CO2 passes Symbolic 400 PPM mark.

[code1211]

I didn't say anything about temperatures.

If you were aware of anything you would know that the last time CO2 levels were this high the oceans were also a lot higher, and large ungulates were grazing in the arctic circle.

but there IS a correlation between higher CO2 and higher temps - and scientists have identified that with our rising CO2 levels - faster over a sustained period than any natural rise has occurred - that temps will rise.

what I don't understand about the church of denialism is that they think one thing proves everything, and they appear to be so totally devoid of understanding that the natural world is not black and white - like their thinking.

oh wait. denialism is a religion of the more fundamentalist variety ... of course you think like that!

CO2 increase has almost always followed the increase of temperature and is usually caused by the increase in temperature as sequestered carbon is released. There may have been three instances in 4.5 billion years on this planet when the CO2 increase may have preceded the rise of temperature, but the distance back in time, tens of millions of years makes reading the difference of hundreds of years in the proxies a bit difficult.

At the time you cite, the global temperature was about 4 degrees higher than today and jungles covered Canada and most of the arctic. The higher CO2 ppm was almost certainly the result of the warmer temperature, not the cause. The vegetation that formed jungles that covered what we call the arctic today died as the temperature dropped and have been held in permafrost and the thawing of that permafrost is one of the largest contributors to CO2 today.

The reason that our climate changed so dramatically from that point probably has more to do with the drift of the continents and the resulting change in the currents of the oceans than with any other factor

There were no SUV's at that time nor were there coal fired power plants.

File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[code1211]

so what planet is your real world on?

Uranus?

This is an interactive web site.

You can plug in any start date you would like for any of the major temperature data gathering organizations in operation today. It's actually kind of fun.

Plug in a date of 1980, for instance, and the warming trend is steeply warming. Plug in 2000 and, for most, it's flat. Plug in 2003 and, for most, there is cooling.

Have fun!

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[code1211]

Why would the planet getting warmer being "natural" mean that we shouldn't attempt to ascertain why and then try to stop it?

Determining why it's happening is a good thing. Trying to stop the cause is good thing, too. Determining what that cause is before we stop that cause would be well advised.

Right now, the understanding of climate research is such that we know it's changing and have no idea why. We also know that the warming of the last 2000 years amounts to about 0.7 degrees.

We also know that more CO2 is emitted from the thawing Permafrost of Siberia than from the combined industry of the USA.

There is a whole bunch that we know. What we don't know with certainty is what the cause of the changing climate might be.

 

[code1211]

I was afraid that would be the answer. Warmists are like politicians. All they do is make empty promises.

Moving to Cleveland is a pretty harsh response to this. Actually, a pretty harsh response to anything...

 

[Papa bull]

Moving to Cleveland is a pretty harsh response to this. Actually, a pretty harsh response to anything...

The threat of having to move to Cleveland is something that can't be taken lightly. Consequences of that magnitude deserve serious consideration.

 

[Paschendale]

Determining why it's happening is a good thing. Trying to stop the cause is good thing, too. Determining what that cause is before we stop that cause would be well advised.

Right now, the understanding of climate research is such that we know it's changing and have no idea why. We also know that the warming of the last 2000 years amounts to about 0.7 degrees.

We also know that more CO2 is emitted from the thawing Permafrost of Siberia than from the combined industry of the USA.

There is a whole bunch that we know. What we don't know with certainty is what the cause of the changing climate might be.

I'm confused here. You don't seem to have a problem with the issue that carbon dioxide emissions is a serious problem. That's the main conclusion of climate science so far. Too much CO2 makes the heat not escape through the atmosphere and warm the planet. We can also see the effects of that warming. So what is there that we don't know? The only disagreement seems to be "should wealthy businesses give up some profits and undertake the expense and effort to embrace alternate technologies that will stop emitting so much CO2?" The pro big business faction goes bananas in opposition to any steps to control big business at all, as does the anti government faction. Hence why climate change became a left/right issue. The mantra of that issue is to say that human activity needn't change at all. Well, how is that possible? Why does Siberian CO2 act differently from human CO2? And why does only the amount that the USA emits matter? The global climate is a global problem. It's an issue the whole world needs to address.

