Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

[loosecannon]

i dunno. loosecannon posted this earlier himself. i am not impressed with the abundance of correlation. not even with my eyes crossed and head tilted.

Sure as hell disproves causation, to hell with correlation.

it disproves neither. Everybody with half a lick of sense realizes that climate is a complex dynamic condition with at least 7-10 effective drivers.

Even if CO2 isn't the leading driver, it is clearly a significant driver. Esp since it's effect is multiplied by increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere.

 

[loosecannon]

"working with what we know, some of the very bases for the idea that the planet is warming in the first place, we can tell that the sea surface has warmed through consistent satellite "

ah, sea surface has warmed, in other words the currents that distribute and normalize ocean temp and salinity differentials are in a state of flux.

Well now you know what causes El Nino.

Carry on.

 

[Big Fitz]

it disproves neither. Everybody with half a lick of sense realizes that climate is a complex dynamic condition with at least 7-10 effective drivers.

And so... If we control CO2, we are no longer going to have 6-9 others? or are they going to be automatically controlled? Or irrelevant?

Pop goes the CO2 therory.

 

[antagon]

"working with what we know, some of the very bases for the idea that the planet is warming in the first place, we can tell that the sea surface has warmed through consistent satellite "

ah, sea surface has warmed, in other words the currents that distribute and normalize ocean temp and salinity differentials are in a state of flux.

Well now you know what causes El Nino.

Carry on.

that's what el nino is not what causes it.

proceed.

 

[antagon]

i dunno. loosecannon posted this earlier himself. i am not impressed with the abundance of correlation. not even with my eyes crossed and head tilted.

Sure as hell disproves causation, to hell with correlation.

it disproves neither. Everybody with half a lick of sense realizes that climate is a complex dynamic condition with at least 7-10 effective drivers.

Even if CO2 isn't the leading driver, it is clearly a significant driver. Esp since it's effect is multiplied by increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere.

the chart disproves your assertion 'that past correlations of CO2 and warmer temps are abundant'.

what could possibly support the idea of correlation or causation from this chart? coincidence at best.

 

[loosecannon]

it disproves neither. Everybody with half a lick of sense realizes that climate is a complex dynamic condition with at least 7-10 effective drivers.

And so... If we control CO2, we are no longer going to have 6-9 others? or are they going to be automatically controlled? Or irrelevant?

Pop goes the CO2 therory.

that depends on your CO2 theory. I think it is:

A) stupid to pretend that we understand global climate
B) even more stupid to pretend that we can predict it
C) perhaps even more stupid to think that we can blame it on any singular cause much less a single natural driver.

My theories on CO2 will survive no matter what happens to the science or the climate.

 

[loosecannon]

Sure as hell disproves causation, to hell with correlation.

it disproves neither. Everybody with half a lick of sense realizes that climate is a complex dynamic condition with at least 7-10 effective drivers.

Even if CO2 isn't the leading driver, it is clearly a significant driver. Esp since it's effect is multiplied by increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere.

the chart disproves your assertion 'that past correlations of CO2 and warmer temps are abundant'.

what could possibly support the idea of correlation or causation from this chart? coincidence at best.

No the general trend line completely supports what I said. I am not naive enough to expect an exact correlation between just one of many climate drivers and what we can only determine about past climate to a high degree of uncertainty.

First we could be wrong about past temps, second only silly people expect any one driver to perfectly correlate to real world temps. Even a dominant driver can't do that.

 

[Big Fitz]

A) stupid to pretend that we understand global climate

Then why are morons trying to legislate for something they don't understand and/or never will?

B) even more stupid to pretend that we can predict it

Then why are the econazis saying it will warm and it is our fault?

C) perhaps even more stupid to think that we can blame it on any singular cause much less a single natural driver.

Then why the Carbon Credit exchange?

>snap!< Oh that's right! It's got nothing to do with science, the weather or saving the earth. It's about extending fascism to all corners of the world.

My bad. I forgot again. Son, you don't know whether you've been shot, fucked, powderburned or snake bit. Give it up.

