 ppm CO2 in 1960. Unless i'm mistaken, 50 years ago. Florida is not under water. The problem with developing a longer range of data to check is that it is there to check. Using data, there is no foundation for the panic. It is only with the predictions of dire consequence that a compelling case for your cause cam be built.

Thank you, by the way, for at least implying the dire consequence.

Implying dire cosequences? Hell, I am stating that there are going to be dire consequences even were we to stop emitting GHGs tomorrow. The CO2 and CH4 being emitted by the permafrost areas are coming into play now because of the warming, creating an even more effective feedback loop. The Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting CH4 at a rate that is increasing every year. The oceans are warming to the point that in some areas they are saturated with CO2, and may start being a source of emission, rather than a sink.

What we can do now is ameliorate some very bad consequences, we cannot prevent what is already in the pipeline. This updated assessment by scientists gives an idea of where we are at;

The Copenhagen Diagnosis

 

[Old Rocks]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Where You lose My support is the classification of CO2 as a Pollutant. Clean Coal Technology addressed the issues of Mercury and Lead which is a monumental improvement over the past. Your agenda stands in the way of science and reason. Your assumptions and profiling reveal little more than the root of your prejudices.

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

 

[Old Rocks]

Debunking the Deniers

What are the 'deniers' denying?

reality

If you don't even know what the 'deniers' are denying (which I must assume you don't as I rarely get an answer), then it is idiotic to use the term.

It's a simple question, yet you and others cannot answer it. That's what those interested in honest discussion do. Clarify through questions and answers.

I wonder why this question baffles you.

I wonder why you have to be so damned disingenuous.

Some deny that the warming exists at all.

Some deny that CO2 is a GHG.

Some deny that even if it is, it has no major effect.

And all deny that addressing the issue would have any positive effect.

And all deny reality.

 

[Si modo]

reality

If you don't even know what the 'deniers' are denying (which I must assume you don't as I rarely get an answer), then it is idiotic to use the term.

It's a simple question, yet you and others cannot answer it. That's what those interested in honest discussion do. Clarify through questions and answers.

I wonder why this question baffles you.

I wonder why you have to be so damned disingenuous.

Some deny that the warming exists at all.

Some deny that CO2 is a GHG.

Some deny that even if it is, it has no major effect.

And all deny that addressing the issue would have any positive effect.

And all deny reality.

An answer from you! Finally.

Now, what do you think I deny, Rocks?