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

[westwall]

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning.

Tell me that you really aren't this clueless? Climate change alarmism is in, and of itself, a political issue. It is, and always has been about socialist goals of controlling and socializing industry and redistuributing wealth.

Only because the skeptics/deniers say so. I don't see any independent verification of that fact. I guess levees shouldn't be built because flood warnings are "alarmist" and building them IS a poltical question. After all, water is required for life. What? Are we supposed to just quit drinking? (Sample of denier logic)

Yes, the sooner you quit drinking the sooner you will no longer be a drain on the Earths resources. There is a Desert Pupfish that will happily use all the water you would otherwise waste.

 

[westwall]

Only because the skeptics/deniers say so. I don't see any independent verification of that fact. I guess levees shouldn't be built because flood warnings are "alarmist" and building them IS a poltical question. After all, water is required for life. What? Are we supposed to just quit drinking? (Sample of denier logic)

Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic. Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2." That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee. The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is test book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet. There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23. The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW. Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results. If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.

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?

We were born with the ability to think critically. Your skills stop at juvenile insults. Hows that working for ya?

 

[Old Rocks]

General Climate Models Nothing else need be said!

Watching ignorant retards like you laugh at things you don't (and can't) understand is itself rather amusing although also a bit sad. It is rather telling that after getting your clock cleaned like that, your only response is this pathetic non-response.

Denier cult myths - ‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts
(excerpts)

...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

Sure they do. Then how come they can't recreate what occured yesterday? Here's a peer reviewed study for you. I highlighted the relevent part for you.


"Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Rice University | News & Media

How dumb do you think others are, Code? See the highlight in red? What that is telling us is that there are factors which may make the worst alarmist predictions look positively Pollyanna. And we are seeing that right now. The emission of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates has far exceeded anyones predictions this years. An order of magnitude greater than last year.

And then there are the weather disasters of the last two years. In just 2011 alone, 12 disasters that cost more than 1 billion dollars. Unprecedented.

 

[westwall]

Watching ignorant retards like you laugh at things you don't (and can't) understand is itself rather amusing although also a bit sad. It is rather telling that after getting your clock cleaned like that, your only response is this pathetic non-response.

Denier cult myths - ‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts
(excerpts)

...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

Sure they do. Then how come they can't recreate what occured yesterday? Here's a peer reviewed study for you. I highlighted the relevent part for you.


"Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Rice University | News & Media

How dumb do you think others are, Code? See the highlight in red? What that is telling us is that there are factors which may make the worst alarmist predictions look positively Pollyanna. And we are seeing that right now. The emission of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates has far exceeded anyones predictions this years. An order of magnitude greater than last year.

And then there are the weather disasters of the last two years. In just 2011 alone, 12 disasters that cost more than 1 billion dollars. Unprecedented.

Go back and read some history some time then get back to us. None of what happened last year was unprecedented. And in point of fact the death tolls are tiny compared to what occured in the past. The monetary cost being so high is due to the simple fact that our dollars aren't worth crap thanks to inflation. And it's the blue highlighted section that is most pertinent. But then you'd have to not be a denier to see that.

 

[RollingThunder]

General Climate Models Nothing else need be said!

Watching ignorant retards like you laugh at things you don't (and can't) understand is itself rather amusing although also a bit sad. It is rather telling that after getting your clock cleaned like that, your only response is this pathetic non-response.

Denier cult myths - ‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts
(excerpts)

...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

Sure they do. Then how come they can't recreate what occured(sic) yesterday?

But they can, as you might know if you just weren't so brainwashed and fundamentally ignorant about science.

Climate Models: How Good Are They?
By Lisa Moore
EDF
Published: July 18, 2007
(excerpts)

Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future.

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

Here's a peer reviewed study for you. I highlighted the relevent(sic) part for you.

"Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Rice University | News & Media

Well, ROTFLMAO once again! You are just too too funny, you poor pathetic numbskull. I'm going to bookmark this one to demonstrate in future debates just how little comprehension you have when you read scientific information.

The article you quoted is specifically saying that global warming is probably going to be much worse than the current climate models have predicted. It is saying that the current models have either underestimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels or they are overlooking some as yet unknown feedback factor that made the CO2 caused warming during the PETM to be even more intense. Talk about arguing against yourself...you take the cake.

