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.
No one says that the natural cycle should be stopped for humans. The current warming is NOT part of the natural cycle. It's due to the CO2 and other greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere. CO2 is currently at 380ppm which is 1/3 higher than the peaks on your graph. At the current level we seem to be past the tipping point where the atmosphere will just get hotter and hotter.
Why exactly is it not part of the natural cycle?
I see temperature and CO2 levels shoot up time after time, prior to industrialized man.
Ok, so the CO2 level is at 380ppm. Are you stating that directly translates into higher temperatures and there is no way the ecosystem can absorb that?
Let's take a look at the second spike at 350,000 ago. Why didn't the earth get to the point where the atmosphere essentially heated up to a point where it boiled away?
Since the heat should have cause the oceans, permafrost, etc to release more and more CO2 causing the temperature to continue to rise causing more CO2 and heat, why did this cycle stop and then go into an ice age?
The argument you put forth that CO2 will continue to drive warming doesn't pass the smell test, because we can see where the cycle has been broken over and over again throughout history.
Tell me, what stopped the cycle each time before? At the 350,000 year mark above, when the CO2 levels were higher than the temperature peak and then it all fell, why did that happen?
If you look at the chart you can see where the CO2 levels practically doubled and then dropped right back down. What's to say that if it now triples, the same process won't reduce it yet again?
So, let's start with this, what, specifically, caused the reduction in CO2 and temperatures following the 350,000 spike?
I know! Dinos caused it. Big-ass-big-gas. Problem solved, dinos cause previous high levels of CO2 which they emitted in addition to copious amounts of methane. Then along came the big rock that wiped them out and CO2 levels flat lined again.
This time though, it is Al Gore's big mouth and bigger ass that cause the CO2 levels to rise so fast. That and his jets because as we all know, time is money and money is where the seminars are.
First, I find it interesting that you have to have a study explain everything to you.
Second, politically based? You might want to look up the definition of political, because apparently you don't know what it means.
I will not waste my time being disrespectful as a perceived why to gain an advantage.
Quote:
Now, let's go through my post point by point.
Please by all means.
Quote:
Ok, so what is political about this point?
Yes, the right has used Segalstad as a basis for their argument against global warming, and he is of a very small minority, and his findings have been discredited.
Dr Tom Segalstad, who is a Norwegian geologist, not a climatologist, and who has not published his theory in any peer reviewed journal.
Quote:
Ok, so what is political about this point?
Here are three different links to three different scientific studies from three different scientific organizations all saying that the sun's output has increased over the last five to ten decades.
Can you show me where those studies are wrong?
It can be shown that Segalstads assumptions are wrong as to how these effects occur, and his theory of Henry's Law is incorrect.
Yes, because it is based solely on a disproven theory.
Quote:
This is NOAA data showing both CO2 levels and temperature variations over the last 400,000. Can you explain to me how there is not variation in either CO2 levels or temperature? Can you show me that there isn't a direct correlation between the two? Can you show me there is no change in which leads in rises and declines?
No, because I've never claimed there weren't variations. What I've said is that levels are much higher than anytime in past history. it is this extreme rise that is attributed to man's impact. Your wording of the question is a biased point to avoid this extreme increase.
Quote:
Can you show me that there hasn't been great variance over the last 400,000 years in CO2 and temperature levels? According to NOAA data, it sure illustrates that to me.
This is the same question as above, so you are becoming redundant, but here's the answer to the extreme rise above the past cyclical levels.
It's a conclusion based off of the data that just because man is probably best suited with a stable unchanging climate, history shows that isn't part of our planet's climate.
This post contains links and data that you, so far, have not showed was flawed.
please see above post discrediting the extremist claims of Segalstad.
Quote:
What it shows is that the ocean, which contains a bunch of CO2, will begin releasing it as it warms. It shows that the sun has been more active over the last five to ten decades. It shows that CO2 levels have both proceeded and lagged warming in large variances prior to man industrial rise.
It's a very sound and reasonable post that is accurate and even contains the reputable data and logical conclusions.
However, instead of addressing it, you essentially run from it by claiming it's a political post with no real value.
Talk about denying.
