• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Now I a NOT saying you fall into this category but I have had this game played on me before - an opponent insisting that they "have already linked to the evidence multiple times" only the links can never ever be found and somehow they cannot give a synopsis of the argument either

I've posted this stuff repeatedly, and somehow people like you and Deuce NEVER see it and always demand it. Search Function, give it a try.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Hit that site for more indepth CO2 information.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,136
Reaction score
34,586
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CO2 Absorption Spectrum Explained.


It's still only 1 - 1.5 (at most) parts per MILLION increase, I.E. negligible.

I've seen and responded to this before, debunking it. I guess I don't have to post it again, right?
For one, "nov55.com" isn't a peer-reviewed journal. You laughed about blogs earlier. This is a blog, basically.
There's another problem: the writer claims that CO2 hits its absorption saturation at 10 meters at atmospheric concentrations. There is direct evidence that this isn't happening: outgoing radiation in CO2's spectrum is continuing to decrease as CO2 levels increase. Water vapor does overlap somewhat with CO2, but not entirely. Why, then, is that outgoing band decreasing?

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Hit that site for more indepth CO2 information.

This page banks more or less the same concept.

Clearly, CO2 does have a saturation point. However, we haven't hit it yet. Both of your LOLBLOGS ignore one glaring fact: our satellites are measuring the change in outgoing longwave infrared radiation and noting a decrease as CO2 increases. These guys tried to dazzle you with lots of math and fancy graphs, but their conclusion is based entirely on something that is provably not happening. If CO2 had hit saturation as they say, we would see no measurable change in the outgoing radiation on CO2's spectrum.

Just because a website uses pretty graphs and lots of math doesn't mean it's a better source than any other blog. Peer-review is done for good reason.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How can we "hoax" the following?

Rising Co2 levels
Changing ratios of carbon dioxide isotopes reflecting the increased amount of Co2 derived from fossil fuels
changing levels of long wave radiation escaping the Earth's atmosphere

You can't.

The hoax is the unsupported claim that CO2 is the sole driver of temperture and the deliberate manipulation of research and publications to promote the hoax and the instillation of religious fervor in the ill-informed people who have an innate wish for the apocalyptic side of life.

The reality is that CO2 isn't the only driver of the global temperature balance, it's not even one of the principle drivers of temperature. And, finally, there's no evidence that a warmer global is detrimental to human life.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sceptical science is used because unlike most of the denialist blog sites it llinks to peer reviewed research. Something I have noticed lacking in the denialist posts on this forum.

But if you have a real issue with what was posted there I am more than willing to access a number of other science sites.



Here's a clue that the devotee of the AGW religion is well and thoroughly duped.

ALL science is "skeptical".

Duh.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But 15 gigatons of CO2 added each year by man - think about that for a while

BTW - I will start posting links supporting data again when you do - this is FUN!!

The mass of the earth's atmosphere is 500,000,000,000,000 gigatons.

So 15 gigatons is....

....0.0000000000003 % of the earth's atmosphere.

That's what happens when thought is used.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,136
Reaction score
34,586
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The mass of the earth's atmosphere is 500,000,000,000,000 gigatons.

So 15 gigatons is....

....0.0000000000003 % of the earth's atmosphere.

That's what happens when thought is used.

Which doesn't at all discuss what effect that increase might have. There are substances that, in very small amounts, can still kill you. Not having "very much" (by some arbitrary standard" doesn't mean there's little or no effect. I suppose you have some information on the radiative forcing of CO2?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,136
Reaction score
34,586
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No. If you're wilfully ignorant of Climate-gate, don't expect me to waste my time telling you how to use Google.



Ditto the above.

That's because you probably already know that "climategate" has been widely debunked, and even if the allegations are true, the scope of that supposedly falsified data is so small it does not at all affect the overall scientific picture. But hey, have fun with your conspiracy theory. You should also look into that whole missile pod deal. underneath one of the jets that hit the WTC. You'll find some websites out there with "conclusive proof" of this. Good luck!
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Cold Facts on Global Warming

Hit that site for more indepth CO2 information.

Thank-you - now everything I need to know about that paper can be summarised from the reference list (I have found this is THE quickest way of determining validity of any scientific, or in this case, pseudo scientific paper on the net.

