The rather large lady is singing louder

[Old Rocks]

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of
around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the
end of 2009. CO2 concentrations can be measured in “ancient air” trapped in bubbles in
ice, deep below the surface in Antarctica and Greenland; these show that present-day
concentrations are higher than any that have been observed in the past 800,000 years,
when CO2 varied between about 180 and 300 ppm. Various lines of evidence point
strongly to human activity being the main reason for the recent increase, mainly due to
the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land-use
changes and cement manufacture. The evidence includes the consistency between
calculations of the emitted CO2 and that expected to have accumulated in the
atmosphere, the analysis of the proportions of different CO2 isotopes, and the amount
of oxygen in the air.
26 These observations show that about half of the CO2 emitted by human activity since the
industrial revolution has remained in the atmosphere. The remainder has been taken up
by the oceans, soils and plants although the exact amount going to each of these
individually is less well known.
27 Concentrations of many other greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of
methane has more than doubled in the past 150 years; this recent and rapid increase is
unprecedented in the 800,000 year record and evidence strongly suggests that it arises
mainly as a result of human activity.

 

[Old Rocks]

There you have it. Very careful use of language to placate the deniers, yet still states that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are
likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.

58 It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the
climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and
associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these
areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their
impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.

59 Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in
the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were
substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would
make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts
of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.
Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well
established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate
projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this
complex and challenging area.

 

[westwall]

The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion (ppb), up from 700 ppb in 1750. By 2008, however, global methane levels, which had stayed mostly flat since 1998, had risen to 1,800 ppb[5]. By 2010, methane levels, at least in the arctic, were measured at 1850 ppb, a level scientists described as being higher than at any time in the previous 400,000 years.[6] (Historically, methane concentrations in the world's atmosphere have ranged between 300 and 400 ppb during glacial periods commonly known as ice ages, and between 600 to 700 ppb during the warm interglacial periods).

More from the wiki page on methane.

What is the forcing on the climate for methane?

Here is a paper from Harvard that covers the normal forcings of CH4

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf

Good article for the most part. Did you bother to read it? I found this paragraph compelling...


"One of the most notable, but somewhat surprising, consensus conclusions from ice-coredrilling projects and research in Arctic and Antarctic regions(e.g., Fischer et al, 2006;
Masson-Delmotte et al, 2006) is the fact that the deduced isotopic temperatures lead other
climatic responses, including especially the atmospheric levels of minor greenhouse gasses
like CO2 and CH4. Fischer et al. (1999) first reported that atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 80 to 100 ppm some 600+ or - 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations (or glacial terminations) in Antarctica and that relatively high levels of CO2 were sustained for thousands of years during glacial inception scenarios when Antarctic temperatures had dropped significantly. Later Monnin et al. (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003) offered clear evidence that temperature change drove atmospheric CO2 responses during more accurately dated periods near glacial terminations
I (at about 18 kyr before present, BP) and III (at about 240 kyr BP), respectively.




Thanks for providing yet more peer reviewed evidence that CO2 HAS NO EFFECT AND DOES NOT DRIVE TEMPERATURES BUT IS IN FACT DRIVEN BY TEMPERATURES.

 

[Old Rocks]

As stated by the Royal Society paper of 30Sept10, you are completely wrong. CO2 does cause warming.

And as this paper states, the interglacial periods start with a warming of the Southern Ocean from the Milankovic Cycles. That leads to the release of CO2, creating a positive feedback that creates more heating over the rest of the earth.

Your continued lamebrained denial of proven science just brands you for the fool that you are.

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming -- Stott et al., 10.1126/science.1143791 -- Science

Reports
Submitted on April 13, 2007
Accepted on September 11, 2007



Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
Lowell Stott 1*, Axel Timmermann 2, Robert Thunell 3
1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2 IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HI 96822, USA.
3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.


* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Lowell Stott , E-mail: [email protected]



Establishing what caused Earth’s largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be key factors responsible for this warming.

 

[westwall]

As stated by the Royal Society paper of 30Sept10, you are completely wrong. CO2 does cause warming.

And as this paper states, the interglacial periods start with a warming of the Southern Ocean from the Milankovic Cycles. That leads to the release of CO2, creating a positive feedback that creates more heating over the rest of the earth.

Your continued lamebrained denial of proven science just brands you for the fool that you are.