You quoted these excerpts from that article but apparently without any understanding of their meaning....

"During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."​

...and you conveniently left out some other important parts....

"Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.""​

source: Rice University | News & Media
(excerpts)

So, CO2 levels only went up by 70% during the PETM but the average world temperatures went up 13° F and we've already raised CO2 levels by about 40% over per-industrial levels and we're still pumping about 30 billion tons more fossil carbon into the air every year. But you denier cult nutjobs tell us that there's no real problem and we certainly shouldn't upset the oil and coal industry gravy trains for the sake of the environment or the survival of future generations as well as the Earth's biosphere. You'd be funny if this situation wasn't so tragic.

 

[RollingThunder]

Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic. Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2." That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee. The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is test book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet. There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23. The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW. Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results. If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.

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?

We were born with the ability to think critically. Your skills stop at juvenile insults. Hows that working for ya?

So far you've shown no evidence of being able to think at all, let alone "critically".

 

[code1211]

Only because the skeptics/deniers say so. I don't see any independent verification of that fact. I guess levees shouldn't be built because flood warnings are "alarmist" and building them IS a poltical question. After all, water is required for life. What? Are we supposed to just quit drinking? (Sample of denier logic)

Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic. Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2." That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee. The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is test book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet. There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23. The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW. Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results. If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.

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

 

[code1211]

Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic. Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2." That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee. The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is test book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet. There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23. The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW. Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results. If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.

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?

We were born with the ability to think critically. Your skills stop at juvenile insults. Hows that working for ya?

I had the same question. He, apparently, has no ability to question.

 

[code1211]

...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

The trouble with the internet is that everyone can use it. Sadly, you don't seem to understand this.

Did you you know that the Hansen predictions and scenarios extended past 12 years?

Please reference the link below to see how the real world diverges from the most revered predictions ever produced by the AGW Crowd.

Was Hansen wrong or is the real world wrong? Since they don't agree, both cannot be right.


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/1988_hansen20.gif

 

[code1211]

Watching ignorant retards like you laugh at things you don't (and can't) understand is itself rather amusing although also a bit sad. It is rather telling that after getting your clock cleaned like that, your only response is this pathetic non-response.

Denier cult myths - ‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts
(excerpts)

...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

Sure they do. Then how come they can't recreate what occured yesterday? Here's a peer reviewed study for you. I highlighted the relevent part for you.


"Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Rice University | News & Media

How dumb do you think others are, Code? See the highlight in red? What that is telling us is that there are factors which may make the worst alarmist predictions look positively Pollyanna. And we are seeing that right now. The emission of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates has far exceeded anyones predictions this years. An order of magnitude greater than last year.

And then there are the weather disasters of the last two years. In just 2011 alone, 12 disasters that cost more than 1 billion dollars. Unprecedented.

Wasn't me who posted that.

If it was me, though, I would have pointed out that the temperatures rose quickly and the CO2 rose quickly.

Historically, in natural occurrences such as this, the temperature leads the CO2 by less than a millennium.

Looking back into history 55.8 million years and trying to determine which came first is a little sketchy in my mind. Stating without reservation that the soaring CO2 caused the soaring temps seems a little strong to me.

When 4 and a half billion years of performance shows the opposite correlation, why do we think that CO2 caused that temps to rise in opposition to all of the other examples of this same natural correlation?

 

[code1211]

So, CO2 levels only went up by 70% during the PETM but the average world temperatures went up 13° F and we've already raised CO2 levels by about 40% over per-industrial levels and we're still pumping about 30 billion tons more fossil carbon into the air every year. But you denier cult nutjobs tell us that there's no real problem and we certainly shouldn't upset the oil and coal industry gravy trains for the sake of the environment or the survival of future generations as well as the Earth's biosphere. You'd be funny if this situation wasn't so tragic.

Just to re-cap, then:

You assert that during the PETM CO2 rose by 70% and caused a 13 degree temperature increase.

You further assert that we are currently at a 40% increase in CO2 and yet we have witnessed a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C in 2000 years.

You imply that the PETM is the blueprint for the present and that we may expect a similar increase in temperatures.

When might we expect the other 6.3 degrees C of increase to occur?

If it is impolite of me to ask you to think, I apologize.

 

[konradv]

Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic. Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2." That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee. The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is test book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet. There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23. The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW. Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results. If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.