 

[antagon]

it disproves neither. Everybody with half a lick of sense realizes that climate is a complex dynamic condition with at least 7-10 effective drivers.

Even if CO2 isn't the leading driver, it is clearly a significant driver. Esp since it's effect is multiplied by increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere.

the chart disproves your assertion 'that past correlations of CO2 and warmer temps are abundant'.

what could possibly support the idea of correlation or causation from this chart? coincidence at best.

No the general trend line completely supports what I said. I am not naive enough to expect an exact correlation between just one of many climate drivers and what we can only determine about past climate to a high degree of uncertainty.

First we could be wrong about past temps, second only silly people expect any one driver to perfectly correlate to real world temps. Even a dominant driver can't do that.

i'd imagine that sea surface temp and water vapor level trends would line up like a charm any and every time. nothing naive about that. how could it possibly be different?

 

[loosecannon]

"working with what we know, some of the very bases for the idea that the planet is warming in the first place, we can tell that the sea surface has warmed through consistent satellite "

ah, sea surface has warmed, in other words the currents that distribute and normalize ocean temp and salinity differentials are in a state of flux.

Well now you know what causes El Nino.

Carry on.

that's what el nino is not what causes it.

proceed.

That is very likely what causes El Nino, not what it is.

The oceans are systems that are constantly out of balance with large differentials between water temp and salinity from region to region. Inputs into the system are completely irregular, yet the system itself is bound to normalize these continual imbalances. The solution is simple, redistribute sea water toward equilibrium, it happens naturally based on the density of water.

But unlike river that have to follow valleys to exchange water to it's natural level the oceans are a 3 dimensional matrix of awesome scope. Water currents can travel in any direction across a 3 dimensional spherical plane and being driven by varying inputs they can't possibly maintain tight regularity. Chaos will be the natural result.

So when an El nino occurs, or a La Nina, surface water temps may increase or decrease, but by no means does that mean that the ocean itself is warmer or colder. Only that the water on the surface is warmer or colder.

Which merely points toward a change in the way ocean waters are circulating. Pretty much a non event in an ocean that should be expected to continually adjust the pathways of circulation within it's vast body.

But even such a non event can have profound effects on the climate of the planet.

Not that I suggest this kind of nuance effects macro climate changes like ace age cycles and interglacial periods, but certainly it could be potent enough to effect short term cycles like mini ice ages in particular regions of the globe or mere decades long periods of apparent climate change.

 

[loosecannon]

the chart disproves your assertion 'that past correlations of CO2 and warmer temps are abundant'.

what could possibly support the idea of correlation or causation from this chart? coincidence at best.

No the general trend line completely supports what I said. I am not naive enough to expect an exact correlation between just one of many climate drivers and what we can only determine about past climate to a high degree of uncertainty.

First we could be wrong about past temps, second only silly people expect any one driver to perfectly correlate to real world temps. Even a dominant driver can't do that.

i'd imagine that sea surface temp and water vapor level trends would line up like a charm any and every time. nothing naive about that. how could it possibly be different?

well that would line up, but that doesn't lock in global climate or what we know about global climate in 1950 or 250 million years ago.

 

[loosecannon]

A) stupid to pretend that we understand global climate

Then why are morons trying to legislate for something they don't understand and/or never will?

B) even more stupid to pretend that we can predict it

Then why are the econazis saying it will warm and it is our fault?

C) perhaps even more stupid to think that we can blame it on any singular cause much less a single natural driver.

Then why the Carbon Credit exchange?

>snap!< Oh that's right! It's got nothing to do with science, the weather or saving the earth. It's about extending fascism to all corners of the world.

My bad. I forgot again. Son, you don't know whether you've been shot, fucked, powderburned or snake bit. Give it up.

You are a complete fucking idiot making idiotic assumptions.

I have never been a supporter of global warming alarmism (in fact I even invented that term I was the very first person to post that term on the intarweb), carbon credits or the global warming alarmism industry.

Son, you don't know whether you've been shot, fucked, powderburned or snake bit. Give it up.