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming -- Stott et al., 10.1126/science.1143791 -- Science

Reports
Submitted on April 13, 2007
Accepted on September 11, 2007



Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
Lowell Stott 1*, Axel Timmermann 2, Robert Thunell 3
1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2 IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HI 96822, USA.
3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.


* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Lowell Stott , E-mail: [email protected]



Establishing what caused Earth’s largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be key factors responsible for this warming.

Proven science? Excuse you? The Vostock ice cores all state the exact same thing. It is only the faith based such as yourself who claim otherwise. To reiterate (that means to state again) this is FROM YOUR POST...so enjoy! You might want to take a science class or three so that you might begin to understand what you read so you don't make such a fool of yourself in the future.

"One of the most notable, but somewhat surprising, consensus conclusions from ice-coredrilling projects and research in Arctic and Antarctic regions(e.g., Fischer et al, 2006;
Masson-Delmotte et al, 2006) is the fact that the deduced isotopic temperatures lead other
climatic responses, including especially the atmospheric levels of minor greenhouse gasses
like CO2 and CH4. Fischer et al. (1999) first reported that atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 80 to 100 ppm some 600+ or - 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations (or glacial terminations) in Antarctica and that relatively high levels of CO2 were sustained for thousands of years during glacial inception scenarios when Antarctic temperatures had dropped significantly. Later Monnin et al. (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003) offered clear evidence that temperature change drove atmospheric CO2 responses during more accurately dated periods near glacial terminations
I (at about 18 kyr before present, BP) and III (at about 240 kyr BP), respectively.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is correct. Or haven't you noticed that is what the I have said repeatedly in the past. The insolation change by the Milankovic Cycles warmed the southern ocean, CO2 was emmitted because of that, and warmed the atmosphere, which warmed the rest of the world. An excellant example of a positive feedback.

Then you go on to state that CO2 has no affect on the atmosphere, which, of course, is pure bullshit. CO2 warms the atmosphere though absorbing outgoing infrared, whether the source of the CO2 is an ocean warmed by insolation, or the actions of a naked ape burning fossil fuels.

 

[Old Rocks]

Apparently your claimed membership in the Royal Society didn't have much effect. For their policy statement of 30Sept10 is still a strong statement concerning the fact of AGW and the clear and present danger presented by AGW.

 

[westwall]

Apparently your claimed membership in the Royal Society didn't have much effect. For their policy statement of 30Sept10 is still a strong statement concerning the fact of AGW and the clear and present danger presented by AGW.

Compared to their prior the sky is falling and we need to control all aspect of the lives of the peons to "protect" them it is a huge change. But go ahead and make yourself feel better. But you know I was right and you were wrong. You claimed they would come out even stronger and clearly they did not.

You lose.

 

[westwall]

That is correct. Or haven't you noticed that is what the I have said repeatedly in the past. The insolation change by the Milankovic Cycles warmed the southern ocean, CO2 was emmitted because of that, and warmed the atmosphere, which warmed the rest of the world. An excellant example of a positive feedback.

Then you go on to state that CO2 has no affect on the atmosphere, which, of course, is pure bullshit. CO2 warms the atmosphere though absorbing outgoing infrared, whether the source of the CO2 is an ocean warmed by insolation, or the actions of a naked ape burning fossil fuels.

No that is not what you said that is what you parroted from your scepticalscience pro AGW blog. So riddle me this batman. If the temps rose first and that released sequestered CO2 why do automatically jump to the conclusion that CO2 continues to make the temps rise?

Could it not be that the CO2 has no effect and the temp increase is merely the original temp increase continuing on to wherever it is going to go before once again dropping back down to wherever it is going to drop to in the next cycle?

The evidence for what I just posted is overwhelming. The evidence for what scepticalscience postulated is non existent.

 

[ScienceRocks]

That is correct. Or haven't you noticed that is what the I have said repeatedly in the past. The insolation change by the Milankovic Cycles warmed the southern ocean, CO2 was emmitted because of that, and warmed the atmosphere, which warmed the rest of the world. An excellant example of a positive feedback.

Then you go on to state that CO2 has no affect on the atmosphere, which, of course, is pure bullshit. CO2 warms the atmosphere though absorbing outgoing infrared, whether the source of the CO2 is an ocean warmed by insolation, or the actions of a naked ape burning fossil fuels.

