Human Caused Global Warming

[cultsmasher]

here's another group hug moment for y'all. Are you quoting tons of CARBON or tons of CARBON DIOXIDE?? I think BOTH numbers are correct. you are just a victim of the politically correct move to PURPOSELY confuse folks about CO2 and "carbon"...

So BOTH numbers are freely quoted. The CO2 number should be used EXCLUSIVELY from a scientific viewpoint. And the conversion factor (IIRC) is something like 1.4 X Carbon = CO2... (check that)

flacaltenn,
I am talking about the CO2 figures. Nothing else. But here is a bit of interesting information. The world is warming. But if it wasn't for all the crap we put into the air, more sunlight would be reaching the earth. Warming it up even faster. So if we cleaned all the dirty crap out of the air, it would only accelerate global warming.

I dont thinks so, in the long term...
View attachment 31865

Billy_Bob,
These days it seems that you can find a graph to support any contention. But for those who would deny global warming despite all of the evidence, it is just because they don't want to see the truth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

Hey, you're good at math! Now can you show us an experiment that controls for a 120PPM increase in CO2?

Not so much.... His figures lack accurate comparison to short term trends. The Paleo Record is like looking at 1000 year plots while he compares it to a 100 year plot. He lacks the information during the shorter terms to make a valid comparison. Its the Mike Mann school of illousions... IN just the last 11,000 years there have been several CO2 spikes and always followng a warm up. When you consider that the majority of the earth runs 70 to 100 ppm lower than the Manaloa readings you must first find a point that allows a valid compariosn. Then you must disect the time frame to 10 years which can not be done with any accuracy.

In the last two warming trends the CO2 trend followed and conintued to rise for about 200 years after the warming ceased and the rise was 1.5 to 2.1 ppm/year. Very similar to our current trend.

THe major problem with making this kind of comparison is trying to fit the short term trend. Just as Mann did with the tree proxies and his statistical parlor trick in creating the Hokey Schtick. When you take the average of a 1000 year period you miss the short term trends within. Mann did the reverse by using the long trends to omit data that was troublesome and then placed short terms to get his fantasitc rise. The same applies with the CO2 Comparison. the average of an average is missleading and improper.

 

[Billy_Bob]

here's another group hug moment for y'all. Are you quoting tons of CARBON or tons of CARBON DIOXIDE?? I think BOTH numbers are correct. you are just a victim of the politically correct move to PURPOSELY confuse folks about CO2 and "carbon"...

So BOTH numbers are freely quoted. The CO2 number should be used EXCLUSIVELY from a scientific viewpoint. And the conversion factor (IIRC) is something like 1.4 X Carbon = CO2... (check that)

flacaltenn,
I am talking about the CO2 figures. Nothing else. But here is a bit of interesting information. The world is warming. But if it wasn't for all the crap we put into the air, more sunlight would be reaching the earth. Warming it up even faster. So if we cleaned all the dirty crap out of the air, it would only accelerate global warming.

I dont thinks so, in the long term...
View attachment 31865

Billy_Bob,
These days it seems that you can find a graph to support any contention. But for those who would deny global warming despite all of the evidence, it is just because they don't want to see the truth.

The short term is warming (up to 18 years ago). The long term is cooling..

 

[Zander]

I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....

 

[cultsmasher]

I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....

Zander,
"Coming up with new excuses" is your opinion. But the really exhausting thing is trying to find a way to get people to accept the truth. Somebody once basically said that it is difficult to get people to understand the truth. Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding. Also, Einstein once said something before my time. Which is something that I would have probably come up with. He basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.

 

[Zander]

I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....

Zander,
"Coming up with new excuses" is your opinion. But the really exhausting thing is trying to find a way to get people to accept the truth. Somebody once basically said that it is difficult to get people to understand the truth. Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding. Also, Einstein once said something before my time. Which is something that I would have probably come up with. He basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.

Here is a list of the 52 excuses for "the pause".........have at it pal. Of course saying "I DON'T KNOW" isn't one of them.....lol...

 

[cultsmasher]

I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....

Zander,
"Coming up with new excuses" is your opinion. But the really exhausting thing is trying to find a way to get people to accept the truth. Somebody once basically said that it is difficult to get people to understand the truth. Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding. Also, Einstein once said something before my time. Which is something that I would have probably come up with. He basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.

Here is a list of the 52 excuses for "the pause".........have at it pal. Of course saying "I DON'T KNOW" isn't one of them.....lol...

Zander,
I don't know what "the pause" is in reference to. You then bring up saying "I don't know." What is it that you think I don't know.

 

[Crick]

 

[indiajo]

So, we had negative heat content in the oceans up to the eighties?
That's cute.

 

[Crick]

No... it was below an arbitrary baseline.

 

[Old Rocks]

The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.

Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.

So you say. People that are knowledgeable in terms of meteorology say otherwise. And while we are at 400 ppm on CO2, we are at over 1800 ppb on CH4, which represents a 250% increase in CH4. CH4, on a decadal basis, is over 100 times of an effective GHG as CO2. So, in effect, we are already at the 500 ppm level. Now add in the increase in NOx, and the industrial gases that have no natural analog, and we are at or past the doubling mark of CO2.

How this extreme rate of increase in going to affect us in the coming years is no known. You see, there has never been a period in the past with this rate of increase.

 

[flacaltenn]

The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.

Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.