 

[Big Fitz]

A) stupid to pretend that we understand global climate

Then why are morons trying to legislate for something they don't understand and/or never will?

Then why are the econazis saying it will warm and it is our fault?

C) perhaps even more stupid to think that we can blame it on any singular cause much less a single natural driver.

Then why the Carbon Credit exchange?

>snap!< Oh that's right! It's got nothing to do with science, the weather or saving the earth. It's about extending fascism to all corners of the world.

My bad. I forgot again. Son, you don't know whether you've been shot, fucked, powderburned or snake bit. Give it up.

You are a complete fucking idiot making idiotic assumptions.

I have never been a supporter of global warming alarmism (in fact I even invented that term I was the very first person to post that term on the intarweb), carbon credits or the global warming alarmism industry.

Son, you don't know whether you've been shot, fucked, powderburned or snake bit. Give it up.

I would suggest you quit defending it? Just a suggestion, I guess.

 

[loosecannon]

I would suggest you quit defending it? Just a suggestion, I guess.

I haven't posted one sentence that even remotely resembles "defending it", whatever the fuck that means, moron.

Turn your autopartisan device off and allow your brain to receive oxygen.

 

[antagon]

"working with what we know, some of the very bases for the idea that the planet is warming in the first place, we can tell that the sea surface has warmed through consistent satellite "

ah, sea surface has warmed, in other words the currents that distribute and normalize ocean temp and salinity differentials are in a state of flux.

Well now you know what causes El Nino.

Carry on.

that's what el nino is not what causes it.

proceed.

That is very likely what causes El Nino, not what it is.

The oceans are systems that are constantly out of balance with large differentials between water temp and salinity from region to region. Inputs into the system are completely irregular, yet the system itself is bound to normalize these continual imbalances. The solution is simple, redistribute sea water toward equilibrium, it happens naturally based on the density of water.

But unlike river that have to follow valleys to exchange water to it's natural level the oceans are a 3 dimensional matrix of awesome scope. Water currents can travel in any direction across a 3 dimensional spherical plane and being driven by varying inputs they can't possibly maintain tight regularity. Chaos will be the natural result.

So when an El nino occurs, or a La Nina, surface water temps may increase or decrease, but by no means does that mean that the ocean itself is warmer or colder. Only that the water on the surface is warmer or colder.

Which merely points toward a change in the way ocean waters are circulating. Pretty much a non event in an ocean that should be expected to continually adjust the pathways of circulation within it's vast body.

But even such a non event can have profound effects on the climate of the planet.

Not that I suggest this kind of nuance effects macro climate changes like ace age cycles and interglacial periods, but certainly it could be potent enough to effect short term cycles like mini ice ages in particular regions of the globe or mere decades long periods of apparent climate change.

this is what i'm talking about. perhaps something to do with shrinking sources of cooled water through anthropogenic causes or less polar and glacial ice, the system which operated at considerably more predictable (5-year) intervals in a relatively consistent area and duration, has increased along all of these parameters and taken on a more chaotic pattern. the cause is unknown, and as yet uninvestigated due to what i consider a tootally unsubstantiated obsession with CO2 as some forcing factor. whatever the forcing factor, the system which functioned to balance surface temps has changed either by:

1. varying the influence of cooling currents and la nina on sea surface temps, perhaps having something to do with the depth of this once at-surface cooling phase.

2. varying the overall energy in the oceans, lending to warming across all three axes.

3. is normalizing the large-scale gradients which powered the system during the time we've known it to exist. maybe its just a warmth-dominated trend.

whatever the causes, the effect is the change in atmospheric temps. the deeper, colder water which would regularly dominate surface water is failing to do so the the degree it has in the past, and this domination of warm surface water is the dominant cause of climate change. this all lines up with the change in climate itself -- no outrageous climate models necessary. no thermodynamic malpractice need be exhibited.

when i say el nino, i refer to that phenomenon specifically as it is the largest, being in the largest ocean, but there are such systems in all of our oceans. they've all trended to warmth since the 70s, and that is the same thing that is noted about atmospheric temps.

this is cause and effect. science. politics, movies and economic expediency support the CO2 theories. i dont see the scientific connection. to my knowledge nobody has ever articulated a credible one, and nobody on here has managed to find such a credible connection or articulate one themselves. the emperor has no clothes on.

