Carbon is not the culprit

[Old Rocks]

It's one thing when someone tells you the sky is falling, it's another thing when they tell you they need your money to stop it.

Fellow, nothing is going to be done the alleviate the warming. Too much money involved for some very wealthy people. We must support the life style of the very rich and Arabic Princes, you know.

And you will pay a great deal of money for the warming. You will pay at the grocery store, you will pay at the gas pump, and you will pay in insurance as the number of weather related disasters continues to increase.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/SwissReClimateChange.pdf

 

[code1211]

LOL. As far as I know, Gore is still very wealthy. And completely irrelevant to the science. This is what is relevant;



The Carbon Cycle

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.

And yet Science tells us that CO2 rising FOLLOWS warming, it does not precede it.

Only at the beginning of the upswing in the Milankovic Cycles. Perhaps if you would actually read what the scientists write, instead of political talking points, you would not come off as an ignoramous.

Perhaps you can explain why the estimated 1 degree increase in temps globally for the 100 years 1900 to 1999 ( estimated long before the claim of Global warming) was no big thing as compared to the actual rise during those years of a little over 1 degree? And the fact that since 1998 there has been no significant increase in global temperatures?

Perhaps you can explain why you are repeating such a baldfaced lie?

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

After all if CO2 is causing it what happened from 1998 to present? Did CO2 not increase? If it did why no warming according to your professed theory?

CO2 has increased, the temperature has increased, the cryosphere worldwide has decreased, and the cost of the weather disasters have increased.

CO2 has increased constantly and consistantly. Temperature has increased sporadically and in fits and starts.

It is very likely that we are returning to a world climate prevalent about 5000 years when there was far less CO2 in the air.

The cost of weather disasters has more to do with bad planning than with the weather. Coastal fluctualtions in the livability of the land was known when the Spanish invaded the Americas and found few settlements on the shores and most settlements inland.

Living on the beach is a relatively new developement because it's so stupid to do so in view of the dangers posed by the power of the oceans. Same with flood plains and changing river banks.

I know, I know. CO2 causes the climate to rise, but not in a readily trackable way so while the temperature may plateau or drop while CO2 rises, this proves nothing. We must only realize that there is a connection and that we don't understand and we must abandon logic and thought to accept the truth.

 

[code1211]

To be fair OldRocks..

I'm APPALLED that such a complex question can be answered by a SINGLE number such as Avg Global Temperature.

It's used as an indicator of the extent of climate change. Considering we know roughly how much temperature of the Earth has changed in the past, it's useful to know how much it's changing today and to try and predict how much it will change in the future.

As time moves forward, so does our ability to gather the date. Today's satelite measurements are the closest thing to accurate data we've had ever. This only goes back to the late 70's. Prior to that, the gatherihng of climate data was a just bit better than reading the patterns of bones thrown on a blanket.

As far as reducing the measurments to a single number, why not? There must be a way to measure the impact of anything. The average Global Temp happens to be the clearest measure of the average Global Temp.

Anomalies are everywhere, though, as this year there were tornadoes futher south than normal as the cooler air forced its way south in the USA. Being cooler further south has been pointed to as a proof of warming. (?)

Regardless, it's an interesting topic and deserves some attention. I think it's funny that the new mission of NASA is not to fly, but to take the Earth's temperature. I guess their old rockets did look like very large rectal thermometers.

 

[lehr]

Carbon can be measured so it can be taxed and traded on wall street. This is why the politicians from all over the world are giving money to scientist that are trying to prove that man produced carbon is the culprit. Still to this day there is no smoking gun to prove that carbon increases are the cause of a warmer planet or just a byproduct of a warmer planet. After all what does water IE oceans release into the atmosphere when it warms? Answer=Carbon

i love carbon - im made of carbon - carbon is life !

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess Code 1211:

Arguing over a single yearly or monthly number for something as complex as atmospheric science and surface weather combined -- is like pretending the Dow CLOSING number represents the state of the economy.
That would trivialize the complexity and the fine points of how the economy works and is predicted -- Would it not?

Regardless, it's an interesting topic and deserves some attention. I think it's funny that the new mission of NASA is not to fly, but to take the Earth's temperature. I guess their old rockets did look like very large rectal thermometers.

LOL:
My concern there is how is a DAILY temperature reached for the entire globe with the satellite resources we have. They either are STATIONARY or ORBITAL (except for the fancy DOD ones that we don't discuss). It's largely my ignorance of the collection methods. But if you miss a day for Sub-Saharan African observations -- How does that impact the statistical confidence in deriving a YEARLY Avg temp to within say 0.04C?

 

[westwall]

CO2 has increased, the temperature has increased, the cryosphere worldwide has decreased, and the cost of the weather disasters have increased.

CO2 has indeed risen, but faster than Hansen predicted. The temps however have not. He also predicted that right now parts of New York would be under water and there is no noticeable increase in ocean levels. It takes a very precise measurement to see a rise and in some cases the levels have actually dropped.

