Ode to the Climate Science-Denier

[Good Luck]

Carbon forcing has not been demonstrated to be a significant factor in atmospheric heat retention at levels below 2% (20,000 ppm, or 80 times current levels). The entire concept of CO2 being a factor in warming does not pass planetary modeling tests. The example given of Venus ignores the fact that Venus atmosphere is over 95% CO2. That's almost 2500 TIMES the concentration found in Earth's atmosphere. And try not to forget, as most AGW alarmists do when using Venus as an example of what CO2 can do to runaway green house effect, that Venus receives almost 30% greater solar flux than the Earth does.

Additionally, in ALL studies done on the correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures derived from ice core samples, CO2 concentrations rise AFTER a temperature spike, not before. But AGW alarmists not only treat the described correlation as a cause-effect relationship (which is a gross misuse of statistical analysis), but a relationship the reverse of what the data shows. They claim CO2 causes warming when the data shows warming causes a release of CO2, increasing the atmospheric concentrations. They have no actual data, just conjecture, that the released CO2 in turn causes additional warming.

One other point: the correlation between CO2 and mean global temps follows a pattern for the 600,000 years of ice core samples, but when temperature and atmospheric data is extrapolated from earlier periods, the correlation falls apart completely. From the mid Jurassic period until present day, CO2 concentrations have been in a general decline from 2700 ppmv to today's 387 ppmv. Yet from end of the Jurassic Period through the first third of the Cretaceous Period the Earth warmed from a mean temperature of 15° to a mean of 22°, stayed that way through the first third of the Tertiary Period, then declined to today's 13° mean temperature. Further, at the end of the Ordovician Period the Earth's mean temperature drops dramatically from 23° to 12° while CO2 rises from 4000 ppmv to 4500 ppmv, then temperatures rise again to 20° while CO2 drops from 4500 ppmv to 3000 ppmv. In short, the correlation between CO2 and temperature DOES NOT EXIST except in the brief period of recent geologic history.

Between the facts that the recent correlation found in ice core data falls apart in earlier times, and the fact that correlation does NOT indicate cause/effect, and the fact that all studies of recent patterns indicate CO2 increases following rather than leading temperature increases all blend into the conclusion that AGW claims that human sources of CO2 added to the atmosphere are contributing to climate change is so much unsupported hogwash.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, it would not be safe to live in day in and day out. You apparently do not understand what the standards are for.

http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

Oh, I understand OSHA regulation standards completely, and most non-retarded people understand that OSHA would not allow people to work 8 hrs or 1 hr in an environment of CO2 that was dangerous to their health. You were the one who pointed out individual tolerance levels depending on the person, so you must understand that OSHA has to consider any and all possible health risks to any and all individuals. If it were dangerous to breathe concentrations of CO2 higher than 1500ppm, the regulation would require much less exposure, if any at all. The fact of the matter is, your own sources tell us CO2 is not harmful to humans until it reaches a point of around 30k ppm... which is much higher than the 320ppm we currently have in our atmosphere. The point once again, which seems to be skipping comfortably over your pinhead, is that CO2 is not harmful to humans in the levels that we will ever realize in our atmosphere.

I am glad you are saying these OSHA levels are not good for our environment. The OSHA shit was your point, not mine. It was you that argued that CO2 levels are not likely to reach levels where they are DIRECTLY harmful to human health.

And I stand by that. If some pinhead scientist told us that the Earth was going to explode if we didn't get CO2 levels up to 1500 ppm in the next 100 years, we would not be able to do it. We are never going to reach a point of saturation of CO2 that would be harmful in the least to humans. EVER!

So now you are arguing that CO2 does not contribute to warming? Were you not just telling us about the wonders we could obtain from warming the planet with CO2?

No, I was explaining the benefits of more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to nourish plant life. You are supposed to be finding proof that carbon dioxide contributes to the natural warming cycles we are now having. I understand that CO2 has a thermal effect, but I reject that man-made CO2 is contributing enough to make much of a difference in the overall temps.

No, they adapted. There were larger mammals that existed before that period, which died out or evolved into the smaller mammals.

LMAO... you are now flailing all over the board! Make up your mind! So... the planet had 'normal' CO2 levels for millions of years and larger mammals flourished, then CO2 rose to higher levels and they died out, to be replaced by smaller mammals who could handle the high CO2, then the CO2 dropped again, and the larger mammals came back again? OMGROFLMFAOooooo! You are TOOO fucking funny, Stringbean! ....cue the laugh track again!!

There was more CO2 during eocene era than now. There was less during the preceding early paleocene era than in the eocene.

Wow... so CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly through the years, even though there were no humans on the planet to contribute to the CO2 levels? And by some freaking miracle, life managed to survive the mystical fluctuations of CO2 and evolve right along without a hitch, in spite of not having Al Gore implementing a carbon offset tax? Amazing! Thanks for making my point more brilliantly than I ever could have alone!

AGAIN, no one is saying that all life will cease to exist. That's nothing but a strawman. Though it is remotely possible, I don't even see much reason to believe we will cease to exist. But it could definitely decrease our quality of life.

No... What will decrease our quality of life, is having Al Gore in my living room, telling me where to set my thermostat and stealing a portion of my paycheck each week to fund some goofball study on melting glaciers.

Again, abrupt climate change happens when a threshold is crossed on one of various triggers. It is due to feedback loops that forces the climate into a new state. We don't have to raise CO2 abruptly in order to experience an abrupt climate change. We just have to push them over the threshold that will force the environment into a new state.

By your own admission in the previous quote, the CO2 levels have been low and high, and it is obvious the climate has not been pushed into any new state, and life has survived and thrived. It is also obvious that plant life LOVES carbon dioxide, and every mammal that has ever lived and breathed, has produced carbon dioxide, for all of history. We've not reached any 'point of no return' and the climate hasn't gone haywire, and it won't.

You are wrong. Water vapor is a feedback effect and not a forcing like CO2. To much water vapor in the atmosphere and it rains. Not enough and the ocean surface will provide some. But once the temperature raises from other effects (co2) the water vapor levels will rise and stay high.

Water vapor is an greenhouse gas. But it cannot remain abnormally high on its own.

Water vapor makes up 94% of the greenhouse gases, always has, always will. It doesn't matter if we eliminated ALL the CO2, there would still be the same amount of water retained in the atmosphere. The evaporation process has nothing to do with how much CO2 is present. If you have something to prove that, please present it and stop insisting I am wrong.

Yes, we can possibly adapt to a changing environment. If the environment changes quickly our chances are greatly diminished. If we do adapt it will come with sever suffering among those who do not possess the traits suitable for the new environment.

No, we can definitely adapt to a changing environment and climate, we've done it before. The ever-so-slight increases in CO2 levels, are not causing any dramatic change in climate, and never has, as far as we can tell. Most dramatic climactic events are the result of volcanoes and asteroids... Does Al Gore have a plan to deal with those? If so, maybe I will listen? ...On second thought... no, I won't! Al Gore, like you, is an absolute moron.