So you say. People that are knowledgeable in terms of meteorology say otherwise. And while we are at 400 ppm on CO2, we are at over 1800 ppb on CH4, which represents a 250% increase in CH4. CH4, on a decadal basis, is over 100 times of an effective GHG as CO2. So, in effect, we are already at the 500 ppm level. Now add in the increase in NOx, and the industrial gases that have no natural analog, and we are at or past the doubling mark of CO2.

How this extreme rate of increase in going to affect us in the coming years is no known. You see, there has never been a period in the past with this rate of increase.

You just made a perfect case for my argument. Gee thanks GoldiRocks.
You want to toss in Methane and claim we're at 500ppm -- have at it. The empirical -- and well measured --- modern temperature record is then WAY below the expected values for these gases without feedbacks and multipliers. Doing it your way just validates a lower and lower Climate Sensitivity effect. MAYBE even NEGATIVE feedbacks in play eh? Kinda like that HUGE amount of heat EATEN by the oceans that NEVER EVER showed up in the IPCC forcing function graphs..

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....

Zander,
"Coming up with new excuses" is your opinion. But the really exhausting thing is trying to find a way to get people to accept the truth. Somebody once basically said that it is difficult to get people to understand the truth. Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding. Also, Einstein once said something before my time. Which is something that I would have probably come up with. He basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.

The "truth" is that what we've measured in the Modern era shows NO EVIDENCE that the Earth's climate is in danger of "thermal runaway". And in fact, the warming rate may be below the basic Physics estimates for CO2 only (without all the pretend multipliers that scared folks)

What do YOU think "the truth" is? How much has the planet warmed in your lifetime?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, the temperature is not what some expected. Yet the melting of the Arctic Ice is nearly a half century ahead of the expectations of those same scientists. And the increase in methane from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates and the land based Permafrost is starting to get to the point of worrisome. There will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030. Glaciers in the Andes are receding far more rapidly than any expected.

As far as the oceans eating the heat. True. And we will see the result of that in less than a decade.

 

[Zander]

Yes, the temperature is not what some expected. Yet the melting of the Arctic Ice is nearly a half century ahead of the expectations of those same scientists. And the increase in methane from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates and the land based Permafrost is starting to get to the point of worrisome. There will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030. Glaciers in the Andes are receding far more rapidly than any expected.

As far as the oceans eating the heat. True. And we will see the result of that in less than a decade.

Sure it will........we were supposed to have an "ice free Arctic" by 2013 too....

 

[Old Rocks]

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01a3fd16a72e970b-pi

Well, I think this graph gives a very good idea of how the ice in the Arctic is going.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, the temperature is not what some expected. Yet the melting of the Arctic Ice is nearly a half century ahead of the expectations of those same scientists. And the increase in methane from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates and the land based Permafrost is starting to get to the point of worrisome. There will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030. Glaciers in the Andes are receding far more rapidly than any expected.

As far as the oceans eating the heat. True. And we will see the result of that in less than a decade.

Your whittle buddy CrickHam thinks that ocean heat absorption accounts for ALL the heat missing from the IPCC projections. That's one GIGANTIC negative feedback ain't it? If only we knew how it actually works..

Ice has never worried me. It melts at 0degC. Other than that -- it's not a thermometer and ice loss only tells us about days above 0degC. Same amount of lost for 100 days at 0.1degC as there is for one day at 10degC. And ice has been melting for 150,000 years on the planet.

Even the solid downward line on Arctic Sea Ice shows NO ACCELERATION thru this gaseous era.. No ice for me please..

 

[Crick]

That's okay, no FCT for me.

I love Mr Thermo's implication that melting ice uses no heat.

 

[Zander]

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01a3fd16a72e970b-pi

Well, I think this graph gives a very good idea of how the ice in the Arctic is going.

Looks like normal variations from natural solar cycles.....Cherry picking dates to create the illusion of a trend is a common tactic of the AGW Cultists.

 

[cultsmasher]

I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....

Zander,
"Coming up with new excuses" is your opinion. But the really exhausting thing is trying to find a way to get people to accept the truth. Somebody once basically said that it is difficult to get people to understand the truth. Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding. Also, Einstein once said something before my time. Which is something that I would have probably come up with. He basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.

The "truth" is that what we've measured in the Modern era shows NO EVIDENCE that the Earth's climate is in danger of "thermal runaway". And in fact, the warming rate may be below the basic Physics estimates for CO2 only (without all the pretend multipliers that scared folks)

What do YOU think "the truth" is? How much has the planet warmed in your lifetime?

flacaltenn,
If you want precise facts and figures, you're going to have to look them up yourself. But a while ago I looked up something about methane release. If I remember right, the release wasn't as high as expected during the eighties. But then it started going up again. You can look at this as a computer like "bullshit in, bullshit out" sort of thing. But I heard on some news program once that the rate of global warming from about the 70's to today went up twice as fast as what scientists had predicted back in the 70's.

You say that there is no evidence that the earth is in danger of a thermal runaway. Well for what it's worth, what I just said is a little proof. Though as far as evidence of a thermal runaway goes, there is no geological precident on which to judge what the warning signs might be. But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. You also ask how much the earth has warmed in my lifetime. It's hard to say. For example, there is a parable about a frog being placed into a bowl of water with the water slowly rising. The parable states that the frog won't notice the gradual temparature increase and cook to death. At one time, I thought this parable was of an experiment that was actually done. Until I looked it up. Something I thought was funny was the writer of the article pointing out that you can't get a frog to sit still for anything.