The cryosphere worldwide appears to be rebounding multi year old ice is very thick in the Arctic

A really stupid lie. Link to a creidible scientific site that says this is so.

and increasing in extent, glaciers are advancing worldwide,

Again, a really stupid lie. USGS states just the opposite.

and the cost of disasters has increased thanks to inflation. In the 1960's a nice house would set you back 10 grand, today that same house will set you back a cool quarter million or more depending on where you live. Nice try but as usual you let a little thing like fact elude you.

The facts are your enemy, Walleyes.

http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson290511.pdf

No, I don't think so. I'll use one of your tactics, Andrew Glikson is a noted warmist employed by the ANU Climate Change Institute. He would be considered biased. He engaged in a discussion with Joanne Nova and she handed him his hat and ushered him out the door. It was embarassing how badly she slaughtered him. Then you present us with a organisation called countercurrents.org and looky here they are a leftist organisation (color us not surprised) who's motto is Educate, Organise, Agitate.

It is sad that this is the best you can do. Glikson is simply not up to snuff and your little organisation is likewise pathetic.




"This is Dr Glikson’s bread and butter topic. He claims the geologic record displays episodes of primary forcing from carbon, but where is the evidence? All Keller[4] shows is that big volcanoes seem to cause big extinctions. Is he serious? Volcanoes pump out massive CO2 (which warms the planet a bit) but they also pour out volumes of ash (think “nuclear winter&#8221. Super volcano Toba was only 70,000 years ago, but if the effect was net warming, it doesn’t show in the ice core records. Indeed researchers argue about how cold it got and how long it lasted. Was it just a 3 °C fall over 1000 years or was it a 15 °C drop over just a few decades?

Zachos 2008[5] talks about the PETM 55 million years ago. Glikson claims this shows methane warmed the planet, but Zacho’s hardly refers to methane. It’s a paper about CO2. Awkwardly, other researchers find that the carbon spike appears to have followed the temperature spike with a lag of around 3000 years[6].

With Ward 2005,[7] the problem is that we can’t tell whether the carbon rose before the extinctions or after. The odd 1000-year lag gets rather lost in the 250,000,000 year record. With this and the Geocarb graph,[8] Glikson assumes carbon causes the glaciation during the last 500 million years. But golly, we know that when temperatures are low, glaciers form and the oceans suck up all the CO2 they can find. It is no coincidence that low temperatures and low CO2 go together. It’s entirely expected and it tells us nothing about whether CO2 amplifies the temperature. At least one study suggests it was solar insolation that forced the ice sheets to melt, not CO2.[9] This is not just a his-vs-hers assumption tit for tat. There’s a big difference: we know temperature definitely affects CO2 (as I mentioned previously), and we’re pretty sure (thanks to empirical evidence, see above) that CO2 only amplifies that warming by a minor amount. When in doubt, go with the known evidence, rather than the flawed models.

The big question is that if CO2 drives the climate, how come the only papers that supposedly support a major forcing come from eras so long ago that no one can say which factor rose first? Since temperature drives carbon we know there will be a correlation in the past (it’d be shocking if there weren’t). But, why-o-why is there no concrete evidence from the last million years?"


Great Debate Part III & IV – Glikson accidentally vindicates the skeptics! « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax


http://countercurrents.org/

 

[westwall]

It's one thing when someone tells you the sky is falling, it's another thing when they tell you they need your money to stop it.

Fellow, nothing is going to be done the alleviate the warming. Too much money involved for some very wealthy people. We must support the life style of the very rich and Arabic Princes, you know.

And you will pay a great deal of money for the warming. You will pay at the grocery store, you will pay at the gas pump, and you will pay in insurance as the number of weather related disasters continues to increase.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/SwissReClimateChange.pdf

The reason why prices are rising is because of stupid AGW inspired regulations that your side is promulgating. Electricity costs will soar under Obama if he gets Cap and Trade type legislation through. All transportation costs will soar under the same legislation. IPCC estimates are that the cost to reduce the global temp by one degree in 100 years is over one trillion dollars.

You want to see costs rise? Enact your BS legislation and it will happen.

 

[lehr]

What is the cause of the oceans warming? By the way, we are not yet at the point that the oceans emit more than they absorb. When we hit the point that the oceans are emitting more CO2 than they absorbing, we will be in deep trouble, indeed.

The Carbon Cycle

ted danson - 1988 speaking before a senate sub-committee told them that we have 10 yrs to live because the oceans are dying ! - then in 07 he said 70% of oceans fisheries are dying - and to this day people listen to this nut cake !

if u want to keep our oceans clean - u might start drilling for oil - when u do not drill for oil it starts to leach out of the bottom of the ocean and bubbles to the surface - the planet makes oil as we speak ? you might also stop listnin to leftists like danson !