 

[Timshel]

Oh, I understand OSHA regulation standards completely, and most non-retarded people understand that OSHA would not allow people to work 8 hrs or 1 hr in an environment of CO2 that was dangerous to their health. You were the one who pointed out individual tolerance levels depending on the person, so you must understand that OSHA has to consider any and all possible health risks to any and all individuals. If it were dangerous to breathe concentrations of CO2 higher than 1500ppm, the regulation would require much less exposure, if any at all. The fact of the matter is, your own sources tell us CO2 is not harmful to humans until it reaches a point of around 30k ppm... which is much higher than the 320ppm we currently have in our atmosphere. The point once again, which seems to be skipping comfortably over your pinhead, is that CO2 is not harmful to humans in the levels that we will ever realize in our atmosphere.

YOU borught up OSHA ignorantly claiming that we would be fine with 500 times current concentrations. You were wrong.

And I stand by that. If some pinhead scientist told us that the Earth was going to explode if we didn't get CO2 levels up to 1500 ppm in the next 100 years, we would not be able to do it. We are never going to reach a point of saturation of CO2 that would be harmful in the least to humans. EVER!

Yes, I understand that you stand by your response to a straw man (no one claimed CO2 concentrations were going to be a direct threat to human life). However you first claimed that levels could increase to 500 (post #157) times the current level. Now you are down to <5. My only point was to say, you are fucking stupid, we can not survive at 500 times current levels and that is not the OSHA standard.

No, I was explaining the benefits of more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to nourish plant life. You are supposed to be finding proof that carbon dioxide contributes to the natural warming cycles we are now having. I understand that CO2 has a thermal effect, but I reject that man-made CO2 is contributing enough to make much of a difference in the overall temps.

What's causing it then? Are you saying it is CO2 from other sources? Water vapor (lol)?

LMAO... you are now flailing all over the board! Make up your mind! So... the planet had 'normal' CO2 levels for millions of years and larger mammals flourished, then CO2 rose to higher levels and they died out, to be replaced by smaller mammals who could handle the high CO2, then the CO2 dropped again, and the larger mammals came back again? OMGROFLMFAOooooo! You are TOOO fucking funny, Stringbean! ....cue the laugh track again!!

I am not flailing at all dumbfuck. I have not changed course once. Certainly not from 500 to <5.

You don't understand how evolution works retard. The smaller animals did not just spring from nothing. They evolved from the larger ones and the smaller varieties. The smaller members of the species had a survival advantage and so passed on their traits. Once the planet cooled, bigger became better again. I don't know why you think that is funny, unless you are just fucking clueless about evolution (which you are).

Wow... so CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly through the years, even though there were no humans on the planet to contribute to the CO2 levels? And by some freaking miracle, life managed to survive the mystical fluctuations of CO2 and evolve right along without a hitch, in spite of not having Al Gore implementing a carbon offset tax? Amazing! Thanks for making my point more brilliantly than I ever could have alone!

YOUR POINT IS STUPID. Life is going to go on, Ditzy. Only you are arguing this point. I am guessing life will continue on this planet until the sun explodes. I don't know of anything that could kill all forms of life.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that the warming of the period was accompanied by a mass extinction. So, I don't know if I would say it was without a hitch.

By your own admission in the previous quote, the CO2 levels have been low and high, and it is obvious the climate has not been pushed into any new state, and life has survived and thrived. It is also obvious that plant life LOVES carbon dioxide, and every mammal that has ever lived and breathed, has produced carbon dioxide, for all of history. We've not reached any 'point of no return' and the climate hasn't gone haywire, and it won't.

???? Uhhh yes, it was pushed into new states. It has gone through abrupt changes before. And life survived!!!! HAAAA le-lu-jah! After the mass extinction.

Water vapor makes up 94% of the greenhouse gases, always has, always will. It doesn't matter if we eliminated ALL the CO2, there would still be the same amount of water retained in the atmosphere. The evaporation process has nothing to do with how much CO2 is present. If you have something to prove that, please present it and stop insisting I am wrong.

No, it's not 94%. That's a number someone pulled out of their ass and has been repeated often, but is not accurate.

No, we can definitely adapt to a changing environment and climate, we've done it before. The ever-so-slight increases in CO2 levels, are not causing any dramatic change in climate, and never has, as far as we can tell. Most dramatic climactic events are the result of volcanoes and asteroids... Does Al Gore have a plan to deal with those? If so, maybe I will listen? ...On second thought... no, I won't! Al Gore, like you, is an absolute moron.

When did we adapt to such climate changes?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

YOU borught up OSHA ignorantly claiming that we would be fine with 500 times current concentrations. You were wrong.

Yes, I understand that you stand by your response to a straw man (no one claimed CO2 concentrations were going to be a direct threat to human life). However you first claimed that levels could increase to 500 (post #157) times the current level. Now you are down to <5. My only point was to say, you are fucking stupid, we can not survive at 500 times current levels and that is not the OSHA standard.

Yes, I said "500 times" and I should have said "500%" instead. (320ppm x 500% = 1500 ppm OSHA standards.) The point I made still stands, we are not going to ever have 500 times OR 500% more CO2 in the atmosphere. So yeah, you caught a fucking error on my part, you still didn't refute my point, and you can't... all you can do is stand there in your piss pants, looking like the little whiny brat you are.

What's causing it then? Are you saying it is CO2 from other sources? Water vapor (lol)?

What caused it 15 million years ago? It sure as hell wasn't humans!

I am not flailing at all dumbfuck. I have not changed course once. Certainly not from 500 to <5.

Yes, you are! You've got mammals popping into and out of existence dependent on how much CO2 we have, which man had nothing to do with at all, because we weren't even here! Big mammals were here, then CO2 rose, and they vanished, while small mammals adapted, then CO2 declined and big mammals came back again.... now I presume we are going to see big mammals vanish again, since CO2 is getting higher? I don't know what study of evolution you are going by, but big mammals certainly didn't disappear then reappear millions of years later due to CO2 levels being high. I think YOU are high!

You don't understand how evolution works retard. The smaller animals did not just spring from nothing. They evolved from the larger ones and the smaller varieties. The smaller members of the species had a survival advantage and so passed on their traits. Once the planet cooled, bigger became better again. I don't know why you think that is funny, unless you are just fucking clueless about evolution (which you are).

According to the idiots here who believe in evolution as how life originated, single-cell (small) organisms grew into small mammals, and they eventually grew into larger mammals. I've never heard this shit about mammals disappearing because the CO2 was too high for them to survive! AND... you still have not explained how the CO2 level fluctuated so wildly, without any help from mankind! If that happened way back then, without man-made cause, then why can't it be happening again without man-made cause?

YOUR POINT IS STUPID. Life is going to go on, Ditzy. Only you are arguing this point. I am guessing life will continue on this planet until the sun explodes. I don't know of anything that could kill all forms of life.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that the warming of the period was accompanied by a mass extinction. So, I don't know if I would say it was without a hitch.