So

1) this is not a peer reviewed paper - it is someone's make up opinion off of the net
2) the reference list

Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate Springer, 1992, p. 118.
[2]. Thomas, G.E. and Stamnes, K. Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean. Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 441.
[3] Most credible sources place the number at 95%.
95% = Michaels, P.J. and Balling, R.C., The Satanic Gases. Cato Institute, 2000 p.25.
90-95% = http://www.globalwarming.org/node/62
90% = http://www.ncpa.org/press/transcript/globalwm/global2.html Norman J. Macdonald Carbon dioxide is about 5 percent, water vapor 90.
Here is a paper that gives a different figure: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf"
S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models. Journal of Geophysical Research 98(1993):7255-7264
[4]. U.S. Climate Action Report 2000, US Environmental Protection Agency, page 38.
[5]. Houghton, J.T. et al, eds. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (IPCC report), 1996, Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm
[6]. Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate. Springer, 1992, p. 436.
[7]. [4.07] How Hot Can Venus Get?
[8]. 3. Infrared Image of Low Clouds on Venus
[9]. Ma, Q., and R.H. Tipping, J. Chem. Phys., 96, 8655-8663, 1992.
[10]. [note added Feb 15, 2007] This can be easily calculated from the absorption of gaseous carbon dioxide. See Phys. Rev. 41, 291 - 303 (1932) P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide".

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Apologies to all those other members who are academically literate for posting the above - I can feel your shudders from here. One of the references is to a right wing think tank and known AGW disinformation site. A couple are from transcripts of talks and presentations. What is NOT there is the satellite data of radiation patterns from Earth, the spectrographic analysis of the CO2 isotope ratios and a myriad of other considerations.

Who is the author - the name is the same as the main character from "I dream of Jeannie" but has no other links - so are they a chemist? atmospheric scientist? Janitor?

The conclusions to this "paper" are even more telling

Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.

Sorry but what !@#$@ have the media to do with the scientific conclusions. Just because the media does not mention water vapour does NOT mean it has not been addressed in climate models
His second point about "Unphysical" models - while he himself has NOT used a multivariate analysis.

No sorry - this is a BIG fail

Next time give me a link with some scientific credibility - please?
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
You can't.

The hoax is the unsupported claim that CO2 is the sole driver of temperture and the deliberate manipulation of research and publications to promote the hoax and the instillation of religious fervor in the ill-informed people who have an innate wish for the apocalyptic side of life.

The reality is that CO2 isn't the only driver of the global temperature balance, it's not even one of the principle drivers of temperature. And, finally, there's no evidence that a warmer global is detrimental to human life.

Please show me the scientific paper that states CO2 is the "sole driver of temperature"

Because I will bet you a spandy dandy stick of candy you cannot do that.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thank-you - now everything I need to know about that paper can be summarised from the reference list (I have found this is THE quickest way of determining validity of any scientific, or in this case, pseudo scientific paper on the net.

So

1) this is not a peer reviewed paper - it is someone's make up opinion off of the net
2) the reference list

Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate Springer, 1992, p. 118.
[2]. Thomas, G.E. and Stamnes, K. Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean. Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 441.
[3] Most credible sources place the number at 95%.
95% = Michaels, P.J. and Balling, R.C., The Satanic Gases. Cato Institute, 2000 p.25.
90-95% = http://www.globalwarming.org/node/62
90% = http://www.ncpa.org/press/transcript/globalwm/global2.html Norman J. Macdonald Carbon dioxide is about 5 percent, water vapor 90.
Here is a paper that gives a different figure: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf"
S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models. Journal of Geophysical Research 98(1993):7255-7264
[4]. U.S. Climate Action Report 2000, US Environmental Protection Agency, page 38.
[5]. Houghton, J.T. et al, eds. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (IPCC report), 1996, Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm
[6]. Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate. Springer, 1992, p. 436.
[7]. [4.07] How Hot Can Venus Get?
[8]. 3. Infrared Image of Low Clouds on Venus
[9]. Ma, Q., and R.H. Tipping, J. Chem. Phys., 96, 8655-8663, 1992.
[10]. [note added Feb 15, 2007] This can be easily calculated from the absorption of gaseous carbon dioxide. See Phys. Rev. 41, 291 - 303 (1932) P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide".

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Apologies to all those other members who are academically literate for posting the above - I can feel your shudders from here. One of the references is to a right wing think tank and known AGW disinformation site. A couple are from transcripts of talks and presentations. What is NOT there is the satellite data of radiation patterns from Earth, the spectrographic analysis of the CO2 isotope ratios and a myriad of other considerations.

Who is the author - the name is the same as the main character from "I dream of Jeannie" but has no other links - so are they a chemist? atmospheric scientist? Janitor?

