Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cutting to the chase...you and every other statist need CO2 to be the only significant cause of global warming because the reasons your side have previously provided for giving more money and more control over our lives to the state have failed.
In order for your scam to work people must believe global warming is real and that it is caused by CO2.
Anything that calls these two claims into question threatens the entire program.
What you would really like is to get your giant all intrusive nanny state without having to provide compelling reasons why the rest of us should give up our money and freedom and you believe the "settled science" of CAGW is that reason and, since it`s settled science, one you don`t have to explain anything.
With the Climate Change boogieman doing all the dogmatic heavy lifting, statists can focus on plans for redistributing wealth and building high speed rail lines like they have in Europe.
The truth is CO2 is largely a climate change non-factor because radiative cooling is far more efficient at removing heat than a greenhouse effect is at retaining heat.
The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.
We have never had a runaway greenhouse effect even when CO2 levels were dozens of times higher than they are today.
Sea levels have been rising at 3 mm per years for thousands of years.
Glaciers that used to stand more than two miles high in the very place I am sitting are gone.
Glaciers the world over have been melting for thousands of years.
The Bering Land Bridge closed 15,500 years ago and has been covered with sea water (now 50 m deep) at the rate of 3.2 mm per year.
Do the math!
This has all been going on for thousands of years regardless of the CO2 level.
These things are not caused by CO2.
If you want to force a nanny state on us, you`ll have to come up with something better than CAGW.
Cutting to the chase:
What science has shown conclusively is that 'natural' causes like the orbital forcing of Milankovitch cycles (precession, eccentricity and axial tilt), solar activity (insolation from TSI, sunspots) and volcanic activity have NOT been the main causes of the recent rapid warming of the earth's systems.
What science HAS shown is that human caused greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and methane etc) are the dominant forcing for post-industrial warming- along with the accompanying positive feedback from water vapour, and negative cooling effects of slightly lower TSI, industrial aerosols and minor volcanic activity producing aerosols, and natural variability from ENSO etc.
So far I have not seen you ever discuss any of this at all in any sort of informed way, let alone cite any research which supports your views (there really isn't any anyway). The one source you provided in this post completely contradicts your views. Which is an odd thing to do.
Do you have expertise in all the different fields involved in climate science enough to say that the relevant science over the past 100 years is all wrong, tens of thousands of scientists are all wrong and tens of thousands of published research papers are all wrong, and that you apparently know far more about climate science than they do?
Would you care to explain what phase the earth currently is in the Milankovitch cycles and how that could possibly have caused the rapid warming over the past 150 years, especially the last 50 years? Hint... we're not in any sort of warming phase caused by orbital forcing - in fact just the opposite.
Would you care to explain how solar cycles have caused the recent warming? Hint, the sun has been rather quiet with a slight decreasing trend in total solar irradiance(TSI) since around the 1960's.
Would you care to explain how volcanic activity could have caused the recent warming, when aerosols from volcanic activity have a cooling effect and volcanic activity has produced less than 1% of the amount of aCO2 that human activities have in the past 100 years?
Would you care to explain why the stratosphere is cooling and the surface and troposphere are warming or why atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping? Hint - classic evidence of the greenhouse effect.
Would you care to explain even the basics of how the carbon cycle, the greenhouse effect and the earth's energy budget works?
Would you care to show and explain your atmospheric radiative heat transfer equations to show that CO2 does not cause warming? You can tell us all about the physics involved can't you - in your own words? I'm sure you know all about the Stefan–Boltzmann law, CO2 absorption wavelengths and how it's affected by lapse rates right? The paragraph you obviously copied and pasted shows that you don't have a clue about what it means - because your 'pre-conclusion' is complete bunkum. Why don't you read the rest of the encyclopedia article? Are you actually unaware it completely contradicts your claim that CO2 is a climate "change non-factor"? You might learn something. Especially read the last page.
Would you care to name any of the tens of thousands of published papers on anthropogenic climate change you have read recently that you disagree with and explain why, citing supportive evidence from published research?