My point is, man-made CO2 is not making the climate warmer to any real significant degree, if any at all. CO2 is actually beneficial to plant life, and it (apparently) rises and falls quite dramatically through history, without catastrophic consequence. You have offered NO evidence that CO2 caused any mass extinction.

???? Uhhh yes, it was pushed into new states. It has gone through abrupt changes before. And life survived!!!! HAAAA le-lu-jah! After the mass extinction.

It was not "pushed into new STATES" it remained in the same state as always, it became colder, it became warmer, CO2 increased, CO2 decreased, species became extinct, new species emerged, and we are here in a world teaming with life forms. We still have rain and droughts, just like we always have and always will, nothing has changed the STATE of climate on Earth.

No, it's not 94%. That's a number someone pulled out of their ass and has been repeated often, but is not accurate.

It's between 94-96% according to climatologists who have measured it.

When did we adapt to such climate changes?

Well from about 1300 to 1820, we had what is known as the Little Ice Age, most of Northern Europe and North America had winters colder than any in recorded history. In 1780, New York Harbor froze, and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. In 1684, the Thames River froze solid! 1816 was known as The Year Without A Summer, they literally had snow on the ground until June and July in New York and Pennsylvania. We obviously adapted!

 

[Timshel]

Yes, I said "500 times" and I should have said "500%" instead. (320ppm x 500% = 1500 ppm OSHA standards.) The point I made still stands, we are not going to ever have 500 times OR 500% more CO2 in the atmosphere. So yeah, you caught a fucking error on my part, you still didn't refute my point, and you can't... all you can do is stand there in your piss pants, looking like the little whiny brat you are.

So, your error is my fault and I am the brat. Okay, Ditzy.

There was no valid point to refute, other than, that you were in error. What is left, after you correct it, is a straw man. Nobody argued we were going to choke ourselves on C02. We are not likely to reach a level of CO2 that will DIRECTLY lead to human deaths. So what?

What caused it 15 million years ago? It sure as hell wasn't humans!

15 mya is not the time of the events to which I was referring. I asked you several times to explain to what period were you referring. There is no definite cause for the warming that occured 15 mya. Some theories say it was caused by volcanic activity or a comet strike, releasing co2. Neither of those explain our warming.

Yes, you are! You've got mammals popping into and out of existence dependent on how much CO2 we have, which man had nothing to do with at all, because we weren't even here! Big mammals were here, then CO2 rose, and they vanished, while small mammals adapted, then CO2 declined and big mammals came back again.... now I presume we are going to see big mammals vanish again, since CO2 is getting higher? I don't know what study of evolution you are going by, but big mammals certainly didn't disappear then reappear millions of years later due to CO2 levels being high. I think YOU are high!

According to the idiots here who believe in evolution as how life originated, single-cell (small) organisms grew into small mammals, and they eventually grew into larger mammals. I've never heard this shit about mammals disappearing because the CO2 was too high for them to survive! AND... you still have not explained how the CO2 level fluctuated so wildly, without any help from mankind! If that happened way back then, without man-made cause, then why can't it be happening again without man-made cause?

No, I never said anything about popping into and out of existence. That is your retarded understanding of evolution. I explained, briefly, the mecahnisms to you.

The fossil record shows that the mammals of the PETM were smaller. No one said anything about appearing and disappearing. Again, you are completely clueless on this subject.

Now I was talking about the PETM and the eocene era, which was not 15mya. Theories concerning that warming are volcanoes, comet strike, burning of peat or possible orbital forcing one of which may have caused methane release from the ocean floors.

Why can't any of these things be the cause now? First off you need to quit pulling for another cause as you would for a sports team. As long as you approach it that way you are going to be going into it with blinders on.

We have not been hit by a comet and volcano activity is low. We have another cause that we KNOW is releasing CO2.

My point is, man-made CO2 is not making the climate warmer to any real significant degree, if any at all. CO2 is actually beneficial to plant life, and it (apparently) rises and falls quite dramatically through history, without catastrophic consequence. You have offered NO evidence that CO2 caused any mass extinction.

The proof of mass extinction is in the fossil record. Maybe the bigger mammals were hiding in caves during the PETM though, huh Ditzy?

It was not "pushed into new STATES" it remained in the same state as always, it became colder, it became warmer, CO2 increased, CO2 decreased, species became extinct, new species emerged, and we are here in a world teaming with life forms. We still have rain and droughts, just like we always have and always will, nothing has changed the STATE of climate on Earth.

No, it was pushed into new states. Yes, some sort of life survived and went forward. As has been repeated numerous time, if we are pushed into a new state it will not cause the end to all life, just a likely mass extinction.

It's between 94-96% according to climatologists who have measured it.

Nope. You will need to provide your source in order for this to go any further.

Well from about 1300 to 1820, we had what is known as the Little Ice Age, most of Northern Europe and North America had winters colder than any in recorded history. In 1780, New York Harbor froze, and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. In 1684, the Thames River froze solid! 1816 was known as The Year Without A Summer, they literally had snow on the ground until June and July in New York and Pennsylvania. We obviously adapted!

That was not an abrupt climate change. Further, we don't know that it was global. But it was enough to cause disruption and considerable death, but not much if any adaptation in the physical state of man. I am not talking about adapatations like, putting on a coat.

 

[Cypress]

Ice cores only go back 600 million years. So much for that claim.

Wow.

totally wrong, professor. Laughably wrong.

Ice core data only goes back 800 thousand years. Not "600 million years", as you claim. You would have known that, if you bothered to click on the UCLA link for 5 seconds.

"600 million years". LOL, I suggest you not even click on a science thread if you're just going to toss out laughably wrong numbers off the top of your head. Numbers that are not only wrong, but are completely and physically impossible.

There is no ice sheet that has survived for 600 million years. It's not possible, professor. Multi-cellular life on earth didn't even evolve until about 550 million years ago. The dinosaurs weren't even on the planet until 250 million years ago. So, according to your guess work and speculations, there would indeed be measurable ice cores giving us insight into CO2 levels during the mesozoic.

So, I would suggest to you to not click on science links, and randomly toss out numbers off the top of your head.

The UCLA used the ice core record, and supplemented it with proxy chemical data to extend the ice core record back to 15 million years ago. You would have realized this if you spent ten seconds on the UCLA link, rather than chirping in from the peanut gallery with your wild, and laughably wrong speculations.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations can only be estimated beyond that range according to other data. Not only that, but the methodology of using ice core samples (actually it's bubbles in ice cores) to determine CO2 concentrations has been challenged by botanical data, using analysis of fossilized plants, that indicate ice cores significantly underestimate CO2 concentrations.

The thing is, while the warming trends are significant, the claims that they are "unprecedented" is based on RECENT geological history. We do not even know for certain how warm it got as little as 500 years ago. The debate is still open whether the Middle Ages warm period was as warm as today. Go back a million years and most of the data is a gnat's eyebrow above pure SWAG.

The FACT is the Earth is warming (currently - kind of). BBut the additional, glossed-over (if not completely ignored) FACT by the AGW crowd is the Earth has BEEN warming since the height of the most recent ice age. And it cooled as a general long-term trend before that. And it warmed for a long period of time before that. etc. etc. etc.