You claim it was ran from, but you posted a link to NASA claiming it showed an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to an increase in the suns radiation that was not true. Your claims have been disproven by a majority of scientist who's degrees are in their respective fields, and that Segalatad who is not a specialist is wrong making all your claims politically biased incorrect conclusions.
What is really ironic is the claims by the anti climate change advocates now want everyone to believe only their scientist is right, and the rest are a conspiracy.
To raise revenues? Why? Why would the government seek to take on high-cost programs when it isn't necessary?
Same reason the government always takes on high-cost programs when it isn't necessary - to provide benefits some favored group or to increase the power of the government.
Also, the Federal government could care less if something is a "high-cost program" since they print money out of thin air.
Let's slow this down quite a bit so we can't get past the non-political "yeah, the right wing has always..."
First, do you disagree that the solar activity has increased in the last 5 to 10 decades?
If you feel it hasn't, please back it up.
Pedro,
There is no sense going trough your argument that is based on Segalstads findings. Whether there is a NASA study (funny you claim I need a study for everything) about a cyclical increase in radiation levels has no real basis for your fail argument. Please attempt to bait others somewhere else. If you have factual data you would like to present then please present it. As of now you Segalstad argument has failed.
No one says that the natural cycle should be stopped for humans. The current warming is NOT part of the natural cycle. It's due to the CO2 and other greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere.
So now we're going to fall back on the touchy-fluffy argument that humans are "equal" to all other species, I suppose??
Or maybe that we should return to those better days when more human beings shivered and froze in the dark and more children than not died before the age of ten??
But that's not quite so; we'll give a "free pass" to our supposed friends in the undeveloped world. Ii's only those individuals and societies that have progressed through their own self-interest that we seek to hold back. (We nneed to confiscate the rewards of their efforts for our purposes).
Another example proving that the central tenet of the "progressive"/Politically Correct agenda is that a rational individual acting in his/her own self-interest should not be allowed to do so -- that the purposes of some common good, or some imaginary victim have to be protected by an elite wielding power "in the interest of all".
And guess who has decided that only people with whom they agree should make that decision.
I repeat: "Seig Hiel, unser Fuehrer!"
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-13-2014 at 04:28 PM..
Pedro,
There is no sense going trough your argument that is based on Segalstads findings. Whether there is a NASA study (funny you claim I need a study for everything) about a cyclical increase in radiation levels has no real basis for your fail argument. Please attempt to bait others somewhere else. If you have factual data you would like to present then please present it. As of now you Segalstad argument has failed.
ROFLMAO. You won't debate this because you are getting your tail handed to you.
"Yes, I won't talk about NASA or the Finland studies showing increased solar activity, because the green party candidate clearly states that the geologist is wrong with his conclusions in that blog I posted."
Solar activity has increased over the last number of decades. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la, la, la, la, I can't hear you" isn't going to change that.
Coincidentally (or not).. The current 'pause' in global warming coincides with the weakening of the solar cycle.
The highs in solar activity over the past 50 years have, in general, been higher than anytime in recorded history.. However.. What must also be taken into account with this is that.. Much like hurricane data.. We have far better eyes now than they did in 1750. We have satellites that stare at the sun watching for sunspots.. So, obviously, we're going to see more of them now than the one guy who watched for them in 1800.
Coincidentally (or not).. The current 'pause' in global warming coincides with the weakening of the solar cycle.
The highs in solar activity over the past 50 years have, in general, been higher than anytime in recorded history.. However.. What must also be taken into account with this is that.. Much like hurricane data.. We have far better eyes now than they did in 1750. We have satellites that stare at the sun watching for sunspots.. So, obviously, we're going to see more of them now than the one guy who watched for them in 1800.
First, can you tell me, in the chart you posted, which century had greater activity than from 1900 to 2000?
Now, let's jump to your assertion that it's not really valid data because we have better techniques for collected data now.
So, do we collect data on temperature and CO2 levels now than how we collected them say 50,000 years ago? We are getting that 50,000 year old data via things like ice core samples, tree rings, etc. Is that how we are collecting them for today's records? No.
So, since you reject the sunspot data showing the last 100 years was greater than the centuries proceeding it, do you also reject other data collected other ways?
It's nice and convenient to choose the data you get to use, isn't it?
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.