If you want published papers supporting all this, go read all the published research cited by the IPCC reports. Or do a lit review from the last 20 years of all the major science Journals and find the 100000s of research papers on climate science. You know, the ones about all the "things that warmists never mention" that you claim don't even exist?
I love how global warming deniers rely solely on the opinions of idiots over factual information. Because we all know blogs and opinions are more factual than research and facts.
OK, like some facts?
15,500 years ago (some say 13,000) the Bering Land Bridge fell beneath the waters of the Bering Sea.
Today that water is 50 meters deep.
Alarmists claim that sea levels rising at 3.19 mm (their number) is new, definitely caused by CAGW and something we need to urgently address.
According to NASA, these rising temperatures are causing sea ice to shrink by a startling rate of 13.3 percent per decade, in addition to a whopping 258 billion metric tons of land ice lost per year. The melting ice has increased the rate of global average sea level rise to 3.19 mm per year, a figure that is already showing its devastating effects on island chains like Kirbati and The Maldives.
What science has shown conclusively is that 'natural' causes like the orbital forcing of Milankovitch cycles (precession, eccentricity and axial tilt), solar activity (insolation from TSI, sunspots) and volcanic activity have NOT been the main causes of the recent rapid warming of the earth's systems.
What science HAS shown is that human caused greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and methane etc) are the dominant forcing for post-industrial warming- along with the accompanying positive feedback from water vapour, and negative cooling effects of slightly lower TSI, industrial aerosols and minor volcanic activity producing aerosols, and natural variability from ENSO etc.
So far I have not seen you ever discuss any of this at all in any sort of informed way, let alone cite any research which supports your views (there really isn't any anyway). Yet you make assertions like it's 'all natural baby!' How would you know if it's 'all natural' or not?
Do you have expertise in all the different fields involved in climate science enough to say that the relevant science over the past 100 years is all wrong, tens of thousands of scientists are all wrong and tens of thousands of published research papers are all wrong, and that you apparently know far more about climate science than they do?
Would you care to explain what phase the earth currently is in the Milankovitch cycles and how that could possibly have caused the rapid warming over the past 150 years, especially the last 50 years? Hint... we're not in any sort of warming phase caused by orbital forcing - in fact just the opposite.
Would you care to explain how solar cycles have caused the recent warming? Hint, the sun has been rather quiet with a slight decreasing trend in total solar irradiance(TSI) since around the 1960's.
Would you care to explain how volcanic activity could have caused the recent warming, when aerosols from volcanic activity have a cooling effect and volcanic activity has produced less than 1% of the amount of aCO2 that human activities have in the past 100 years?
Would you care to explain why the stratosphere is cooling and the surface and troposphere are warming or why atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping? Hint - classic evidence of the greenhouse effect.
Would you care to explain even the basics of how the carbon cycle, the greenhouse effect and the earth's energy budget works?
Would you care to show and explain your atmospheric radiative heat transfer equations to show that CO2 does not cause warming? You can tell us all about the physics involved can't you? I'm sure you know all about the Stefan–Boltzmann law, CO2 absorption wavelengths and how it's affected by lapse rates right? Because you obviously copied and pasted something that you don't have a clue about and your conclusion is bunkum.
Would you care to name any of the tens of thousands of published papers on anthropogenic climate change you have read recently that you disagree with and explain why, citing supportive evidence from published research?
If you want published papers supporting all this, go read all the published research cited by the IPCC reports. Or do a lit review from the last 20 years of all the major science Journals and find the 100000s of research papers on climate science. You know, the ones about all the "things that warmists never mention" that you claim don't even exist?
What science has shown conclusively is that 'natural' causes like the orbital forcing of Milankovitch cycles (precession, eccentricity and axial tilt), solar activity (insolation from TSI, sunspots) and volcanic activity have NOT been the main causes of the recent rapid warming of the earth's systems.
"Recent rapid warming"?