Another point - all these comparisons of mean global temperatures all use a base line from the 1800's. WHAT MAKES YOU IDIOTS THINK THAT IS 'NORMAL"??? Anyone with two connected neurons knows and understands that as little as 1 million years ago (a hiccup in the grand scheme of things) the Earth was MUCH warmer - no ice caps at all. Why shouldn't that (estimated) temperature - which paleo data supports as a much more common occurrence - be the earth "normal" base line. In which case, if we were really concerned about the SCIENCE of mean global temperatures, we should be investigating why the Earth decide to cool down significantly about 800 thousand years ago and stayed that way until now.

One thing for sure that no one, not even AGW idiots dispute: the mean global temperature of a scant 1 million years ago was NOT due to human activity. And it was much warmer. AND there was lots more CO2 in the air.

So:
WHY BLAME HUMANS NOW?

More guesswork, speculations, and well-rehearsed talking points as memorized from rightwing blogs. And not a link to any reputable scientific source in sight.

I"m not going to teach you the science, but no one ever said there weren't periods of very high CO2 in the distant past.

The problem is the rate at which CO2 concentrations are climbing, and the fact that these rates and concentrations can't plausibly be explained by mostly natural variation.

No one ever said that humans or life would cease to exist if we kept pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. this has been addressed ad naseum by myself, Rstringfield, and other scientifically literate posters. I'm not going to repeat all of it. You'll just have to read, and educate yourself.

The best place you can go is the National Academy of Science. It's clear that LewRockwell.com, Oathkeepers.com, or "ClimateAudit" are not giving you expert, and credible scientific information.

try this link: U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/

 

[Good Luck]

Wow.

totally wrong, professor. Laughably wrong.

Ice core data only goes back 800 thousand years. Not "600 million years", as you claim. You would have known that, if you bothered to click on the UCLA link for 5 seconds.

"600 million years". LOL, I suggest you not even click on a science thread if you're just going to toss out laughably wrong numbers off the top of your head. Numbers that are not only wrong, but are completely and physically impossible.

There is no ice sheet that has survived for 600 million years. It's not possible, professor. Multi-cellular life on earth didn't even evolve until about 550 million years ago. The dinosaurs weren't even on the planet until 250 million years ago. So, according to your guess work and speculations, there would indeed be measurable ice cores giving us insight into CO2 levels during the mesozoic.

So, I would suggest to you to not click on science links, and randomly toss out numbers off the top of your head.

The UCLA used the ice core record, and supplemented it with proxy chemical data to extend the ice core record back to 15 million years ago. You would have realized this if you spent ten seconds on the UCLA link, rather than chirping in from the peanut gallery with your wild, and laughably wrong speculations.





More guesswork, speculations, and well-rehearsed talking points as memorized from rightwing blogs. And not a link to any reputable scientific source in sight.

I"m not going to teach you the science, but no one ever said there weren't periods of very high CO2 in the distant past.

The problem is the rate at which CO2 concentrations are climbing, and the fact that these rates and concentrations can't plausibly be explained by mostly natural variation.

No one ever said that humans or life would cease to exist if we kept pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. this has been addressed ad naseum by myself, Rstringfield, and other scientifically literate posters. I'm not going to repeat all of it. You'll just have to read, and educate yourself.

The best place you can go is the National Academy of Science. It's clear that LewRockwell.com, Oathkeepers.com, or "ClimateAudit" are not giving you expert, and credible scientific information.

try this link: U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/

Yea, I mistyped million when I meant thousand. Ice cores go back 600 THOUSAND (not million) years. (mistakes happen) If you read following posts, you can see I knew it is 600 thousand and not 600 million. (Hint: I point out that there were no ice caps as little as one million years ago.)

As far as teaching me science, that is a laugh. The only science you know is the science proclaimed by your political masters. You would not know real science if it walked up and kicked your shins.

FACT: the CO2-temperature correlation is trumped up using ice core data only and ignores other paleo-data that goes back farther.

FACT: Looking at ice core data, temperature increases always precede CO2 increases, so, again, the claims of CO2 levels as a driver of temperature are not supported.

FACT: planetary modeling indicate that heat retention factor of CO2 is insignificant at concentrations less than 80 times current levels.

Conclusion: the claims that human sources of atmospheric CO2 as a factor in increasing mean global temperatures is not only completely unsupported, but in fact is contraindicated by the scientific data. And there goes the primary claim of human activity having anything to do with it.


Another point: let's look at the fact that, according to ice core data, CO2 increases follow temperature increases. Let's add in the fact that the little ice age reached it most extreme minimum around 1650. That means we've been in a general warming trend from that minimum for a little over 300 years. Let's see.... we had a temperature minimum a bit over 300 years ago, and CO2 increases start about 300 years after temperatures start climbing, so we would EXPECT, according to temperature data, that CO2 levels would show an increase about now. How about that? Predictions of ice core data that CO2 will start to show significant increases 300-600 years after temperature increases are supported by current data. Science triumphs - and AGW is still a bunch of stupid assed political hacks.

 

[Good Luck]

The problem is the rate at which CO2 concentrations are climbing, and the fact that these rates and concentrations can't plausibly be explained by mostly natural variation.

An oft repeated, but completely unsupported statement. Paleo data shows multiple instances of CO2 increases of 100-200 ppmv over a few decades.

Additionally, since CO2 as a climate change driver is not supported by scientific data, SO WHAT, even if it were true?

The entire claim of "unprecedented change" is not supported. In fact, recent studies indicate that abrupt changes as we are seeing now are the NORM, not the exception in climactic shifts.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1157707

Again, the bottom line is the entire AGW alarmist agenda is built on false assumptions (such as a strict correlation between CO2 and mean global temperature) and unsupported conclusions.

 

[tinfoil]

An oft repeated, but completely unsupported statement. Paleo data shows multiple instances of CO2 increases of 100-200 ppmv over a few decades.

Additionally, since CO2 as a climate change driver is not supported by scientific data, SO WHAT, even if it were true?

The entire claim of "unprecedented change" is not supported. In fact, recent studies indicate that abrupt changes as we are seeing now are the NORM, not the exception in climactic shifts.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1157707

Again, the bottom line is the entire AGW alarmist agenda is built on false assumptions (such as a strict correlation between CO2 and mean global temperature) and unsupported conclusions.

LOL cypress does not understand that he's been duped. He seriously must not have the ability to grasp the statistical error. Or fraud, if you want to be correct. It was no mistake.


We can never convince the ignorant people like cypress who lack the skill to understand the argument. They are the useful idiots the AGW crowd count on for voyes and power. LOL god damn that cypress is fucking idiot

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, your error is my fault and I am the brat. Okay, Ditzy.

There was no valid point to refute, other than, that you were in error. What is left, after you correct it, is a straw man. Nobody argued we were going to choke ourselves on C02. We are not likely to reach a level of CO2 that will DIRECTLY lead to human deaths. So what?

