gw is a LIE!

[warriorautotech]

Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.

 

[warriorautotech]

Of course, just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with you just means that they are all a bunch of Commies, right, Comrade?

There you go again with the appeal to authority fallacy.

You global warming crazies are like little boys getting fucked up the ass by a priest just because some authority told you to bend over..

Grow up you stupid pathetic watermelon.

Since authority doesn't impress you how about logic?

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation, is scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

If the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

Chew on that for a while. You'll be in good company, since none of the other deniers have managed to satisfactorily answer the question!

Does anyone know what the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere were 150 or 500 or 2000 years ago?I am talking about the atmosphere, not the ice in antarctica. 97.2% of the co2 in the atmosphere is produced naturally each year, how can we assume that the level never fluctuates 2 or 3% in a hundred or a thousand years. The oceans produce more when they warm up.

 

[westwall]

Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

That's certainly the alarmists POV.
The real Co2 levels in history

 

[Trakar]

skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.

that we can agree upon.

Actual skeptics, such as myself (active, participating carded CSICOP member since 1978), Phil Platt, Michael Shermer, and the vast majority of the rest of the long-time skeptics and skeptical organizations understand and accept the theory of AGW and its portents. Most of the posters here who claim to be skeptics seem to possess little or no actual scientific understanding and by their statements reject the very issues you mentioned.

without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2Cwithout computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.

Please provide cite and reference to peer-reviewed, mainstream science journal (or academic, graduate-level or higher textbook) which supports the underlined portions of your above assertions.

 

[Trakar]

My wife is a PhD psychologist who will quite happily school you on any personality disorder you may have.

Fantasies about your therapist are non-productive, and it sounds like she's already got her hands full.

 

[Old Rocks]

What Beck states just happens to be at odds with what the Japanese, Russians, Americans, and everybody else that has done research into the past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

 

[Trakar]

And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated. Ask olfraud for that link again. It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.

Presuming that you are not misstating the case (I know what are the odds?), I would very much like to examine that paper.

 

[Old Rocks]

High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000[thinsp]years before present : Article : Nature

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 650,000 years1, 2, 3, 4. Here we present results of the lowest 200 m of the Dome C ice core, extending the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by two complete glacial cycles to 800,000 yr before present. From previously published data1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the present work, we find that atmospheric carbon dioxide is strongly correlated with Antarctic temperature throughout eight glacial cycles but with significantly lower concentrations between 650,000 and 750,000 yr before present. Carbon dioxide levels are below 180 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) for a period of 3,000 yr during Marine Isotope Stage 16, possibly reflecting more pronounced oceanic carbon storage. We report the lowest carbon dioxide concentration measured in an ice core, which extends the pre-industrial range of carbon dioxide concentrations during the late Quaternary by about 10 p.p.m.v. to 172–300 p.p.m.v.

 

[Trakar]

Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

Ahhh! I am actually quite familiar with that paper and already possess a copy of it. I see that it wasn't an issue of what the paper itself stated, but rather what may be improperly deduced from it, if you distort other climate physics understandings.

For any who may be interested here is a link to the actual paper upon which that article is based:

Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years - http://atripati.bol.ucla.edu/23.pdf

I've got a pretty good idea of what was distorted and presumed here, but will allow those with assertions to make regarding this paper and its findings to state their beliefs before I address the paper, its findings, and those beliefs in more detail.

Thank-you for identifying the paper for me.

 

[Trakar]

...Remember the CO2 levels were HIGHER than now, so the level we are at now is irrelevent.

Please provide reference and cite for this assertion.

 

[Trakar]

Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.

There is nothing wrong with this position, especially if you are just starting to seriously investigate and explore the subject. It is a sign of healthy scientific skepticism. I began explore the subject several decades ago, and remained fairly neutral on the "A" part of GW until the early part of the decade when the preponderance of evidence overcame my reticence and crossed my personal considerations of "compelling."