In version 3 of the GHCN-Monthly temperature data, the apparent impacts of documented and undocumented inhomogeneities are detected and removed through automated pairwise comparisons of mean monthly temperature series as detailed in Menne and Williams [2009].
If by "undocumented inhomogeneities" you mean temperature readings from a century ago that have now been changed to show a colder past and thus a warner present, I`ll say the record on "undocumented inhomogeneities" is less trustworthy than a temperature record from a single rural weather station (no new airports, buildings, etc).
The thing is, I can`t find a single one that shows warming.
If CO2 is present everywhere there is air, and if this CO2 is driving CAGW, then I should be able to find lots of old weather stations that have remained in the same place for 80 plus years showing the same warming as the "corrected" data set.
Whether or not the "experts" agree with one another, if there is no reason to exclude a weather station, the real data from that station must agree with the adjusted data (GHCN v3).
This one here in Norton KS shows that 2014 was three degrees colder than 1893.
I understand that a lot of these weather stations are adjacent to small airports, fire stations, etc. and for that reason many of them show a rise in temperature corresponding to the arrival of air conditioning equipment, jet engines, large buildings, etc., but what I fail to understand is why CO2 isn`t driving temperatures up where the cows live.
Aside from what you have been told by the people who adjust the record, what makes you think the Earth is experiencing significant man-caused warming?
Here is something else we can discuss in an informed way...
15,500 years ago (some say 13,000) the Bering Land Bridge fell beneath the waters of the Bering Sea.
Today that water is 50 meters deep.
Alarmists claim that sea levels rising at 3.19 mm (their number) is new, definitely caused by CAGW and something we need to urgently address.
According to NASA, these rising temperatures are causing sea ice to shrink by a startling rate of 13.3 percent per decade, in addition to a whopping 258 billion metric tons of land ice lost per year. The melting ice has increased the rate of global average sea level rise to 3.19 mm per year, a figure that is already showing its devastating effects on island chains like Kirbati and The Maldives.
The problem is that when I divide 50 meters by 15,500 years, I get 3.2 mm per year.
Care to comment or will this question once again die of loneliness?
First of all, I don't know who is claiming that this rate of sea level rise is unprecedented in the history of the world, but I doubt that it's anyone on this board. What you've probably done is absorbed the idiotic comments of the deniers and assumed that they were an accurate representation of what the 'alarmists' believe. Of course, this happens nonstop on these boards so I really have to wonder if explaining this to you is even going to help.
Second of all, you're just choosing an arbitrary date and ignoring the fact that 15,500 years ago, the world was emerging from a glacial period, due to the Milankovitch cycles.
Glacial periods end abruptly, giving rise to rapid natural climate change. The rapid warming that ended the glacial period stabilized around 11,000 years ago, giving rise to human civilization. For no particular reason, you have 4500 years of rapid natural climate change included in your calculations, which means you're not giving a fair representation of the interglacial climate.
The interglacial climate is the one that has grown less stable over the past 150 years. If you need to include a period of extreme climate instability in your average to make the current sea level rise seem usual, it's only a testament to how unusual it is.
That's right, he's a journalist. He's not a scientist and not only does he have no formal education in science that I am aware of, he holds views that are contrary to settled science. He's essentially a more stable, European Alex Jones.
In short, he's someone who should be dismissed when talking about science.
In this case, he is quoting scientists who are in the process of conducting an inquiry on this misleading data, and the supporters of the AGW alarmism hypothesis are so insecure about the quality of the science underlying their agenda that they cannot stand the possibility of this sort of scrutiny and move straight into attack mode.
How dare these scientists express skepticism about anything to do with the AGW alarmism hypothesis. These people must be destroyed. Their work and their findings must be dismissed no matter what they are. This is such a typical attitude from alarmist reactionaries, it makes me want to throw up.
In no other field of science is NO dissenting work tolerated. In fact, that is not a scientificly motivated attitude at all.
15,500 years ago (some say 13,000) the Bering Land Bridge fell beneath the waters of the Bering Sea.
