What the science says

[skookerasbil]

Trumping any science ( no pun intended )............

Record cold coming to ‘almost entire USA’ – Low temperature records set to be SHATTERED

If have an understanding about human behavior, you'll get it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2.... I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out. Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....

CO2 has become such a hot topic that everyone seems willing to give it power it does not possess. CO2 affects the climate only in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere.

I would agree.

Don't ask SSDD about his magic photons.

Some day, if you are very lucky, and apply yourself, you may come to realize that magic is not required to make objects obey the laws of physics.,,,they are laws not because they make anything at all happen...they simply describe things that all of our observations show us...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....no law makes that happen...the law is written as reference to remind us that that is simply what happens.....every damned time we make an observation.

magic is not required to make objects obey the laws of physics

Cool story, bro.

neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....no law makes that happen...

Why can we see the Sun?

 

[IanC]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening

The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....

First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production

Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?

The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now.

Of course past responses of CO2 are valid. Are you kidding me? The best way to understand future climate changes is to study past climate changes. You are effectively saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Ian.

 

[IanC]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now.

Of course past responses of CO2 are valid. Are you kidding me? The best way to understand future climate changes is to study past climate changes. You are effectively saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Ian.

I didn't say past responses of CO2 were not valid. I said the present levels of CO2 increase are mostly man made and therefore do not reflect a naturally driven homeostasis.

Burning sequestered carbon to produce CO2 is a decidedly unnatural factor. Millions of years of stored carbon has been released in a single century.

The medieval warm period was roughly equal in warmth to today. Where are the proxy records showing a 100 ppm increase in CO2? And that is for only a thousand years ago, where we should have a good grasp of the situation. The further back in time that we go, the less accuracy and sensitivity there is.

I believe increased CO2 has a warming influence but I do not believe it is the only factor. The water cycle has kept the Earth in a very tight temperature range for billions of years despite even larger disruptions to the system. It will continue to do so.

 

[ding]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now.

Of course past responses of CO2 are valid. Are you kidding me? The best way to understand future climate changes is to study past climate changes. You are effectively saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Ian.

I didn't say past responses of CO2 were not valid. I said the present levels of CO2 increase are mostly man made and therefore do not reflect a naturally driven homeostasis.

Burning sequestered carbon to produce CO2 is a decidedly unnatural factor. Millions of years of stored carbon has been released in a single century.

The medieval warm period was roughly equal in warmth to today. Where are the proxy records showing a 100 ppm increase in CO2? And that is for only a thousand years ago, where we should have a good grasp of the situation. The further back in time that we go, the less accuracy and sensitivity there is.

I believe increased CO2 has a warming influence but I do not believe it is the only factor. The water cycle has kept the Earth in a very tight temperature range for billions of years despite even larger disruptions to the system. It will continue to do so.

You wrote that, "therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now." I disagree. Of course they are valid as they show that CO2 does not drive the climate. It is way more complex than that.

 

[IanC]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening

The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....

First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production

Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?

The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening

The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....

First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production

Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?

The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

You still can't explain why we can see the Sun.

 

[IanC]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now.

Of course past responses of CO2 are valid. Are you kidding me? The best way to understand future climate changes is to study past climate changes. You are effectively saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Ian.

I didn't say past responses of CO2 were not valid. I said the present levels of CO2 increase are mostly man made and therefore do not reflect a naturally driven homeostasis.

Burning sequestered carbon to produce CO2 is a decidedly unnatural factor. Millions of years of stored carbon has been released in a single century.

The medieval warm period was roughly equal in warmth to today. Where are the proxy records showing a 100 ppm increase in CO2? And that is for only a thousand years ago, where we should have a good grasp of the situation. The further back in time that we go, the less accuracy and sensitivity there is.

I believe increased CO2 has a warming influence but I do not believe it is the only factor. The water cycle has kept the Earth in a very tight temperature range for billions of years despite even larger disruptions to the system. It will continue to do so.

You wrote that, "therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now." I disagree. Of course they are valid as they show that CO2 does not drive the climate. It is way more complex than that.