 

[loosecannon]

this is what i'm talking about. perhaps something to do with shrinking sources of cooled water through anthropogenic causes or less polar and glacial ice, the system which operated at considerably more predictable (5-year) intervals in a relatively consistent area and duration, has increased along all of these parameters and taken on a more chaotic pattern. the cause is unknown, and as yet uninvestigated due to what i consider a tootally unsubstantiated obsession with CO2 as some forcing factor. whatever the forcing factor, the system which functioned to balance surface temps has changed either by:

1. varying the influence of cooling currents and la nina on sea surface temps, perhaps having something to do with the depth of this once at-surface cooling phase.

2. varying the overall energy in the oceans, lending to warming across all three axes.

3. is normalizing the large-scale gradients which powered the system during the time we've known it to exist. maybe its just a warmth-dominated trend.

whatever the causes, the effect is the change in atmospheric temps. the deeper, colder water which would regularly dominate surface water is failing to do so the the degree it has in the past, and this domination of warm surface water is the dominant cause of climate change. this all lines up with the change in climate itself -- no outrageous climate models necessary. no thermodynamic malpractice need be exhibited.

when i say el nino, i refer to that phenomenon specifically as it is the largest, being in the largest ocean, but there are such systems in all of our oceans. they've all trended to warmth since the 70s, and that is the same thing that is noted about atmospheric temps.

this is cause and effect. science. politics, movies and economic expediency support the CO2 theories. i dont see the scientific connection. to my knowledge nobody has ever articulated a credible one, and nobody on here has managed to find such a credible connection or articulate one themselves. the emperor has no clothes on.

OK, I was under the impression that you were attributing a warming trend of the oceans at the surface anyway to some trait of water that I don't believe exists. I did notice that you said earlier it would be unlikely to actually raise the temp of the oceans in such a short period, and I agree with that statement, so lets discount 2) right off the bat.

It simply doesn't much to change in inputs to alter the way that the ocean circulates in it's quest to normalize water density. For example a single rain storm in the pacific NW can introduce 8 cubic miles of cold fresh water into the pacific in just one day, from just the watersheds in two states. Whereas in the summer that doesn't happen at all.

Meaning that wildly variable inputs into the ocean are the norm. Practically demanding that the ocean will respond in wildly variable patterns of distribution, esp at the capillary ends of it's distribution arterials.

This is directly observable in the gulf of Mexico and was noted during 2005 when surface temps were indeed 5 degrees above normal across a vast area.

This kind of anamoly doesn't require general warming of the ocean or even any kind of cycle to support it, it just requires ordinary butterfly effect responses to wildly varying system inputs.

The butterfly effect is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory; namely that small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

 

[Big Fitz]

I would suggest you quit defending it? Just a suggestion, I guess.

I haven't posted one sentence that even remotely resembles "defending it", whatever the fuck that means, moron.

Turn your autopartisan device off and allow your brain to receive oxygen.

heat from that 212 degree sauna getting to you?

 

[loosecannon]

heat from that 212 degree sauna getting to you?

not nearly as much as it is getting to you...

 

[antagon]

OK, I was under the impression that you were attributing a warming trend of the oceans at the surface anyway to some trait of water that I don't believe exists.

no. i was making the point that the atmosphere is not capable of causing the observed sea surface temperature change which is requisite to the plausibility of the CO2 forcing theory, but that the temperatures of the oceans are likely to cause atmospheric warming. i made the point that this pcean surface warming was observed in a way which correlates to atmospheric warming.

I did notice that you said earlier it would be unlikely to actually raise the temp of the oceans in such a short period, and I agree with that statement, so lets discount 2) right off the bat.

this is the CO2 forcing proposal. its not plausible, any why i've been harping on the anomalous el nino/bipolars which are more about circulation in the ocean's 3rd dimension.