The conclusions to this "paper" are even more telling



Sorry but what !@#$@ have the media to do with the scientific conclusions. Just because the media does not mention water vapour does NOT mean it has not been addressed in climate models
His second point about "Unphysical" models - while he himself has NOT used a multivariate analysis.

No sorry - this is a BIG fail

Next time give me a link with some scientific credibility - please?


No, I refuse to find links that you find credible, because the only ones you'll take claim AGW is real. This is why most of us don't bother with you people, you aren't interested in debate, or truth, you just want to act like your intelligent or important.

I'd like to say this has been enjoyable, it hasn't, but it did prove to several friends of mine how unreasonable your side of the issue is, for that I thank you.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The mass of the earth's atmosphere is 500,000,000,000,000 gigatons.

So 15 gigatons is....

....0.0000000000003 % of the earth's atmosphere.

That's what happens when thought is used.

This guy explains it so much better than I could

I've seen various sources for the mass of the atmosphere ranging from around 5x10^18 to 5.3x10^18 kg, so the value of 5.27x10^10 kg seems to be right on. The key is that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere (383ppm or 0.0383%) is given as a percentage by volume. To determine the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere, you have to convert the percentage by volume to the percentage by mass.

To do this, you need to look at the molecular mass of each of the gasses that make up the atmosphere. The main ones are Nitrogen (N2,) Oxygen (O2,) Argon (Ar,) and Carbon Dioxide (C02.) Take a look at the link to the molecular mass of air below, and you will see that if you multiply the percentage of each gas in air by the molecular mass of that gas, you will get the molecular mass of each gas in air. It also shows the total molecular mass of air to be 28.97kg/kmol. If we move the value of %CO2 they use to 0.000383 (383ppmv) we find the molecular mass of CO2 in air to be 0.017kg/kmol. To determine the percent by mass of CO2 in air we divide 0.017/28.97 and find that CO2 is 0.0587% of air by mass.

If you multiply the total mass of earth's atmosphere by the % mass of CO2 in the atmosphere we find, 5.27x10^18kg x 0.0587% = 3.09x10^15kg of CO2 are currently in the atmosphere (using 383ppmV.)

Therefore the kg of CO2 in 1ppm of the atmosphere would be 3.09x10^15/383 = 8.08x10^12 kg or approximately 8 Billion metric tons of CO2.
How many metric tons of CO2 are in 1ppm of earths atmosphere? - Yahoo! Answers
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Warming Scare Tactics | Peer Review Papers

"No credible peer-reviewed scientist in the world disagrees any longer that the globe is warming and that humans are causing it."
- Laurie David, Producer 'An Inconvenient Truth'

1,500-Year Climate Cycle:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
(Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985)
- C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov

A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
(Science, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997)
- Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)
- Richard A. Kerr

Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic
(Science, Vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 - 1893, 26 September 2003)
- Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas Brown

Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 34, Issues 3-4, Pages 313-325, November 2002)
- W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad

Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications
(Geology, v. 26; no. 5; p. 471-473, May 1998)
- Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005)
- Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet

The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
(PNAS, vol. 97, no. 8, 3814-3819, April 11, 2000)
- Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf

The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records
(Climate of the Past Discussions, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.679-692, 2007)
- M. Debret, V. Bout-Roumazeilles, F. Grousset, M. Desmet, J. F. McManus, N. Massei, D. Sebag, J.-R. Petit, Y. Copard, A. Trentesaux

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf

Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period
(Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 109-112, 2001)
- Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
(Geology, v. 30, no. 5, p. 455-458, May 2002)
- André E. Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Philippe Fines, David E. Atkinson, Michael C. Sawada


Anthropogenic:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Global warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August, 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, 07/2007)
- Soon, Willie

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis


Antarctica:

A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L01706, 2008)
- Elizabeth R. Thomas, Gareth J. Marshall, Joseph R. McConnell

First survey of Antarctic sub–ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat
(Geology, v. 29; no. 9; p. 787-790, September 2001)
- Carol J. Pudsey, Jeffrey Evans

Orbitally induced oscillations in the East Antarctic ice sheet at the Oligocene/Miocene boundary
(Nature 413, 719-723, October 2001)
- Naish TR, Woolfe KJ, Barrett PJ, Wilson GS, Atkins C, Bohaty SM, Bücker CJ, Claps M, Davey FJ, Dunbar GB, Dunn AG, Fielding CR, Florindo F, Hannah MJ, Harwood DM, Henrys SA, Krissek LA, Lavelle M, van Der Meer J, McIntosh WC, Niessen F, Passchier S, Powell RD, Roberts AP, Sagnotti L, Scherer RP, Strong CP, Talarico F, Verosub KL, Villa G, Watkins DK, Webb PN, Wonik T

Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
(Science, Vol. 286. no. 5438, pp. 280 - 283, October 1999)
- H. Conway, B. L. Hall, G. H. Denton, A. M. Gades, E. D. Waddington

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise
(Science, Vol. 308. no. 5730, pp. 1898 - 1901, 24 June 2005)
- Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna


Arctic

Actual and insolation-weighted Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice between 1973–2002
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 22, Issue 6-7, pp. 591-595, 2004)
- R. Pielke, G. Liston, W. Chapman, D. Robinson

Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind
(Science, Vol. 307. no. 5707, p. 203, 14 January 2005)
- Richard A. Kerr

Sea-ice decline due to more than warming alone
(Nature 450, 27, 1 November 2007)
- Julia Slingo, Rowan Sutton


CO2 lags Temperature changes:

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg

Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
QUOTE
High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell

The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
QUOTE
The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.


Computer Climate Models:

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20717, 2005)
- Albert Arking

Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability
(Physical Review Letters, Vol. 89, No. 2, July 8, 2002)
- R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Warming Scare Tactics | Peer Review Papers

Google FTW. You should try ya know, looking for peer-reviewed science that isn't pro-agw, took me 3 seconds to find it. The list is huge.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Warming Scare Tactics | Peer Review Papers

Google FTW. You should try ya know, looking for peer-reviewed science that isn't pro-agw, took me 3 seconds to find it. The list is huge.

Yes I have seen a list like this before and usually it contains an awful lot of red herrings. Papers that actually support AGW or climate science in general or are posted in "energy and environment" which is not a peer reviewed journal but a "faux" journal.

So paper 1 - 4 no mention of AGW not happening

They do talk of the past changing climate and SURPRISE - that was never in contention. A couple talk of the historical correlation between solar variability and climate and again SURPRISE! That was never in contention - it is what they do NOT do - which is prove that the current warming trend is a result of the current solar output.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Which doesn't at all discuss what effect that increase might have. There are substances that, in very small amounts, can still kill you. Not having "very much" (by some arbitrary standard" doesn't mean there's little or no effect. I suppose you have some information on the radiative forcing of CO2?

Yes. One expects that a 0.00000003% increase in anything will be past the critical limit and lead to planetary sterilization in less than twenty years.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Please show me the scientific paper that states CO2 is the "sole driver of temperature"

Because I will bet you a spandy dandy stick of candy you cannot do that.

It's part of your religion.

If it's not the sole driver, explain why it's the sole target.

Then explain why so-called "developing" nations are allowed to spew as much CO2 as they wish.

Clearly the real driver is the desire to undermine the economies of the West, in particular the economy of the United States. Just in case you want to pretend you don't know it, Green Peace in particular was originally funded by the Kremlin as a tool to harm the West, and all other so-called "green" organizations draw inspiration from the same poisoned socialist/communist well.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,136
Reaction score
34,586
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes. One expects that a 0.00000003% increase in anything will be past the critical limit and lead to planetary sterilization in less than twenty years.

Your number is way wrong. CO2 has gone up about 40% thanks to our input. Also, nobody ever claimed "planetary sterilization in less than twenty years."
or, put in your own "debate" tactics:
How come you skeptics claim the moon is made out of cheese. That's just stupid! Hahah! Stupid skeptics!

It's part of your religion.

If it's not the sole driver, explain why it's the sole target.

Because human activity has no influence over volcanos, solar activity, continental configuration, or milankovitch cycles. Interestingly enough, none of these other climate forcings account for the current warming trend! CO2 is not the only driver of temperature. It is, however, the only way to account for the current trend in temperature. Solar activity has been flat for 50 years, yet we're getting warmer. Orbital precession should be putting us in a cooling trend, yet we're getting warmer. We've had no volcanic eruptions lately on a scale large enough to produce a long-term trend, plus volcanos create cooling trends, not warming trends. The continents do not appreciably change position over a mere century.

Skeptics love to say the current temperature trend is part of a natural cycle, but I've never seen an explanation of the mechanism for the current warming. It's natural? Ok, what causes it? What is the physical, natural process causing the current warming trend?



Notice anything about that solar trend over the last 50 years?
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Your number is way wrong. CO2 has gone up about 40% thanks to our input.