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!!!

 

[konradv]

Just to re-cap, then:

You assert that during the PETM CO2 rose by 70% and caused a 13 degree temperature increase.

You further assert that we are currently at a 40% increase in CO2 and yet we have witnessed a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C in 2000 years.

You imply that the PETM is the blueprint for the present and that we may expect a similar increase in temperatures.

When might we expect the other 6.3 degrees C of increase to occur?

If it is impolite of me to ask you to think, I apologize.

Your analysis is too simplistic. You're leaving out the influence of natural fluctuations, again. What happens when we come out of the current solar minimum? You might as well be saying that it's impossible to get a tan in the summertime, just because you went out on a cloudy day!

 

[westwall]

Your analysis is too simplistic. You're leaving out the influence of natural fluctuations, again. What happens when we come out of the current solar minimum? You might as well be saying that it's impossible to get a tan in the summertime, just because you went out on a cloudy day!

Actually his analysis is spot on. You boys ascribe all sorts of magical abilities to CO2, so when do we get to witnsee their magical prowess? When will it begin? It has been 30 years since Hansen made these predictions and so far evey minor cyclic variation has had the ability to thwart the magical powers of CO2.

Even though the CO2 levels have risen far above what Hansen predicted the temps havn't followed suit. I guess that CO2 is not so magical after all.

 

[code1211]

Your analysis is too simplistic. You're leaving out the influence of natural fluctuations, again. What happens when we come out of the current solar minimum? You might as well be saying that it's impossible to get a tan in the summertime, just because you went out on a cloudy day!

I analyzed your statement and your scenario which stated pretty clearly that the PETM is the model for our current situation. Your analysis is of the natural world, but seems to be lacking.

You set the comparison, the parameters of the comparison, the predicted out come and the scale upon which to measure the accuracy.

I merely performed the measure that your prediction and implication demands.

By my measure, both you prediction and implication fall short.

Can you demonstrate how your prediction and implication is fulfilled by actual real world evidence?

This is where you present proof.

 

[code1211]

Your analysis is too simplistic. You're leaving out the influence of natural fluctuations, again. What happens when we come out of the current solar minimum? You might as well be saying that it's impossible to get a tan in the summertime, just because you went out on a cloudy day!

Current TSI is just a little below the highest that has occurred since the LIA.

When the burner is at 10 on a scale of 10 and you dial it back to 8, that's not really a "Solar Minimum" now, is it.

Very, very small adjustments to our little system produce huge changes into our biosphere.

It is only a 3 degree change in the orbit of the planet that creates ice Ages. I takes very small changes in our relation to the Sun to produce very noticeable changes to our climate.

 

[IanC]

Hi! King of density here.

I didn't get the answer from what you said. Is IR radiation and IR Photons the same thing?

Let me simply give you the definition of "photon" from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle.

Just to make sure that this is perfectly clear, I will also provide, from the same dictionary, the definition of quantum.

quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

There is no doubt that IR radiation is Electromagnetic radiation. The IR that radiates away from the earth constitutes an EM field. The smallest bit of the IR that radiates away from the earth and makes up the massive EM field radiating away from the surface of the earth is the photon. A photon isn't, as some like to believe, a free particle that goes zipping around the universe without regard to the EM fields it is a part of, and not being matter, they don't have to have matter in order to interact.

Photons and IR are one and the same. The photon is nothing more than the smallest possible bit of IR radiation and is constrained by the same physical laws as the EM field that it helps to make up.

Thank you. Einstein said that you never really understand anything until you can explain it to your grandmother.

My ability to understand science and math makes most grandmothers look like prodigies.

wirebender has over simplified things with one size fits all definitions. photons have two main uses; 1. to shed excess energy and become closer to groundstate, 2. to pass electric or magnetic force between two capable particles.

in the first case, energy is expelled as a photon that may or may not interact with another particle but the purpose is to get rid of energy.

in the second case, a charged particle sends out vast amounts of virtual photons that are bought on credit (via the uncertainty principle) which simply disappear if they dont find a particle capable of interacting. if they do find a partner to transfer electric or magnetic force to, they become a real photon and the energy bill becomes payable. these photons have a separate quality that allows them to become either attractive or repulsive depending on the type of particle they interact with. the purpose is to transfer force rather than just shed energy.

wirebender has confused the properties of the two types of fields, radiative to shed energy and reactive to transfer force. he thinks radiation photons cancel out when they are travelling in opposite directions, rather than just passing through each other unchanged as wave theory states.

