Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Cardinal Carminative]

You can't answer the question

Why do you ignore my constant repeat of the End Permian? Just curious.

10,000 years is long enough to the question

LOLOLOL! Oh so funny! The last 10,000 years has been SINCE THE LAST GLACIATION OCCURRED! That's barely a blip on the geologic history of the earth!

I mean, seriously, you guys are HILARIOUS!

"What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?"

Since you only want to know about the most recent bit of geologic history let's go over what happened in the last 10,000 years.

The last 10,000 years represents 0.0002% of the earth's history and it just so happens that that was the end of the last glacial advance within the Cenozoic ice age we are in. These glaciations occur cyclically mainly due to milankovich cycles which are related to the earth's orbital obliquity. The change of the relationship of the earth to the sun.

10,000 years ago the last ice sheets started to retreat and the earth warmed (again, part of the milankovich cycles). As the earth warmed more CO2 exsolved out of ocean water (as it is known to do, even freshmen chem student know this). That extra CO2 also helped bring about more warming.

That isn't ALWAYS how climate change happens on earth. Sometimes it is due to OTHER factors, like changes in ocean currents which distribute heat around the globe (sometimes this is due to the changes in plate position on the globe!). Sometimes it is due to increased CO2, as many think might have been in play during the End Permian. The Permian ended 252 million years ago. At that point the globe warmed and there was EXTENSIVE acidification of the oceans. There are many researchers who think that was due to CO2 coming out of the Siberian Traps which were erupting at that time pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No there are many published papers showing that CO2 LAGS temperature changes by many years which indicate it isn't a driver but a follower.

I'm curious how you DON'T know that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.

In fact, as noted before, it is EXTREMELY well known that CO2 and H2O (both greenhouse gases) are largely responsible for why the surface of the earth is about 32degC warmer than it would normally be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (the "blackbody radiation temperature" of the earth).

I am fascinated at how few people on here have even a BASIC HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY background. This stuff is super-easy to understand and is known by pretty much anyone who has even an intro chemistry class.

The Earth's temperature – Higher - Black body radiation - Eduqas - GCSE Physics (Single Science) Revision - Eduqas - BBC Bitesize

Learn about and revise black bodies and the absorption and emission of radiation with GCSE Bitesize Physics.

www.bbc.co.uk

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.

news.climate.columbia.edu

 

[koshergrl]

The study is obvious nonsense.
Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
The current temp readings are all record highs.
At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.
Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.

It is amazing the tales you fanatics tell yourselves.

 

[ding]

Do you even know what I'm talking about with regards to the End Pemian Extinction?

Just anything?

Yes, you are talking about 1 data point and ignoring the other 99,999 examples of 1C temperature swings that have occurred over the course of earth's 4 billion year life that were caused by natural variations unrelated to CO2.

 

[ding]

Do you think the earth is only 10,000 years old?

Huh.

You DO realize the earth is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH older than this graph, right?

You DO realize that don't you?

You aren't a Young Earth Creationist are you?

No. The earth is ~ 4 billion years old. But over the past 10,000 years the geologic record is littered with examples of changing temperature trends. This is an example of such. None of the changing temperature swings were due to CO2 because they were before the industrial revolution. So can you tell me what caused these temperature swings and why they couldn't cause temperature swings today?

 

[ding]

Are you able to understand my point about CO2 both leading and lagging?

Was that clear?

What part of basic chemistry do you not like?

If you don't understand how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas I can help you with that. If you don't understand how CO2 exsolves out of solution I can also help you with that.

We need to figure out which parts of basic, first year chemistry you have the MOST trouble with.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 didn't lead temperature. So no, I don't understand how you could argue it did.

 

[ding]

Because IT CAN AND DOES LEAD TO WARMING.

There is LITERALLY NOTHING THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THAT.

There are OTHER means of warming the planet as well (solar cycles, ocean current changes, etc.) and when they warm the planet it causes dissolved CO2 to come out of solution from the oceans.

Honestly, one would have to be completely uneducated to not understand these two simple concepts.

Why is the planet 2C cooler than the past with 120 ppm more CO2?

 

[ding]

I've forgotten more Plate Tectonics than you have ever learned! LOL

Obviously not.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Obviously not.

I honestly don't know why you would think you revealed something to me I didn't know. But I take it you are no stranger to simply making stuff up in your head and then thinking you've discovered something.

