Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

[code1211]

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitued higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

There could be all sorts of reasons, e.g. volcanism, but since I'm more concerned about what's happening NOW and determining THOSE reasons, I really don't have time to do your natural history homework for you.

Volcanoes are a pretty weak source of CO2. A great one for Sulfur, however.

Sulfur actually works against the GH Effect.

The question, though, relates not to a specific source but rather to a specific non-source. When CO2 was higher in the past, Man was NOT the source.

 

[code1211]

Once again that may be an interesting natural history question, but it's hardly relevant to what's happening today. We know where the CO2 is coming from, so that's the concern, NOT what happened in the past. That info doesn't really get us any answers, since underlying conditions have changed.

The world operates on natural laws konrad. We may know where the CO2 is coming from in this day and age, one thing we do KNOW is that mankinds contribution is 4% of the entire CO2 budget of the world. 4% is BTW within the statistical error boundaries of the scientists who calculate that budget...so once again we MAY
know how much we are contributing...or we may not.

One thing is certain however. CO2 levels were vastly higher in the past and no catastrophes occured. That much we KNOW for certain. The PETM that olfraud and the rest of the AGW supporters love to trot out as a bad, bad time because of rapid heating was quite the opposite.

The paleo record shows quite clearly that the PETM was a veritable Garden of Eden. The massive creation of species and their thriving worldwide is well documented.

Don't care a bit about your constant dredging up of ancient history. I'm concerned about what's happening NOW and wondering why you keep avoiding the Conservation of Energy question. Now you're "lying with statistics" in putting forth this number of a 4% contribution by man by only giving us the annual figure and ignoring the 30-40% CUMULATIVE EFFECT, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

To what temperature should the world have risen already with the CO2 as high as it is given your understanding of the Conservation of Energy?

Here's a better way to do this:

Tell us how warm is should have become 10 years hence and then tell us warm it actually was ten years ago.

This should demonstrate with ample certitude the impact of the Conservation of Energy Theory and how it relates to Global Warming.

 

[code1211]

Actually, it is your pathetic excuse for a brain that is the joke here.

In your demented and extremely retarded way, you must assume that every national science institute, scientific society and organization, and university on the planet somehow failed to "check the results".

Do you have to take stupid pills or were you born this way?

Oh, snap!

Well, that's it then, isn't it?

Provide no proof and call the other guy stupid.

You're brilliant.

Highest CO2 within this interglacial. Mid range temps for this interglacial. No warming for ten years.

You need to prove that the CO2 is the cause of the warming and have not.

You are free to do so and yet refrain.

Do you have a reason to withhold the evidence or is there no evidence to present?

All I'm asking is that you explain and prove why the CO2 has not done what you say it should have done and then why I should believe that it will do what you say it should have done.

If what you are saying is true, it should not be hard to produce proof. You are welcome to begin. You might want to start with the predictions of Dr. Hansen from 1988 and proceed from there.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Who says CO2 isn't doing what we say? It's a trivial lab expt to show that it absorbs IR. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy, YOU must prove that it isn't. YOU'RE the one claiming that basic principle of science is wrong!!!

You are saying that something will happen that is not happening. You say that the cause can be proven by the Conservation of Energy Theory.

Use your theory to prove that what is not happening is happening.

 

[code1211]

The evidence studied by the climate scientists indicates that over the past 10,000 years during the period known as the Holocene, temperatures and sea levels, which have a close connection, have been remarkable stable. Temperatures over this period have have only varied by about 0.5° C up or down. The "Holocene maximum" or the warmest part of this period, was about 8,000 years ago, and according to climate scientists, today’s temperature is about, or slightly above, the Holocene maximum. Global temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the past three decades until they are now at least equal to the prior Holocene maximum, or a few tenths of a degree higher. The Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica have been fairly stable during the Holocene until now, when the Arctic ice cap has diminished by over a third and the ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates. Sea levels did not change significantly over the last 3000 years until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Over the last 25 years, the rate of sea level rise has doubled.

The Industrial Revolution started in about 1780 with the spreading use of the coal fired steam engine.

Is the impact of CO2 that you cite so strong that it can cause the temperature to rise before the additional and offending CO2 was even present?