 

[IanC]

Current TSI is just a little below the highest that has occurred since the LIA.

When the burner is at 10 on a scale of 10 and you dial it back to 8, that's not really a "Solar Minimum" now, is it.

Very, very small adjustments to our little system produce huge changes into our biosphere.

It is only a 3 degree change in the orbit of the planet that creates ice Ages. I takes very small changes in our relation to the Sun to produce very noticeable changes to our climate.

all of the studies that come out are put in the best light by their authors. I dont fully trust any of them but at least the 'skeptical' studies are vetted by other scientists trying to prove them wrong, unlike the 'pal-review' that lets poor work to pass unchallenged.

in the IPCC zeroith draft there are references to Steig's Antarctica paper which should have been fixed in peer review. when the sceptical blogosphere pointed out that the paper was flawed, the Hockey Team laughingly suggested that it get written up and published. when they did (O'Donnell 10) it went through excruciatingly long and petty peer review but finally won out, even though the original publisher (Nature) refused it.

the IPCC is using the flawed paper with incorrect results even though the rebuttal is in print. there is zero chance that the lead authors for the IPCC are unaware that Steig09 is faulty yet they are using it and ignoring ODonnell10. very illustrative of the tactics of the Team. just ignore anything that you dont like. likewise with Mann 98&99. if there was a proper correction to those papers, and all the papers downhill that used the incorrect methods and data, then the case for 'warmest in a millenia' would simply evaporate.

 

[IanC]

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!!!

konradv- why do you keep saying the principle of conservation of energy is being broken? CO2 scatters certain bands of IR but all that does is change the equilibrium temperature at the surface, the input and output of the earth always coincide to each other to a close degree. if the output is slowed then the surface heats up a little and the extra radiation re-establishes the output necessary to balance the input. the amount actually absorbed by CO2 at any particular moment is trivial compared to the overall figures.

 

[RollingThunder]

So, CO2 levels only went up by 70% during the PETM but the average world temperatures went up 13° F and we've already raised CO2 levels by about 40% over per-industrial levels and we're still pumping about 30 billion tons more fossil carbon into the air every year. But you denier cult nutjobs tell us that there's no real problem and we certainly shouldn't upset the oil and coal industry gravy trains for the sake of the environment or the survival of future generations as well as the Earth's biosphere. You'd be funny if this situation wasn't so tragic.

Just to re-cap, then:

You assert that during the PETM CO2 rose by 70% and caused a 13 degree temperature increase.

You further assert that we are currently at a 40% increase in CO2 and yet we have witnessed a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C in 2000 years.

Is your ability to comprehend what you read really that low? Do you really think idiotic verbal tricks like that fool anybody but your fellow denier cult dingbats? No, dumbass, we have actually witnessed a temperature increase of about 1.4° F in a little over a century, not 0.7° F in 2000 years. Are you really that ignorant or are you a paid troll here to spread misinformation, lies and bullshit?

"Measurements show a global temperature increase of 1.4 °F (0.78 °C) between the years 1900 and 2005."

You imply that the PETM is the blueprint for the present and that we may expect a similar increase in temperatures.

When might we expect the other 6.3 degrees C of increase to occur?

If it is impolite of me to ask you to think, I apologize.

LOL. As if you ever"think" before spouting some idiotic nonsense like this.

You really must have a major comprehension problem, code4BS. You're responding to some quotes from an article that I posted so you must have seen this even if you couldn't understand it. Try again, numbnuts. I'll even highlight the part you missed.

"In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."

It took ten thousand years for that 13° F temperature increase to occur during the PETM and our anthropogenic CO2 surge only started in the 19th century and only really got going in the latter part of the 20th century but you think the temperature increase this time should have been happening even faster than it has been. LOL. Mankind's carbon emissions are driving these changes far faster than natural forces ever have but it is still not instantaneous. It took ten thousand years for a 13° F rise in temperature then but we've managed to achieve about a degree and a half rise in only 105 years but you imagine that since it wasn't even faster, it must not be real. LOL. You are such a confused loon.