The question becomes, where do you turn to find the information you need to make up your mind, and what evidence would it take to help you decide one way or the other?

 

[Trakar]

Does anyone know what the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere were 150 or 500 or 2000 years ago?I am talking about the atmosphere, not the ice in antarctica. 97.2% of the co2 in the atmosphere is produced naturally each year, how can we assume that the level never fluctuates 2 or 3% in a hundred or a thousand years. The oceans produce more when they warm up.

I would suggest you start with the American Institute of Physics' online hypertext linked book "The Discovery of Global Warming," - The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

[IanC]

Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.

There is nothing wrong with this position, especially if you are just starting to seriously investigate and explore the subject. It is a sign of healthy scientific skepticism. I began explore the subject several decades ago, and remained fairly neutral on the "A" part of GW until the early part of the decade when the preponderance of evidence overcame my reticence and crossed my personal considerations of "compelling."

The question becomes, where do you turn to find the information you need to make up your mind, and what evidence would it take to help you decide one way or the other?

I can totally understand how someone could have been very concerned in 2000 about AGW. if that is when you made up your mind about where the preponderance of evidence lay then I can see how you stopped inputting new data except if it supported your view.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm...... So the melting of the Arctic sea ice, the accelerated melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are supposed to convince us that nothing has happened since 2000? Come on, Ian, are you totally blind?

How about the Alpine Glaciers? And then there is the little matter of global temperatures. The running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous peak except that of 1998. And the running mean of the peak of 2010 matched that of 1998.

All the data since 2000 shows an acceleration of the warming, and affects that we were not expecting until mid-century or later. Such as the beginning of the clathrate outgassing in the Arctic Ocean. Now you may choose to remain willfully ignorant of the data, but most intellectually honest people do not.

 

[IanC]

Hmmm...... So the melting of the Arctic sea ice, the accelerated melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are supposed to convince us that nothing has happened since 2000? Come on, Ian, are you totally blind?

How about the Alpine Glaciers? And then there is the little matter of global temperatures. The running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous peak except that of 1998. And the running mean of the peak of 2010 matched that of 1998.

All the data since 2000 shows an acceleration of the warming, and affects that we were not expecting until mid-century or later. Such as the beginning of the clathrate outgassing in the Arctic Ocean. Now you may choose to remain willfully ignorant of the data, but most intellectually honest people do not.

sorry to disappoint you Old Rocks but I believe Mother Nature works on her own schedule. did it warm up last century- yes. but not since1998. has it warmed up and put glaciers in retreat before? obviously yes, just look at the Ice Man. you can look forward to Doomsday if you wish.

 

[westwall]

And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated. Ask olfraud for that link again. It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.

Presuming that you are not misstating the case (I know what are the odds?), I would very much like to examine that paper.

So would I, get your buddy olfraud to re-post it.

 

[westwall]

skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.

that we can agree upon.

Actual skeptics, such as myself (active, participating carded CSICOP member since 1978), Phil Platt, Michael Shermer, and the vast majority of the rest of the long-time skeptics and skeptical organizations understand and accept the theory of AGW and its portents. Most of the posters here who claim to be skeptics seem to possess little or no actual scientific understanding and by their statements reject the very issues you mentioned.

without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2Cwithout computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.

Please provide cite and reference to peer-reviewed, mainstream science journal (or academic, graduate-level or higher textbook) which supports the underlined portions of your above assertions.

Ok, let's take this in order. What particular field of Science is your degree in?

 

[polarbear]

skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.

that we can agree upon.

Actual skeptics, such as myself (active, participating carded CSICOP member since 1978), Phil Platt, Michael Shermer, and the vast majority of the rest of the long-time skeptics and skeptical organizations understand and accept the theory of AGW and its portents. Most of the posters here who claim to be skeptics seem to possess little or no actual scientific understanding and by their statements reject the very issues you mentioned.

without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2Cwithout computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.