Technically and historically, the Industrial Revolution may have started back then but it is only over the last century or so that mankind has added significant quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The current very abrupt warming trend, contrary to your moronic denier cult myths, is clearly linked to the rise in CO2 levels.

I was wondering where your graph of the Halocene came from and then i saw the IPCC tag. No wonder. You are getting your scientific data from a political think tank.

This link will take you to a graph that is more accurate and actually has some research to support the findings by real, live scientists.

The Little Ice Age was clearly the coolest part tot he Halocene evidenced by the famines and plagues and yet you graph lists it as fairly warm. You Graph's timeline changes the increments of time in each section so the last 300 years and the first 15,000 occupy roughly the same visual space.

Is this for clarity or deception?

The graph in the link has a correlation to the advance and retreat of glaciers as evidenced in the fossil record and to anecdotal evidence which yours does not.

The source data for the IPCC is probably a good starting point, but the laundered and massaged political campaign of the IPCC is hardly science at all.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[westwall]

Once again that may be an interesting natural history question, but it's hardly relevant to what's happening today. We know where the CO2 is coming from, so that's the concern, NOT what happened in the past. That info doesn't really get us any answers, since underlying conditions have changed.

The world operates on natural laws konrad. We may know where the CO2 is coming from in this day and age, one thing we do KNOW is that mankinds contribution is 4% of the entire CO2 budget of the world. 4% is BTW within the statistical error boundaries of the scientists who calculate that budget...so once again we MAY
know how much we are contributing...or we may not.

One thing is certain however. CO2 levels were vastly higher in the past and no catastrophes occured. That much we KNOW for certain. The PETM that olfraud and the rest of the AGW supporters love to trot out as a bad, bad time because of rapid heating was quite the opposite.

The paleo record shows quite clearly that the PETM was a veritable Garden of Eden. The massive creation of species and their thriving worldwide is well documented.

Don't care a bit about your constant dredging up of ancient history. I'm concerned about what's happening NOW and wondering why you keep avoiding the Conservation of Energy question. Now you're "lying with statistics" in putting forth this number of a 4% contribution by man by only giving us the annual figure and ignoring the 30-40% CUMULATIVE EFFECT, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Yes we KNOW you don't care about scientific exploration. You have made that ABUNDANTLY clear along with all of your other parrots. We know. I am not avoiding the conservation of energy question in the slightest. You don't understand it one bit. Tell me what "Conservation of Energy" means to you.

CO2 is used and sequestered every milisecond of every day. How does CO2 accumulate?
Tell us in the simplest way you know how. Realise also that the residence time of CO2 is less then 15 years as documented repeatedly in the peer reviewed literature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

 

[konradv]

The world operates on natural laws konrad. We may know where the CO2 is coming from in this day and age, one thing we do KNOW is that mankinds contribution is 4% of the entire CO2 budget of the world. 4% is BTW within the statistical error boundaries of the scientists who calculate that budget...so once again we MAY
know how much we are contributing...or we may not.

One thing is certain however. CO2 levels were vastly higher in the past and no catastrophes occured. That much we KNOW for certain. The PETM that olfraud and the rest of the AGW supporters love to trot out as a bad, bad time because of rapid heating was quite the opposite.

The paleo record shows quite clearly that the PETM was a veritable Garden of Eden. The massive creation of species and their thriving worldwide is well documented.

Don't care a bit about your constant dredging up of ancient history. I'm concerned about what's happening NOW and wondering why you keep avoiding the Conservation of Energy question. Now you're "lying with statistics" in putting forth this number of a 4% contribution by man by only giving us the annual figure and ignoring the 30-40% CUMULATIVE EFFECT, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Yes we KNOW you don't care about scientific exploration. You have made that ABUNDANTLY clear along with all of your other parrots. We know. I am not avoiding the conservation of energy question in the slightest. You don't understand it one bit. Tell me what "Conservation of Energy" means to you.

CO2 is used and sequestered every milisecond of every day. How does CO2 accumulate?
Tell us in the simplest way you know how. Realise also that the residence time of CO2 is less then 15 years as documented repeatedly in the peer reviewed literature.

You going from skeptic to denier? You seem to be denying that CO2 has risen 30-40%, since the I.R.!!! If you don't deny the rise, I insist you tackle the Conservation of Energy question.