Today that water is 50 meters deep.
Alarmists claim that sea levels rising at 3.19 mm (their number) is new, definitely caused by CAGW and something we need to urgently address.
According to NASA, these rising temperatures are causing sea ice to shrink by a startling rate of 13.3 percent per decade, in addition to a whopping 258 billion metric tons of land ice lost per year. The melting ice has increased the rate of global average sea level rise to 3.19 mm per year, a figure that is already showing its devastating effects on island chains like Kirbati and The Maldives.
The problem is that when I divide 50 meters by 15,500 years, I get 3.2 mm per year.
Care to comment or will this question once again die of loneliness?
Are you serious? You do understand that 3.19 rounds up to 3.2, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
In this case, he is quoting scientists who are in the process of conducting an inquiry on this misleading data, and the supporters of the AGW alarmism hypothesis are so insecure about the quality of the science underlying their agenda that they cannot stand the possibility of this sort of scrutiny and move straight into attack mode.
How dare these scientists express skepticism about anything to do with the AGW alarmism hypothesis. These people must be destroyed. Their work and their findings must be dismissed no matter what they are. This is such a typical attitude from alarmist reactionaries, it makes me want to throw up.
In no other field of science is NO dissenting work tolerated. In fact, that is not a scientificly motivated attitude at all.
Do me a favor and show me the quotes from scientists in the actual article. I'll wait here patiently.
First of all, I don't know who is claiming that this rate of sea level rise is unprecedented in the history of the world, but I doubt that it's anyone on this board. What you've probably done is absorbed the idiotic comments of the deniers and assumed that they were an accurate representation of what the 'alarmists' believe. Of course, this happens nonstop on these boards so I really have to wonder if explaining this to you is even going to help.
Second of all, you're just choosing an arbitrary date and ignoring the fact that 15,500 years ago, the world was emerging from a glacial period, due to the Milankovitch cycles.
Glacial periods end abruptly, giving rise to rapid natural climate change. The rapid warming that ended the glacial period stabilized around 11,000 years ago, giving rise to human civilization. For no particular reason, you have 4500 years of rapid natural climate change included in your calculations, which means you're not giving a fair representation of the interglacial climate.
The interglacial climate is the one that has grown less stable over the past 150 years. If you need to include a period of extreme climate instability in your average to make the current sea level rise seem usual, it's only a testament to how unusual it is.
15,500 years ago is not arbitrary.
This is when the sediment record indicates the Pacific once again flowed into the Arctic Ocean.
Today, the depth of the Bering straits is 50 meters, so we know we went from zero to 50 meters in 15,500 years.
CO2 had nothing to do with that.
Even if we accept without reservation that the present linear rate of sea level increase is a new phenomenon (150 years), it still predates large scale use of fossil fuels and is unchanged in more than a century, so the whole CO2 connection is bull ****.
This is when the sediment record indicates the Pacific once again flowed into the Arctic Ocean.
Today, the depth of the Bering straits is 50 meters, so we know we went from zero to 50 meters in 15,500 years.
CO2 had nothing to do with that.
It didn't go from 0 to 50 meters in 15,500 years.
Most of it went from 0 to more or less 50 meters in about 5000 years.
Then it remained more or less in its present state for another 10,000 years.
The bulk of the sea level rise actually happened over about 3000 years, which is extremely fast.
My point is that it wasn't a consistent rate of sea level rise for all 15,500 years, and including deglaciation in your average is misleading.
Even if we accept without reservation that the present linear rate of sea level increase is a new phenomenon (150 years), it still predates large scale use of fossil fuels and is unchanged in more than a century, so the whole CO2 connection is bull ****.
Oh so you're one of those 'climate change can't have more than one cause' people.
I guess that matches can't start forest fires because we all know that forest fires start on their own. Ceist actually said this a few posts back-- I think it should become a running thing whenever someone brings out the whole 'it happens naturally therefore humans can't be the cause' fallacy.
Last edited by Spatula City; 04-27-2015 at 01:06 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
