James Hansen Wishes he Wasn’t So Right about Global Warming

[ding]

This is incorrect, therefore your theory flops. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

It's 100% correct. Temperature dropping is what caused the ocean to absorb more CO2.

Right Crick ?

 

[tahuyaman]

Of course we can because we already have. We've been doing it for 174 years.

What is that supposed to mean? The Earth's average temperature has been increasing and it has nothing to do with any cycle. It is due to human GHG emissions.

You're babbling.

Do you live in a home with an air conditioner and a fire place or heater? Is the temperature in your home the same as the temperature outside? When the sun goes down, are you still able to see where you're going, read a book, get a snack from the refrigerator? It seems to me as if you have very little difficulty avoiding what nature is trying to do to you.

We have no power over the weather. None what so ever.

The earth’s temp is cyclical. As far as world history is concerned, we are just coming out of the last ice age.

 

[Crick]

We have no power over the weather. None what so ever.

We have increased the atmosphere's CO2 level by over 50% which has increased global temperature by about 1.5C and acidified the oceans. Do you deny that?

The earth’s temp is cyclical.

It has been and for long periods it has not. But since the Industrial Revolution, warming fromthe greenhouse effect acting on human greenhouse gas emissions has done nothing but drive the Earth's temperature upwards.

As far as world history is concerned, we are just coming out of the last ice age.

Well, you're not the only one with a poor education in this stuff. We are in the Quaternary Ice Age and have been for 2.58 million years. That ice age has included 30 glacial-interglacial cycles, which many people think of as ice ages but are not. We are currently in the Holocene interglacial whose temperature peaked about 6,000 years ago at the Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO). Since that time, global temperature slowly fell till we reversed the trend about 1750 by starting to burn fossil fuels and trapping infrared radiation on the Earth, raising its temperature.

 

[mamooth]

CO2 is natural. It’s is requirement in our atmosphere to sustain life. CO2 does not harm our environment.

Remember when the leftists were crying about the Ozone hole?

See? Completely brainwashed by dumb propaganda, a truly hopeless case.

The ozone hole still is very real. The scientists -- whlo cult boi here identifies as "leftists", being that his cult orders him to politicize everything -- were 100% right. Their science, and the action following it, prevented a global catastrophe.

Denialists hate science, because science interferes with the aims of their death cult.

 

[mamooth]

How does that work when CO2 was lagging behind temperature by 800-1000 years as the planet was cooling?

CO2 both lags and leads.

If you can't read a graph, this is kind of hopeless.

 

[ding]

CO2 both lags and leads.

If you can't read a graph, this is kind of hopeless.

No, it doesn't. The ocean absorbs CO2 when it cools and releases CO2 when it warms. Other than volcanic releases that the only mechanism for CO2 to change prior to the industrial revolution.

You are a moron. Feel free to explain what made CO2 rise or fall prior to the industrial revolution without the ocean warming or cooling.

 

[ding]

Crick feel free to explain your magical mechanism driving CO2 atmospheric concentrations prior to the industrial revolution that doesn't involve the ocean warming or cooling, ya fraudulent hack.

 

[mamooth]

No, it doesn't. The ocean absorbs CO2 when it cools and releases CO2 when it warms.

Excellent. Our attempts at educating you on the basics are finally paying off.

You are a moron. Feel free to explain what made CO2 rise or fall prior to the industrial revolution without the ocean warming or cooling.

Why would I need to explain that, since I never claimed or implied otherwise? On short geological timescales, CO2 does correlate with ocean temperatures. It takes long geological timescales for CO2 to get locked into carbonate rocks.

You don't know what mainstream climate science says, so your criticisms of it are always absurd. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[ding]

Excellent. Our attempts at educating you on the basics are finally paying off.

Why would I need to explain that, since I never claimed or implied otherwise? On short geological timescales, CO2 does correlate with ocean temperatures. It takes long geological timescales for CO2 to get locked into carbonate rocks.

You don't know what mainstream climate science says, so your criticisms of it are always absurd. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Says the moron arguing CO2 has led temperature prior to the industrial revolution.

 

[mamooth]

Says the moron arguing CO2 has led temperature prior to the industrial revolution.

Not correct. I said it both leads and lags. Because it does. It's a forcing and a feedback.

You can't even parse basic English, so why are you still bothering the grownups?

 

[ding]

Not correct. I said it both leads and lags. Because it does. It's a forcing and a feedback.

You can't even parse basic English, so why are you still bothering the grownups?

Try to understand that the cooling of the ocean had to occur first for CO2 to decrease. If this decrease in CO2 then led to additional cooling the planet would have become an iceball because the GHG effect would have become logarithmically less. So what you are suggesting is impossible.

 

[ding]

You can't even parse basic English, so why are you still bothering the grownups?

Clearly my arrows are finding their mark.

 

[Crick]

Clearly my arrows are finding their mark.

There are two possibilities: you DO have difficulty parsing bog-standard English or that as you have done on numerous occasions, you are lying about what someone has just said to you because you do not want - or are simply unable - to deal with what has been said to you.

 

[ding]

There are two possibilities: you DO have difficulty parsing bog-standard English or that as you have done on numerous occasions, you are lying about what someone has just said to you because you do not want - or are simply unable - to deal with what has been said to you.

I'm not having any difficulty understanding the mechanism which causes CO2 to lag temperature by 800 to 1000 years prior to the industrial revolution.

The planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm.

 

[Crick]

I'm not having any difficulty understanding the mechanism which causes CO2 to lag temperature by 800 to 1000 years prior to the industrial revolution.

The planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm.

And what was the CO2 level before it started cooling?

 

[ding]

And what was the CO2 level before it started cooling?

Higher. Then colder waters absorbed some of the CO2 which took 800 to 1000 years.

 

[Crick]

Higher. Then colder waters absorbed some of the CO2 which took 800 to 1000 years.

So as the planet cooled, CO2 in the atmosphere decreased. What, exactly, do you find surprising about that?

 

[ding]

So as the planet cooled, CO2 in the atmosphere decreased. What, exactly, do you find surprising about that?

Nothing. The question you have to ask yourself is why did CO2 lag temperature by 800 to 1000 years if CO2 was driving climate change?

 

[Crick]

Nothing. The question you have to ask yourself is why did CO2 lag temperature by 800 to 1000 years if CO2 was driving climate change?

You know the answer. CO2 lags heating caused by other mechanisms; most notably heating from Milankovitch orbital forcing. CO2 leads warming when the greenhouse effect becomes dominant.

 

[ding]

You know the answer. CO2 lags heating caused by other mechanisms; most notably heating from Milankovitch orbital forcing. CO2 leads warming when the greenhouse effect becomes dominant.

So climate changed before CO2 changed. Brilliant. That's my point. CO2 did not drive climate change.