The butterfly effect is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory; namely that small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

there's a butterfly or two behind the imbalance in the 3d ocean trends. all of them are acting out of the box on the hot end of the spectrum. by extension, i dont think there is any way which anything but these surface temps are directly responsible for the increase in atmospheric temps. not a chance in hell that in light of their presence that anything to do with CO2 could be more influential than water's role.

this could be a natural anomaly which might last 20-50 years, maybe as many centuries. i challenge the idea that CO2 is influential enough to be the butterfly effect for the el nino situation; there's simply little credible indication that the substance is as significant as claimed. its a sideshow act, but stealing the limelight off of the main event.

 

[loosecannon]

OK, I was under the impression that you were attributing a warming trend of the oceans at the surface anyway to some trait of water that I don't believe exists.

no. i was making the point that the atmosphere is not capable of causing the observed sea surface temperature change which is requisite to the plausibility of the CO2 forcing theory, but that the temperatures of the oceans are likely to cause atmospheric warming. i made the point that this pcean surface warming was observed in a way which correlates to atmospheric warming.

I did notice that you said earlier it would be unlikely to actually raise the temp of the oceans in such a short period, and I agree with that statement, so lets discount 2) right off the bat.

this is the CO2 forcing proposal. its not plausible, any why i've been harping on the anomalous el nino/bipolars which are more about circulation in the ocean's 3rd dimension.

The butterfly effect is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory; namely that small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

there's a butterfly or two behind the imbalance in the 3d ocean trends. all of them are acting out of the box on the hot end of the spectrum. by extension, i dont think there is any way which anything but these surface temps are directly responsible for the increase in atmospheric temps. not a chance in hell that in light of their presence that anything to do with CO2 could be more influential than water's role.

this could be a natural anomaly which might last 20-50 years, maybe as many centuries. i challenge the idea that CO2 is influential enough to be the butterfly effect for the el nino situation; there's simply little credible indication that the substance is as significant as claimed. its a sideshow act, but stealing the limelight off of the main event.

I would dismiss CO2 as the cause of el nino summarily for the reasons you stated.

I would not however dismiss CO2 as a driver of global warming. Because over a very long period of time, perhaps 50 years at a minimum, the atmosphere is certainly capable of warming the oceans considerably. Both at the surface and thru it's depth. In fact this was acutely demonstrated in the gulf in 2005.

Keep in mind that "greenhouse effect" is an insulative effect. Without the atmosphere the Earth would be a solid mass of cold stone. But the atmosphere insulates the earth and allows it's own internal heat to be retained and also allows incoming energy to be trapped.

Evidence of this trapping is found on the moon where night/day temp extremes vary by something absurd like 400 degrees.

As for the oceans causing what we misperceive as global warming two things seem notable: first we can't possibly understand the dynamics of ocean equalization currents unless we invest 1000's or millions of years into studying them live and with millions of data sensors.

They are like atmospheric weather but occurring at 1/1000 the speed. So our learning curve will be very slow to culminate.

Second what is a very short term, short term, or mid range event in the realm of the oceans circulation patterns? Is a 7 year el nino cycle an extremely short term vascilation? I think it probably is, and as such may have no significance at all as a long term trend.

Global warming and cooling cycles on the other hand are considerably longer term events that probably have deeper roots within the circulation patterns of the oceans. But I am pretty convinced that the composition of the atmosphere plays a much more substantial role in longer term climate cycles expressly because of the flexibility of the atmosphere to dramatically increase and decrease it's insulative values, which will produce cumulative effects and trigger biofeedback/chemical feedback reinforcement loops and retardant loops that we know next to nothing about.

Then there are outside variables like solar energy variability. Again it might be very slight, and can't possibly do much in a few years but over centuries the accumulated effects of minor increases in energy input within the Earth's systems might provoke chain reactions and trigger substantial changes in the Earth's climate.

And all of this is grounded within the awareness that the modern earth is very definitely in a period in which dramatic climate cycles are the norm. Ice age to interglacial represents a dramatic climate change. 4 million years running.

We know climate change is real and it is normal. We just don't know what is causing it and how.