No that is not what you said that is what you parroted from your scepticalscience pro AGW blog. So riddle me this batman. If the temps rose first and that released sequestered CO2 why do automatically jump to the conclusion that CO2 continues to make the temps rise?

Could it not be that the CO2 has no effect and the temp increase is merely the original temp increase continuing on to wherever it is going to go before once again dropping back down to wherever it is going to drop to in the next cycle?

The evidence for what I just posted is overwhelming. The evidence for what scepticalscience postulated is non existent.

So you believe that co2 is NOT a green house gas and doesn't trap heat from escaping to space? Co2 is not a strong green house gas to other ones like methane or water vapor, but it is a green house gas that has the ability to trap solar input going into our Atmosphere and more of it holds more heat within our Atmosphere. Do you agree?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. They transfer this energy to other components of the atmosphere, and it is re-radiated in all directions, including back down towards the surface. This transfers energy to the surface and lower atmosphere, so the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism [1][2].

 

[konradv]

I have no idea what this thread is about.

Unfortunately, that's the deniers' M.O. Confuse, confuse, confuse. It's simple, really.

CO2 and other gases are known scientifically to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentrations of these gases, including some very potent one not found in nature have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, according to ice-core data.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Talk about projections being wrong are just distractions, because they DO NOT disprove AGW. Whether the temp goes up 1 degree or 4.5, it's still going up. The deniers will try to throw doubt on the theory that way, because they have never successfully cracked the above logical syllogism. Of course, we don't have all the answers yet, but we DO know what GHGs do and we DO know they've been going up for ~200 years.

 

[Si modo]

I have no idea what this thread is about.

Unfortunately, that's the deniers' M.O. Confuse, confuse, confuse. It's simple, really.

CO2 and other gases are known scientifically to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentrations of these gases, including some very potent one not found in nature have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, according to ice-core data.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Talk about projections being wrong are just distractions, because they DO NOT disprove AGW. Whether the temp goes up 1 degree or 4.5, it's still going up. The deniers will try to throw doubt on the theory that way, because they have never successfully cracked the above logical syllogism. Of course, we don't have all the answers yet, but we DO know what GHGs do and we DO know they've been going up for ~200 years.

What are the deniers denying, Konrad?

I've asked you this time and again and you have yet to answer it.

If one is going to use a term over and over, one should have a good grasp of what that term means. Surely you can articulate what a denier denies.

Or, you can dodge my question yet again.

 

[Old Rocks]

And what is your point, old girl? Or are you flapping your gums for the exercise? What have you stated? Nothing, nothing at all, just your normal dingbatism.

 

[westwall]

That is correct. Or haven't you noticed that is what the I have said repeatedly in the past. The insolation change by the Milankovic Cycles warmed the southern ocean, CO2 was emmitted because of that, and warmed the atmosphere, which warmed the rest of the world. An excellant example of a positive feedback.

Then you go on to state that CO2 has no affect on the atmosphere, which, of course, is pure bullshit. CO2 warms the atmosphere though absorbing outgoing infrared, whether the source of the CO2 is an ocean warmed by insolation, or the actions of a naked ape burning fossil fuels.

No that is not what you said that is what you parroted from your scepticalscience pro AGW blog. So riddle me this batman. If the temps rose first and that released sequestered CO2 why do automatically jump to the conclusion that CO2 continues to make the temps rise?

Could it not be that the CO2 has no effect and the temp increase is merely the original temp increase continuing on to wherever it is going to go before once again dropping back down to wherever it is going to drop to in the next cycle?

The evidence for what I just posted is overwhelming. The evidence for what scepticalscience postulated is non existent.

So you believe that co2 is NOT a green house gas and doesn't trap heat from escaping to space? Co2 is not a strong green house gas to other ones like methane or water vapor, but it is a green house gas that has the ability to trap solar input going into our Atmosphere and more of it holds more heat within our Atmosphere. Do you agree?

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. They transfer this energy to other components of the atmosphere, and it is re-radiated in all directions, including back down towards the surface. This transfers energy to the surface and lower atmosphere, so the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism [1][2].

CO2 is clearly a GHG. It also clearly does not do what the alarmists claim it does. The IR absorbtion spectrum that CO2 operates in is likewise covered by the dominant GHG water vapour. Water vapor operates in the exact same spectrum as CO2 does and as it quite simply dwarfs any possible effect that CO2 would have had. If there were no water vapor CO2 would most certainly be a dominant GHG but as there is water vapor it's effect is nullified.