Here's the point again... Our atmosphere will never have levels of CO2 dangerous to humans. And YES, there are currently nitwits running around calling CO2 a "pollutant" and a "contaminate" and the EPA is classifying it as such, so they can "regulate" it!

15 mya is not the time of the events to which I was referring. I asked you several times to explain to what period were you referring. There is no definite cause for the warming that occured 15 mya. Some theories say it was caused by volcanic activity or a comet strike, releasing co2. Neither of those explain our warming.

Right... there is no definite cause for previous warming (or cooling) periods, perhaps because it is a natural cyclical phenomenon that has always occurred on Earth?

No, I never said anything about popping into and out of existence. That is your retarded understanding of evolution. I explained, briefly, the mecahnisms to you.

The fossil record shows that the mammals of the PETM were smaller. No one said anything about appearing and disappearing. Again, you are completely clueless on this subject.

And you have a clue because the fossil record shows the changes were the result of global climate change due to CO2? Damn, those prehistoric animals were just not lucky enough to have Al Gore around back then, huh? Because, we all know, he could have saved them! Just raise the taxes, turn down the thermostats, and make them use those low-flow toilets and stuff, and maybe those mammals would have never gone extinct! You're such a fucking loony tune!

Now I was talking about the PETM and the eocene era, which was not 15mya. Theories concerning that warming are volcanoes, comet strike, burning of peat or possible orbital forcing one of which may have caused methane release from the ocean floors.

Regardless... the point is, life survived, it adapted, and the Earth returned to normal eventually. And there was no Al Gore or Liberal cabal out there pushing for more regulations and taxes to prevent certain catastrophe, was there? No, there wasn't! I guess it's a fucking miracle life survived and the Earth didn't go spinning out into space and explode! And this didn't just happen once, it happened MANY times through the course of Earth's history! It always manages to fix itself, doesn't it? Without Al Gore OR Liberals!

Why can't any of these things be the cause now? First off you need to quit pulling for another cause as you would for a sports team. As long as you approach it that way you are going to be going into it with blinders on.

I am not "pulling for" anything, I am merely stating common sense and taking a pragmatic viewpoint, while you are becoming an emotional liberal nitwit!

We have not been hit by a comet and volcano activity is low. We have another cause that we KNOW is releasing CO2.

No, we simply don't KNOW this! That's the debate! The evidence is inconclusive! Because we do have a record of the history, and we do see a pattern of warming and cooling periods on Earth, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the meager 1 degree change in temperature over the last century, is due to normal cyclical changes that have always occurred on Earth! There is very little to suggest that man-made CO2 is causing a warming effect, or contributing significantly to an absolutely normal cycle of the planet. NONE!

The proof of mass extinction is in the fossil record. Maybe the bigger mammals were hiding in caves during the PETM though, huh Ditzy?

Proof of mass extinction is not proof that CO2 caused global warming which caused the mass extinction! You are making an illogical LEAP here, and that is what I am arguing against.

No, it was pushed into new states. Yes, some sort of life survived and went forward. As has been repeated numerous time, if we are pushed into a new state it will not cause the end to all life, just a likely mass extinction.

The climate has always operated in the same state... we've never stopped having seasons, it's never stopped raining completely, the convection currents in the ocean have never stopped entirely, the climate system has remained consistent in state as long as far back as we can observe. If by "state" you mean the climate got warmer or cooler, then yes... it has changed states, the climate changes every single day!

Nope. You will need to provide your source in order for this to go any further.

That was not an abrupt climate change. Further, we don't know that it was global. But it was enough to cause disruption and considerable death, but not much if any adaptation in the physical state of man. I am not talking about adapatations like, putting on a coat.

You asked when we've adapted to an abrupt climate change, and that is one instance from relatively recent history. We obviously adapted to the Medieval warming period as well. What the fuck do you mean it wasn't an abrupt change? Snow in June is pretty fucking abrupt, wouldn't you say? Yes, a lot of people died from it, a lot of people die from the heat every year! As a species, we adapt and survive, and we've obviously been doing this since we've been a species!

I've wasted way too much of my time going in circles with you on this. You are supposed to be a Libertarian, not some Liberal Chicken Little! Do you just not comprehend this whole thing is a farce? A way for socialist liberals to get their hands in our pockets, to bilk the "greedy corporations" out of billions of dollars! And you, a supposed Libertarian, are marching right along with them, helping to carry the banner for their socialist objectives! Turn in your Libertarian card, you are officially a pinhead LIBERAL!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Dixie, you have got to be one of the most self deluded braying jackasses I've ever seen! You're supposition and conjecture are NOT substitutes for FACTS and the logic derived from them. Here's a quote from the article that basically puts the kibosh on your BS:


The Antarctic Peninsula juts into the Southern Ocean, reaching farther north than any other part of the continent. The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.
Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."
The rest of the article goes into detail, fairly pointing out what is fact based evidence and what is still in question. So much for yet another one of your revisionist diatribes, Dixie old thing.

And again (because you are stubborn).... Where does it conclude that MAN is causing this warming trend??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I've highlighted the words for you.

I'm not seeing that! I see where they say it is getting warmer in the West... so fucking what? We have already established that the Earth is in a warming cycle, it makes sense to me that it would be getting warmer in the West too! It's getting warmer in the East and the North and the South! All over the whole entire planet, the temperatures are getting warmer... that is what happens when the Earth is in a WARMING cycle! If we were in a COOLING cycle, the opposite would be happening... but then, you would all be in a panic over Global Cooling! It's the natural temperature cycles of our planet, and it has been happening like this for billions of years. The Medieval period was just as warm as today, if not warmer, and there was not a single factory emitting any CO2 into the atmosphere at that time!

You're not seeing it because you don't read properly. And all this bullshit you keep regurgitating IGNORES THE FACT THAT WITHIN THE LAST CENTURY AND A HALF YOU'VE HAD EXPONENTIALLY INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION VIA INDUSTRY AND CARS.....MASSIVE DEFORESTATION OR RAIN FORESTS, URANIZATION...ALL ON A GLOBAL SCALE. This ENHANCES and INCREASES the effects of the planet's natural cycles.

You can run all the numbers you want, but you DARE NOT try to state that what I put forth above is negligible....unless you're REALLY that dumb of a corporate ass kisser.

 

[Timshel]

Here's the point again... Our atmosphere will never have levels of CO2 dangerous to humans. And YES, there are currently nitwits running around calling CO2 a "pollutant" and a "contaminate" and the EPA is classifying it as such, so they can "regulate" it!

The regulation would be of man made co2. Too much co2 is already having negative effects on shell building organisms. I don't agree that they should be able to regulate it as a pollutant. I think that would be the wrong way to handle this. But again, no one is arguing that it will reach levels that kill people directly, so your incorrect figure and point are not terribly relevant, even to that issue.

Right... there is no definite cause for previous warming (or cooling) periods, perhaps because it is a natural cyclical phenomenon that has always occurred on Earth?

All of the theories concern greenhouse gases warming the planet. They were not man made, but those CO2 sources do not explain our rising co2 levels and it is obvious what is causing our rising co2 levels.