In the past the CO2 level is driven by equilibrium processes, or major disruptive events of unknown etiology, with very little time frame sensitivity available. I think a 120 ppm increase driven by natural factors is a much different situation than a bolus of 120 ppm CO2 injected into the atmosphere by man. In the first case all the other parts of the system are also infused by CO2.

eg...Radiant floor heating passively disperses heat and is slow to change. Forced air heating quickly changes the air temperature but the objects in the room change more slowly.

 

[ding]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening

The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....

First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production

Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?

The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises. Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions. Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?

 

[IanC]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening

The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....

First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production

Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?

The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises. Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions. Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?

I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.

I don't typically make predictions but given the increasing population I fully expect the CO2 concentration to continue rising in much the same fashion as the last few decades. With a warming influence. Temperatures may go up or down depending on the totality of factors but the influence will still be there.

 

[SSDD]

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Observation says that radiative physics....if indeed that is what radiative physics says (rather than just a very flawed interpretation of radiative physics).....is wrong...and observation wins over unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models every damned time

I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

You have "seen" no compelling evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer either and yet, you believe none the less.

 

[SSDD]

[


In the past the CO2 level is driven by equilibrium processes, or major disruptive events of unknown etiology, with very little time frame sensitivity available. I think a 120 ppm increase driven by natural factors is a much different situation than a bolus of 120 ppm CO2 injected into the atmosphere by man. In the first case all the other parts of the system are also infused by CO2.

So man made CO2 (as if there were such a thing) is more magic than natural CO2? Get a grip ian.

 

[SSDD]

I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.

You are a luke warmer...meaning that you believe in the magic of CO2...you just don't believe the magic is as all powerful as the off the deep end wackos believe it to be.

 

[IanC]

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Observation says that radiative physics....if indeed that is what radiative physics says (rather than just a very flawed interpretation of radiative physics).....is wrong...and observation wins over unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models every damned time

I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

You have "seen" no compelling evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer either and yet, you believe none the less.

No compelling evidence for the Greenhouse Effect? Or no compelling evidence for the last 120 ppm of CO2 making a demonstrable effect?

Much of the surface radiation leaves through the atmospheric window, 8-14 microns. without CO2 that window would be 8-16 microns. All the energy intercepted by CO2 would instead just escape to space at the speed of light.

Does increasing CO2 more effectively block the 15 micron band? I guess that is debatable. Saturated is saturated. But the initial blocking of 15 micron surface radiation is undeniable. Part of the GHE

 

[IanC]

[


In the past the CO2 level is driven by equilibrium processes, or major disruptive events of unknown etiology, with very little time frame sensitivity available. I think a 120 ppm increase driven by natural factors is a much different situation than a bolus of 120 ppm CO2 injected into the atmosphere by man. In the first case all the other parts of the system are also infused by CO2.

So man made CO2 (as if there were such a thing) is more magic than natural CO2? Get a grip ian.

No magic. Increased CO2 from natural equilibriums is obviously different than just adding man made CO2 directly into the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening

The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....

First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production

Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?

The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises. Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions. Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?

I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.

I don't typically make predictions but given the increasing population I fully expect the CO2 concentration to continue rising in much the same fashion as the last few decades. With a warming influence. Temperatures may go up or down depending on the totality of factors but the influence will still be there.

I did not know that you are a skeptic I accept the radiative forcing of CO2 too. I just don't agree that CO2 drives the climate. I most certainly do not agree with any of the "A" forecasts of the IPCC as they are devoid of reality when it comes to predictions of CO2 emissions. I also do not believe their models accurately model so-called "feedback" as I believe they have stacked their deck in their "feedback" favor.

 

[SSDD]

No compelling evidence for the Greenhouse Effect? Or no compelling evidence for the last 120 ppm of CO2 making a demonstrable effect?

Can you show me an actual quantification of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science? Of course not....and no, there is no compelling evidence that the past 120ppm of CO2 have had any effect...the 20+ year pause while CO2 has steadily increased sort of puts that nonsense to bed.

 

[SSDD]

No magic. Increased CO2 from natural equilibriums is obviously different than just adding man made CO2 directly into the atmosphere.

No it isn't....CO2 is CO2 and it doesn't matter where it comes from....it has no power to alter the climate anyway so why get so pissy?