 

[westwall]

And what is your point, old girl? Or are you flapping your gums for the exercise? What have you stated? Nothing, nothing at all, just your normal dingbatism.

Quite the contrary olfraud. Si asked a very specific question that I too would love an answer to. Now shut up.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No that is not what you said that is what you parroted from your scepticalscience pro AGW blog. So riddle me this batman. If the temps rose first and that released sequestered CO2 why do automatically jump to the conclusion that CO2 continues to make the temps rise?

Could it not be that the CO2 has no effect and the temp increase is merely the original temp increase continuing on to wherever it is going to go before once again dropping back down to wherever it is going to drop to in the next cycle?

The evidence for what I just posted is overwhelming. The evidence for what scepticalscience postulated is non existent.

So you believe that co2 is NOT a green house gas and doesn't trap heat from escaping to space? Co2 is not a strong green house gas to other ones like methane or water vapor, but it is a green house gas that has the ability to trap solar input going into our Atmosphere and more of it holds more heat within our Atmosphere. Do you agree?

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. They transfer this energy to other components of the atmosphere, and it is re-radiated in all directions, including back down towards the surface. This transfers energy to the surface and lower atmosphere, so the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism [1][2].

CO2 is clearly a GHG. It also clearly does not do what the alarmists claim it does. The IR absorbtion spectrum that CO2 operates in is likewise covered by the dominant GHG water vapour. Water vapor operates in the exact same spectrum as CO2 does and as it quite simply dwarfs any possible effect that CO2 would have had. If there were no water vapor CO2 would most certainly be a dominant GHG but as there is water vapor it's effect is nullified.

Interesting, so this would mean people like James Hansen that are more or less the Isaac Newton of Climate science are lieing and misleading people? You could be right, but I will have to look into it more.

 

[westwall]

So you believe that co2 is NOT a green house gas and doesn't trap heat from escaping to space? Co2 is not a strong green house gas to other ones like methane or water vapor, but it is a green house gas that has the ability to trap solar input going into our Atmosphere and more of it holds more heat within our Atmosphere. Do you agree?

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. They transfer this energy to other components of the atmosphere, and it is re-radiated in all directions, including back down towards the surface. This transfers energy to the surface and lower atmosphere, so the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism [1][2].

CO2 is clearly a GHG. It also clearly does not do what the alarmists claim it does. The IR absorbtion spectrum that CO2 operates in is likewise covered by the dominant GHG water vapour. Water vapor operates in the exact same spectrum as CO2 does and as it quite simply dwarfs any possible effect that CO2 would have had. If there were no water vapor CO2 would most certainly be a dominant GHG but as there is water vapor it's effect is nullified.

Interesting, so this would mean people like James Hansen that are more or less the Isaac Newton of Climate science are lieing and misleading people? You could be right, but I will have to look into it more.

He's lying now. Originally, before there was good research on the matter, it was a very legitimate hypothesis. When I was an undergrad we allways talked about how the interglacial period might be affected by the GHG's we were injecting into the atmosphere. That was 35 years ago. The science (such as it is) has matured and moved on to a different line of thought.

Except for the alarmists. In a best case scenario they are guilty of Confirmation Bias. That describes Chris to a T. He only searches out those facts that confirm his particular belief. He ignores any that counter his underlying belief.

olfraud is a step worse. He not only is a practitioner of Confirmation Bias but he perpetuates it with Belief Perseverance and will lie cheat or steal to drag people into his belief system.

Don't believe anything anyone tells you. You're smart. Look it up for yourself.

 

[IanC]

The CO2 effect should be most effective at high altitudes where there is less water vapour but satellite data doesn't back that up. And the computer models are just totally wrong in predicting where in the atmosphere the warming is taking place. But we are told we should believe them because the very last piece of information, temperature projection, is somewhat close. As long as its last year's model.

 

[Si modo]

And what is your point, old girl? Or are you flapping your gums for the exercise? What have you stated? Nothing, nothing at all, just your normal dingbatism.

Actually, I'm asking you a question: What are the deniers denying?

'Deniers' is a term you use consistently. And, I ask you what the deniers are denying, consitently. And, as you do yet again, you dodge the question.



If one is goingto use a term, they should have a good grasp of what that term means. As such, they should be able to articulate what that term means if asked. As you cannot answer that question, you obviously have no clue as to whatyou are talking about.

Way to go, Dodge.