And you have a clue because the fossil record shows the changes were the result of global climate change due to CO2? Damn, those prehistoric animals were just not lucky enough to have Al Gore around back then, huh? Because, we all know, he could have saved them! Just raise the taxes, turn down the thermostats, and make them use those low-flow toilets and stuff, and maybe those mammals would have never gone extinct! You're such a fucking loony tune!

You are dropping context. The mass extinction is proven by the fossil record. CO2 causes warming and this is extremely well supported no matter what lies you hear elsewhere. Further, the fossil record bears out warming (i.e., smaller mammals and even larger snakes). It all fits together. Meanwhile, you cover your eyes and exclaim, there is no proof and use circular logic to maintain your nonsense.

Regardless... the point is, life survived, it adapted, and the Earth returned to normal eventually. And there was no Al Gore or Liberal cabal out there pushing for more regulations and taxes to prevent certain catastrophe, was there? No, there wasn't! I guess it's a fucking miracle life survived and the Earth didn't go spinning out into space and explode! And this didn't just happen once, it happened MANY times through the course of Earth's history! It always manages to fix itself, doesn't it? Without Al Gore OR Liberals!

Al Gore has jack shit to do with it. That's just the response expected of a knee jerk reactionary.

Yes, life went on, after the mass extinction. It did not "return" to normal. It settled on a new normal.

I am not "pulling for" anything, I am merely stating common sense and taking a pragmatic viewpoint, while you are becoming an emotional liberal nitwit!

BS! You are the one supporting big government candidates based on what letter is beside their name. You are the one that did nothing but apologize and lust after big government Bush. You are the one that defended big government McCain against all criticism, even on his big government ideas. Your views are NEVER pragmatic and are always based on emotional conservative pining for the good ole days that never were mixed with fear and hatred of all change.

No, we simply don't KNOW this!

We do not know that we are pumping co2 into the atmosphere?

That's the debate! The evidence is inconclusive! Because we do have a record of the history, and we do see a pattern of warming and cooling periods on Earth, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the meager 1 degree change in temperature over the last century, is due to normal cyclical changes that have always occurred on Earth! There is very little to suggest that man-made CO2 is causing a warming effect, or contributing significantly to an absolutely normal cycle of the planet. NONE!

GOD does not just turn on the ac or heater. The climate warms or cools in response to inputs. It does not just happen. It is well established science that co2 is a gg and that the greenhouse effect plays a role in global temperatures. There is no debate on these points. Even many who blast the "alarmist" agree on these points, e.g., Lindzen. They just argue the effects are overstated. On that point, they may well be right, but YOU completely ignore anything and everything that does not support your own bias.

The climate has always operated in the same state... we've never stopped having seasons, it's never stopped raining completely, the convection currents in the ocean have never stopped entirely, the climate system has remained consistent in state as long as far back as we can observe. If by "state" you mean the climate got warmer or cooler, then yes... it has changed states, the climate changes every single day!

New state, means a DRASTICALLY different climate. I don't know wtf you think it means with this nonsense about raining, seasons and other things.

geocraft.com

A blog with no details on how the numbers were obtained or reference to any studies is not a good source. I can make you a graph too, Ditzy. I don't know why you want to exagerate it. There is no doubt that water vapor makes up most of the gg.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

You asked when we've adapted to an abrupt climate change, and that is one instance from relatively recent history. We obviously adapted to the Medieval warming period as well. What the fuck do you mean it wasn't an abrupt change? Snow in June is pretty fucking abrupt, wouldn't you say? Yes, a lot of people died from it, a lot of people die from the heat every year! As a species, we adapt and survive, and we've obviously been doing this since we've been a species!

It was not an abrupt climate change. But actually, I was wrong on this. Humans were around for one example, the end of the Younger Dryas.

I've wasted way too much of my time going in circles with you on this. You are supposed to be a Libertarian, not some Liberal Chicken Little! Do you just not comprehend this whole thing is a farce? A way for socialist liberals to get their hands in our pockets, to bilk the "greedy corporations" out of billions of dollars! And you, a supposed Libertarian, are marching right along with them, helping to carry the banner for their socialist objectives! Turn in your Libertarian card, you are officially a pinhead LIBERAL!

You are always going in circles. I do not know why I bother with you, since your views are not even in line with the handful of climate scientist that believe global warming is of little concern. Your not relevant and none of the nonsense you spew is relevant.

Your statements above prove your lack of objectivity. Do you honestly believe all the scientist are engaged in a conspiracy to foist socialism on us?

I am a libertarian and a skeptic (does not mean a denier of scientific evidence).

I do not support cap n trade. I do not support most of this green energy bullshit. I do realize that the market, as it currently exists, does not handle external costs well. It never has. I oppose big government not based on reactionary stupidity but because the evidence does not support that it works very well, not to mention it is terribly unjust and immoral.

You on the other hand, will back any big government politician so long as they are opposed to Democrats. You support big government on many issues, so long as the left is against it. Your every view is reactionary and based on nothing but fear and hate.

 

[Good Luck]

All of the theories concern greenhouse gases warming the planet. They were not man made, but those CO2 sources do not explain our rising co2 levels and it is obvious what is causing our rising co2 levels.
....
CO2 causes warming and this is extremely well supported no matter what lies you hear elsewhere.
....
It is well established science that co2 is a gg and that the greenhouse effect plays a role in global temperatures.
....
It is well established science that co2 is a gg and that the greenhouse effect plays a role in global temperatures.

Actually the relative effects of CO2 forcing on global climate at current concentrations - or even concentrations 10 times current levels is NOT settled.
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm

Again, planetary modeling indicates that CO2 forcing is NOT a significant factor in global climate until CO2 concentrations reach concentrations WAY above current levels. Additionally sources of increased atmospheric CO2 include far more than human activities. Basic chemistry: what happens to dissolved gasses when water temperatures increase?

There is no debate on these points.

Which is why the average AGW is a total ignorant asshole. They deny that the basis of their conclusions is not a settled science.

GOD does not just turn on the ac or heater. The climate warms or cools in response to inputs. It does not just happen.

Very good point. We haven't a foggy clue what caused the Little Ice Age. We haven't a foggy clue why we came out of it. Ditto the continuous cycle go glaciation/interglaciation going on the last 600-800 THOUSAND (happy Cypriss?) years. For that matter, no one knows why the Earth suddenly decided to cool down a million or so years ago and enter into the glaciation cycles.

Some have put forth the idea of volcanic activity, but the reason things like volcanic activity cannot be tied in is because the geologic records do not indicate unusual volcanic (or other) activity during or prior to warming periods. Specific to volcano activity: if that were a cause, dust levels would follow the same correlation curve that temp vs CO2 follow in ice core data, as would ages of various lava flows, etc. they do not.

Those who claim atmospheric CO2 concentration is a proven causation are simply parading their continued (deliberate?) ignorance. For the umpteenth time in many threads on this issue CO2 INCREASES COME AFTER TEMPERATURE INCREASES START. Ditto other GHGs that have been correlated. Basic physics: CAUSE cannot come AFTER effect. Therefore something other than GHG forcing triggers climate change. Increased temperatures affect oceanic temps which in turn give up a few trillion tons of various dissolved gasses. These events have been measured andd proven. CO2 forcing has NOT been proven, nor even supported in any direct study. It has just been conjectured.