Please provide cite and reference to peer-reviewed, mainstream science journal (or academic, graduate-level or higher textbook) which supports the underlined portions of your above assertions.

Ok, let's take this in order. What particular field of Science is your degree in?

Well IanC, You have to be careful with GW, especially when it comes to those who profess it. As conventional science is forced to address this subject one building block after another of this sensational "science" topples.
Just a few weeks ago I was railroaded here, and in a "Mythbusters" forum by dozens of people over bio-fuel, especially the nonsense fermenting corn and making Ethanol...
Now look at the 180 degree turn climate "science" had to make...after real math & science has examined this hair-brained technology:
E10-Treibstoff: Die Mär vom Prima-Klima-Sprit - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft

Die Mär vom Prima-Klima-Sprit

=The fairy tale of better climate gasoline

Die Autofahrer wollen den umstrittenen Biosprit E10 nicht tanken, es ist ein Fiasko für Politik und Mineralölkonzerne - aber ein Segen für die Umwelt, glauben Forscher und Naturschützer. Sie geißeln die Biosprit-Operation seit Jahren als Unfug.

=German drivers refuse to buy E10 (=10% Ethanol)...it is a fiasco for Politics and the Oil Industry (which was forced to make it) ,....but it is a blessing for environment "science".
For Years now they have exposed the bio fuels as total nonsense..
and so on and on...
I wish to add, they have only done so after some real Chemistry, Physics @ Math had done so years before they "came to this conclusion"....and looked pretty stupid with all the claims they made before...now we are supposed to forget who pushed this hairbrained scheme onto the public to begin with...
I can tell You with 100% certainty that what ever else their "science" is based on is no different!

And the same happened with the Solar and Wind-power...again every engineer has told them, it will not work as a large scale power grid...
what You currently have in the U.S. are just hobby wind/solar farms when compared to Europe...small scale now and then for a few small towns it`s usable
but not as a full fledged power grid:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzDDEg3NKM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzDDEg3NKM[/ame]

And if You re-examine how the thermo dynamics of CO2 and the Spectroscopic absorption really works, + how glaciers REALLY calve... and did study Physics&Chemistry then You realize that the dimension of stupidity on which all this crap is based is beyond description

I never wanted to say this out loud!...:
Because superficially thinking People, especially those who are not Students of these subjects, perceive this as an insult, where none was intended

But unless You study German as a second Language You will know only second hand science as far as Physics and Chemistry is concerned!
For Example, tell me how to translate "Schlieren-effekt" before You tell me any different!
"Doppler Effect",,as in Doppler RADAR....same thing, all source documentation about that is in German!
I could easily make a list here > 5000 items long! Just sticking with advanced Physics , without even going into Chemistry
The translation is never as good as the original, especially when translating into English, a language with too many ambiguities
Most People I have met in my professional life here who have a degree in Physics or Chemistry did also study German to really go into these subjects to their full depth!


Especially when it almost got the better of You, when we did not translate it into languages other than German:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noayWZWEmys&feature=channel_video_title"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noayWZWEmys&feature=channel_video_title[/ame]
I suggest You do the same if You want to know about "Global Warming" and what is REAL SCIENCE

 

[Trakar]

Ok, let's take this in order. What particular field of Science is your degree in?

On the internet, claims of education and expertise are far too easy to make and far too difficult to proof without the exposure of a lot of personal information, more importantly, such is largely if not entirely irrelevent to the support I requested. I assure you that I can handle any references you can provide, but I promise that I will ask you for help if I run into any big words that I am unfamiliar with.

 

[Trakar]

sorry to disappoint you Old Rocks but I believe Mother Nature works on her own schedule. did it warm up last century- yes. but not since1998. has it warmed up and put glaciers in retreat before? obviously yes, just look at the Ice Man. you can look forward to Doomsday if you wish.

You do realize, don't you, that both 2005 and 2010 presented global average temp anomalies larger than 1998?

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record