You really need to learn how to read for basic comprehension.

And yet, temperatures haven't gone up "40%". Fancy that.

BTW, why are you assuming that a warmer planet is bad, given that the history of when times were warmer than now show that things were better?

Because human activity has no influence over volcanos, solar activity, continental configuratn, or milankovitch cycles.

Exactly, so the arrogance of claiming that the minor contributions to a minor component of the heat balance is driving climatic trends is absurd.

End of argument.
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,331
Reaction score
3,589
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You really need to learn how to read for basic comprehension.

And yet, temperatures haven't gone up "40%". Fancy that.

Huh? What you are saying is basically the same as asking why it is not half as dark when you dive 15 feet deep instead of 10 feet deep since there is 50 percent more water to block the sunlight.
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes. One expects that a 0.00000003% increase in anything will be past the critical limit and lead to planetary sterilization in less than twenty years.

{{{{{{{{{{{shrugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} you can embrace any numbers you want - the reality is that the longwave radiation escaping from Earth has decreased. But meantime think on this - it took a whole lot less CFC to affect the Ozone - one that is still continuing to this day
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's part of your religion.

If it's not the sole driver, explain why it's the sole target.

Then explain why so-called "developing" nations are allowed to spew as much CO2 as they wish.

Clearly the real driver is the desire to undermine the economies of the West, in particular the economy of the United States. Just in case you want to pretend you don't know it, Green Peace in particular was originally funded by the Kremlin as a tool to harm the West, and all other so-called "green" organizations draw inspiration from the same poisoned socialist/communist well.
It is not the "sole" target - just the one we ARE able to action at present.

But the other drivers include

CFC's - although they were covered in the Montreal Protocol
Methane - yes Farts do have an impact - but it is also the methane welling from rice fields and the thawing of the Siberian Tundra
Nitrous Oxide - not mentioned often but it also plays a role

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,331
Reaction score
3,589
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's 1.43 last time I did the numbers.

Really. 1.43 PART PER MILLION.

Think about that for a while folks.

You are still throwing this out in an attempt to make this seem minor? We have been through this before discussing acidification of the oceans (although you used different numbers then).

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/45076-carbon-emissions-creating-acidic-oceans-not-seen-since-dinosaurs.html#post1057979966

In biological and geological timescales where things take thousands or millions of years to adapt that paltry sounding 1.43 ppm/yr rate of increase is massive - even if you completely disregard the AGW aspect of rising CO2 levels and solely look at its potential ramifications to marine environments.
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Warming Scare Tactics | Peer Review Papers

Google FTW. You should try ya know, looking for peer-reviewed science that isn't pro-agw, took me 3 seconds to find it. The list is huge.

Just in case you thought I had given up and gone away - let us visit this again and this time I will concentrate on the "Anthropogenic" papers

Paper 1 - is from "Energy and Environment" Which is not listed in the ISI list of peer reviewed journals - it is in fact a "trade journal"

The next two papers are from VERY well known sceptics Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas and Fred Singer

Sallie Baliunas is an astrophysicist not a climate scientist and has been caught out "fudging the figures" Sallie Baliunas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willie Soon is almost as infamous Willie Soon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are also well known "scientists for hire" working for right wing think tanks like Marshall institute and Cato.

Singer though is a whole 'nother ball game

A KNOWN tobacco industry shill and now a Big oil shill

S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch

You talk of scientists making money from climate change - well Fred Singer seems to have made a heap of money - mostly by selling his integrity, his opinions and his soul

Now we come to paper 4 on the list - and it is not a research article - it is in fact from the academic equivalent of "letters to the editor" in other words NOT peer reviewed

Here is the transcript

Surface temperature trends during the last two decades show a significant increase which appears to be anthropogenic in origin. We investigate global temperature changes using surface as well as satellite measurements and show that lower tropospheric temperature trends for the period 1979–2001 are spatially correlated to anthropogenic surface CO2 emissions, which we use as a measure of industrialization. Furthermore, temperature trends for the regions not spatially correlated with these CO2 emissions are considerably smaller or even negligible for some of the satellite data. We also show, using the same measure, that two important climate models do not reproduce the geographical climate response to all known forcings as found in the observed temperature trends. We speculate that the observed surface temperature changes might be a result of local surface heating processes and not related to radiative greenhouse gas forcing

Industrial CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends

Where does it say that anthropogenic global warming is not happening?

That is enough for today - will debunk more tomorrow
 
Top Bottom