So, since we do NOT know what triggers cclimate change, just MAYBE we should be concerned with determining NATURAL causes of climate change. Think about it - if we do not know the natural triggers of climate change that have occurred through the hundreds of millions of year of geologic records, how the HELL can we tell when it ISN'T natural? We need to understand the natural causes of past cycles first, THEN (and only then) can we genuinely determine if human activity is a significant contributing factor in current climatological events. Anything else is nothing more than politically drive alarmism at its worst - as well as very poor science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

cypress is a true warmer LOL


what an idiot. They cook the books cypress. They splice real temps onto records with margins of error that are greater thasn the supposed catastrophic warming. LOL

learn some statistics, you fucking retard

Well that so called "Moron" has a PhD in the geosciences from an accredited University. Which correspondence course did you get your GED from?

 

[Timshel]

Actually the relative effects of CO2 forcing on global climate at current concentrations - or even concentrations 10 times current levels is NOT settled.
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm

Again, planetary modeling indicates that CO2 forcing is NOT a significant factor in global climate until CO2 concentrations reach concentrations WAY above current levels. Additionally sources of increased atmospheric CO2 include far more than human activities. Basic chemistry: what happens to dissolved gasses when water temperatures increase?
...
Which is why the average AGW is a total ignorant asshole. They deny that the basis of their conclusions is not a settled science.

Uhh, you seem to acknowledge in the first bit of your response, that CO2 plays a role. That seems to be settled. I have not found any climate scientist that believes it does not play a role. How much a role is debated, with a very few arguing that it is not significant cause of warming or a danger at current levels.

Very good point. We haven't a foggy clue what caused the Little Ice Age. We haven't a foggy clue why we came out of it. Ditto the continuous cycle go glaciation/interglaciation going on the last 600-800 THOUSAND (happy Cypriss?) years. For that matter, no one knows why the Earth suddenly decided to cool down a million or so years ago and enter into the glaciation cycles.

We have more than a foggy clue about causes. This is part of the problem. Many pretend that anything but absolute certainty (not possible) equates to total ignorance. That's just nonsense.

Some have put forth the idea of volcanic activity, but the reason things like volcanic activity cannot be tied in is because the geologic records do not indicate unusual volcanic (or other) activity during or prior to warming periods. Specific to volcano activity: if that were a cause, dust levels would follow the same correlation curve that temp vs CO2 follow in ice core data, as would ages of various lava flows, etc. they do not.

I am not sure, but you may be misunderstanding the role of volcanic activity in theories on the LIA. Volcanic eruption can cause cooling by spewing ash into the atmosphere that reflects solar radiation. Tambora erupted in 1815 just before the year without a summer. Mount Pinatubo's recent eruption led to predictable cooling which supports this notion. After the dust settles the CO2 remains.

I don't know what you are talking about, no known volcanic activity. Tambora was the largest eruption in 1600 years. It was preceded by several other relatively large eruptions.

Those who claim atmospheric CO2 concentration is a proven causation are simply parading their continued (deliberate?) ignorance. For the umpteenth time in many threads on this issue CO2 INCREASES COME AFTER TEMPERATURE INCREASES START. Ditto other GHGs that have been correlated. Basic physics: CAUSE cannot come AFTER effect. Therefore something other than GHG forcing triggers climate change. Increased temperatures affect oceanic temps which in turn give up a few trillion tons of various dissolved gasses. These events have been measured andd proven. CO2 forcing has NOT been proven, nor even supported in any direct study. It has just been conjectured.

So, since we do NOT know what triggers cclimate change, just MAYBE we should be concerned with determining NATURAL causes of climate change. Think about it - if we do not know the natural triggers of climate change that have occurred through the hundreds of millions of year of geologic records, how the HELL can we tell when it ISN'T natural? We need to understand the natural causes of past cycles first, THEN (and only then) can we genuinely determine if human activity is a significant contributing factor in current climatological events. Anything else is nothing more than politically drive alarmism at its worst - as well as very poor science.

I am no climate scientist and as far as I know, neither are you. All we have is the work of the scientists. Both sides attempt to poison the well with ad homs. The AGW deniers claim the scientist are all after grant money or pushing socialism, while the AGW crowd claims anything that disagrees is tainted by money from big oil. I don't buy either of those ad homs. Obviously there is money to be had no matter what the evidence leads you to believe.

All the science I have read seems to agree that the greenhouse effect exists, that CO2 is a gg and that the greenhouse effect plays a role in global temperatures. The real disagreement among scientist comes in how much of a role these things play. From what I gather, those claiming it's effects are negligible are in the minority.

Further (and this is a bit of an ad hom), the dissenters often seem to be contrarians. For instance, Lindzen also claims cigarette smoking does not play a significant role in causing lung cancer. His motivation does not seem to be oil money, but rather being a pain in the ass is part of his character. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, if you have valid or plausible criticisms of the science then you are contributing. Maybe, he is right about both, but I don't see much reason to believe it and neither do most climate scientists or the scientist who study the causes of cancer.

I don't support responses that will be destructive to our economies, because if it is a serious problem the markets are the only thing that can provide a viable solution. However, problems with external costs (and there are numerous external costs of burning fossil fuel totally unrelated to GW) may hinder fuels that do not create such extensive external costs from competing. It is not socialism to ask you to pay for the costs of the products you use, including REAL external costs. Of course, what to charge for those external costs is difficult to determine.

 

[Cypress]

Actually the relative effects of CO2 forcing on global climate at current concentrations - or even concentrations 10 times current levels is NOT settled.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm

*Editorial Note: The link provided is to a non-peer reviewed publication, posted to some blog in April, 2000; i.e. it's wildly and laughably out of date
.

Your link is to a non-peer reviewed column, from a blog no one has ever heard of.

Also, the "publication" date on your "paper" is wildly out of date - it says it was published in April 2000. This is so far out of date, it even precedes when the National Academy of Sciences concluded that it was settled scientific fact that humans were contributing to climate change. Which I think was in 2002.

In addition, your decade old, non-peer reviewed "publication" is written by an electrical engineer. Not a climate scientist.

After that, I didn't even read any of the rest of your post.

I'm going to assume everything you think you know is from wildly out-of-date, non-peer reviewed publications, from websites no one's ever heard of, and by people who aren't even reputable climate researchers. It would be a waste of my time to debate old, non-credible, non-peer reviewed, and wildly out of date information with you.

Carry on.

 

[Good Luck]

Your link is to a non-peer reviewed column, from a blog no one has ever heard of.

Also, the "publication" date on your "paper" is wildly out of date - it says it was published in April 2000. This is so far out of date, it even precedes when the National Academy of Sciences concluded that it was settled scientific fact that humans were contributing to climate change. Which I think was in 2002.