LOL.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Why is the planet 2C cooler than the past with 120 ppm more CO2?

I will try to make this as simple as possible: BECAUSE CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY CLIMATE DRIVER.

I wish you folks who don't know any science could understand that there are a NUMBER of competing forcings that drive the climate. None of which you know because you don't read the science, but all you hear is "CO2" so you think that's the only game in town.

Really, do try reading SOME science at some point.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 didn't lead temperature.

You just gonna keep ignoring the end Permian? Or the fact that CLIMATE EXPERTS tell you explicitly that it can and has led temperature?

So no, I don't understand how you could argue it did.

Read some of the literature. I mean the REAL science, not blogs that pre-digest it for you.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, you are talking about 1 data point and ignoring the other 99,999 examples of 1C temperature swings that have occurred over the course of earth's 4 billion year life that were caused by natural variations unrelated to CO2.

Do you honestly NOT think CO2 is a greenhouse gas????

Seriously....how far out in left field are you exactly?

 

[ding]

I honestly don't know why you would think you revealed something to me I didn't know. But I take it you are no stranger to simply making stuff up in your head and then thinking you've discovered something.

LOL.

Because it was super obvious.

 

[ding]

I will try to make this as simple as possible: BECAUSE CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY CLIMATE DRIVER.

I wish you folks who don't know any science could understand that there are a NUMBER of competing forcings that drive the climate. None of which you know because you don't read the science, but all you hear is "CO2" so you think that's the only game in town.

Really, do try reading SOME science at some point.

So why was it 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2? What drove that?

 

[ding]

You just gonna keep ignoring the end Permian? Or the fact that CLIMATE EXPERTS tell you explicitly that it can and has led temperature?



Read some of the literature. I mean the REAL science, not blogs that pre-digest it for you.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with today's climate. Good Lord, you don't even know why the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet and that was like 3 million years ago and you want to discuss climate events 250 million years ago?

 

[ding]

Do you honestly NOT think CO2 is a greenhouse gas????

Seriously....how far out in left field are you exactly?

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because it was super obvious.

I'd ask you to prove it, but since I know you can't (and I know folks like you are always too lazy to back up your accusations) I won't hold my breath.

Just show me where YOU revealed to me that Plate Tectonics were responsible for some climate change. Because I've actually known it for decades.

I'm the one who found a sharks tooth in a quarry in Pennsylvanian limestone in the midwest when I was in undergraduate taking my paleo class.

I'm the one who spent years looking at the remains of tropical and subtropical plants from Kentucky and Ohio and Washington State (care to take a stab at how Kentucky came up with tropical plants?)

I'm the one who has seen the Appalachians and then traveled to Norway to see the rest of the SAME MOUNTAIN CHAIN (care to take a stab at how that happened?)

So, by all means, DO SHOW ME where YOU told me all about plate tectonics.

LOL

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, because it has nothing to do with today's climate.

Correct. But it shows that CO2 can lead temperature.

But then even a nearly brain-dead undergrad chemistry major could tell you that CO2 is a KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS.

 

[jc456]

That's patently absurd! Are you serious? That's not how science works. I don't need YOUR data to test your hypothesis

That’s exactly how it’s done you stupid ass.

validation of his figures.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Now you are moving goal posts! Good for you.

I never said CO2 was as large a greenhouse gas as H2O, but if you were even marginally familiar with the literature you would know that H2O is more of a feedback than a forcing.

Here's why (since you don't know this topic AT ALL):

When you put excess greenhouse gas into a system it causes warming. If you put excess H2O into the atmosphere it will cause more warming, BUT H2O, in excess can EASILY BE LOWERED using the HYDROLOGIC CYCLE. You may be familiar with this effect...it's called PRECIPITATION. That's snow and rain. So excess H2O can easily and quickly come back down to pre-excess levels.

CO2, on the other hand, cannot. It has to rely on the CARBON CYCLE which is much slower and involves fixing C by various plants and animals. If it goes into shells in the ocean the CO2 has to go through a relative complex set of reactions with water to ultimately be fixed by molluscs. Or it can be pulled out of the air by trees. But these are much longer time frames than RAIN OR SNOW.

This is actually pretty standard stuff in this topic. I'm not surprised you have no clue about it.