In addition, your decade old, non-peer reviewed "publication" is written by an electrical engineer. Not a climate scientist.

After that, I didn't even read any of the rest of your post.

I'm going to assume everything you think you know is from wildly out-of-date, non-peer reviewed publications, from websites no one's ever heard of, and by people who aren't even reputable climate researchers. It would be a waste of my time to debate old, non-credible, non-peer reviewed, and wildly out of date information with you.

Carry on.

I give a link to a paper which outlines the quantum energy aspect of CO2 heat retention, which in turn explains why CO2 green house effect is insignificant in low concentrations. It references and critiques SEVERAL publications from IPCC, not just one from April 2000.

Can you dispute the science contained in the article or not? Did you even read any of the actual content, or just look for lame assed excuses not to? (CAN you read the science contained in the paper?) If not, then it's obvious you have nothing real to say on the topic.

 

[tinfoil]

Well that so called "Moron" has a PhD in the geosciences from an accredited University. Which correspondence course did you get your GED from?

I learned by having a love of math and science,

Cypress shows he doesn't understand stats and the errors in the IPCC bullshit, just like you, buddy.

I recalled you laughed and said you had some friend at NOAA who said I was wrong about the oceans driving climate. You are fucking joke.

Go to the NOAA site and read

You warmers are total fucking idiots

 

[Good Luck]

Uhh, you seem to acknowledge in the first bit of your response, that CO2 plays a role. That seems to be settled. I have not found any climate scientist that believes it does not play a role. How much a role is debated, with a very few arguing that it is not significant cause of warming or a danger at current levels.

What I have acknowledged is the apparent correlation between CO2 levels and mean global temperatures in ice core data. That does NOT mean CO2 plays a role. You con go out and find all kinds of correlations, but it does not mean one affects the other, let alone which causes which. And THAT is the point. The AGW crowd continually points to a demonstrated correlation, and from that assumes it to be a cause and effect relationship. What they fail at is A) not recognizing the fact that additional data does not support the cause-effect relationship they conclude; and B) the correlation between CO2 levels and mean global temperatures rapidly falls apart once you study periods prior to the onset of the current cycle of glaciation. CO2 levels vs. mean global temperatures is a primary leg on which the AGW hypothesis is constructed, and that leg does not stand up to scrutiny.

We have more than a foggy clue about causes. This is part of the problem. Many pretend that anything but absolute certainty (not possible) equates to total ignorance. That's just nonsense.

No we do NOT have any idea. We have a few conjectures, but none of them pans out as yet. GHGs do not pan out because the studied periods in which GHGs cannot be correlated with mean global temperatures. There are periods in which GHGs were high and temps were low. There is a specific instance of MUCH higher CO2 levels (2000 ppmv+) which stayed high while the Earth went into a several million year long period of glaciation, and then CO2 levels DROPPED suddenly just prior to the Earth rewarming to mesozoic temperatures and all the ice caps melted.

I am not sure, but you may be misunderstanding the role of volcanic activity in theories on the LIA. Volcanic eruption can cause cooling by spewing ash into the atmosphere that reflects solar radiation. Tambora erupted in 1815 just before the year without a summer. Mount Pinatubo's recent eruption led to predictable cooling which supports this notion. After the dust settles the CO2 remains.

I don't know what you are talking about, no known volcanic activity. Tambora was the largest eruption in 1600 years. It was preceded by several other relatively large eruptions.

Try readin what I said again. I did not say anything about no volcanoes. I said that the dust records do not indicate any increase or decrease in volcanic activity which can be correlated to rising or falling global temperatures of the times. If volcanic activity were a factor/trigger in climate change, then we should be able to correlate dust levels to the rest of the glaciation cycle. (ie: if volcanic dust were the trigger for cooling down to period of glaciation, then dus levels would increase significantly before the associated cooling period. OTOH, if CO2 released by volcanic activity were a trigger for global warming, then dust levels would increase slightly before an associated warming trend.) However, no correlation can be found. Volcanic dust levels do fluctuate, but not in any pattern that can be associated with the glaciation cycle. Therefore, volcanic activity cannot be a climate change trigger.

I am no climate scientist and as far as I know, neither are you. All we have is the work of the scientists. Both sides attempt to poison the well with ad homs. The AGW deniers claim the scientist are all after grant money or pushing socialism, while the AGW crowd claims anything that disagrees is tainted by money from big oil. I don't buy either of those ad homs. Obviously there is money to be had no matter what the evidence leads you to believe.

May I suggest using alternate sources. Most sources are little more than a reporter's "understanding" (where "understanding is all too often altered by bias) of what a scientific study says. Go to a university library and read the actual studies instead of someone else's writing about what they think the study means. While neither of us is a professional climatologist, it does not mean we cannot educate ourselves enough to understand the science behind the entire AGW controversy.

All the science I have read seems to agree that the greenhouse effect exists, that CO2 is a gg and that the greenhouse effect plays a role in global temperatures. The real disagreement among scientist comes in how much of a role these things play. From what I gather, those claiming it's effects are negligible are in the minority.

Again, try the real sources of the science behind climatology instead of popular media sources. One area I strongly recommend is studying the actual science of heat retention properties of what have come to be called "green house gasses". Understand how the GHG effect works.

Further (and this is a bit of an ad hom), the dissenters often seem to be contrarians. For instance, Lindzen also claims cigarette smoking does not play a significant role in causing lung cancer. His motivation does not seem to be oil money, but rather being a pain in the ass is part of his character. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, if you have valid or plausible criticisms of the science then you are contributing. Maybe, he is right about both, but I don't see much reason to believe it and neither do most climate scientists or the scientist who study the causes of cancer.

And, once more, use sources other than MSM and internet. If nothing else, you will find many more scientists do not agree with AGW than the general media will ever print about. Second, you will find out about the effect "consensus science" has on real science. (ie: papers that agree with consensus get published more places. Papers that disagree do not - even if the science is sound.)

I don't support responses that will be destructive to our economies, because if it is a serious problem the markets are the only thing that can provide a viable solution. However, problems with external costs (and there are numerous external costs of burning fossil fuel totally unrelated to GW) may hinder fuels that do not create such extensive external costs from competing. It is not socialism to ask you to pay for the costs of the products you use, including REAL external costs. Of course, what to charge for those external costs is difficult to determine.

Here we agree in principle. Not once have I said my opinions of the AGW controversy have anything to do with my views on our energy economy. I am all for using any and every available - and economically feasible - means to put the U.S. on an energy independent, if not an energy exporter footing.

My problem with the AGW alarmist motivation is it precludes looking at a number of potential alternates due to carbon footprint. One such alternate is coal liquifaction to produce clean-burning diesel fuel. Another is switching a significant portion of our fossil fuel economy to natural gas. Since neither of these is "carbon friendly", using the AGW scare motivation to push us to alternate energy sources precludes two perfectly viable means of helping us attaining energy independence. From what I have studied, human CO2 sources do not have a significant impact on the climate change problem, and as such, we should not toss out ideas just because they are not "carbon friendly".

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Excellent points and well stated, GL!

Stringy is PWNED!