 

[code1211]

I'm confused here. You don't seem to have a problem with the issue that carbon dioxide emissions is a serious problem. That's the main conclusion of climate science so far. Too much CO2 makes the heat not escape through the atmosphere and warm the planet. We can also see the effects of that warming. So what is there that we don't know? The only disagreement seems to be "should wealthy businesses give up some profits and undertake the expense and effort to embrace alternate technologies that will stop emitting so much CO2?" The pro big business faction goes bananas in opposition to any steps to control big business at all, as does the anti government faction. Hence why climate change became a left/right issue. The mantra of that issue is to say that human activity needn't change at all. Well, how is that possible? Why does Siberian CO2 act differently from human CO2? And why does only the amount that the USA emits matter? The global climate is a global problem. It's an issue the whole world needs to address.

Well, we have a buyer for what has been sold.

With the recent lack of warming, the question has come up of why the warming is not happening when the "Science" says that it should. Searching for the answer, the researcher in the link below used measurements of the satellites to which all of the researchers have access and discovered that the radiation escaping back into space is far greater than the folks who make the models are factoring in to their models.

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth
<snip>
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
<snip>

Also, there are about 50 factors that influence climate. One of these is greenhouse gases. One of the Greenhouse gases is CO2. The percent of Greenhouse gas which is CO2 is about 4% of the total of all Green house Gases. Water Vapor is by far the most heavily concentrated Green House gas weighing in at about 95% of the total.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

The question is, then, if the concentration of CO2 has increased by 43% from 280ppm to 400ppm, why hasn't the climate matched the rate of increase and why hasn't the predicted change in the temperature as portrayed by the models been reflected in the actual real world?

It might be because the warming effect of CO2 weakens with each additional incremental increase so now, the effect is hardly measurable at all. I've seen this explained as trying to keep the light from leaving a room by painting the outsides of all the windows. The first coat traps a bunch, just like the fist 20 or 30 ppm of CO2 traps a bunch of heat. The next coat blocks a little more, but not as much. the third blocks a little more, but the amount blocked by that coat is even less than the previous.

Continuing this analogy, we are now up to about the 15th coat of paint (CO2) on that window and all of the blocking it's capable of was pretty much fulfilled on about the 13th coat. There should be some measurable difference, but it is very, very slight.

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide | Watts Up With That?

Finally, the warming out of the Little Ice Age started in about 1600. The rapid rise of CO2 from the Industrial Revolution didn't start until until about 1800. If the increase in CO2 that occurred post industrial caused the warming to start 200 years before it happened, then the future caused the past. This does not happen outside of the set of Dr. Who or Star Trek.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

The issue the world needs to address is the upcoming war that will ravage the Middle East, the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the same region, the failing economies around the world due to the wrong headed leadership and the consequences of runaway debt in the first world countries.

 

[Paschendale]

Well, we have a buyer for what has been sold.

With the recent lack of warming, the question has come up of why the warming is not happening when the "Science" says that it should. Searching for the answer, the researcher in the link below used measurements of the satellites to which all of the researchers have access and discovered that the radiation escaping back into space is far greater than the folks who make the models are factoring in to their models.

And yet it is only a tiny fraction of researchers who have produced these results and claim that a "lack of warming" is occurring. Meanwhile, the consensus of the scientific community is that there has been substantial warming over the last century. Trying to find historical periods where the temperature was also higher doesn't really have any bearing on the issue. That the planet goes through temperature changes on its own is not in dispute. That problem is that this current change is more acute and is shaping up to be much more extreme than past examples. That water vapor is a more common greenhouse gas is also immaterial. There is not a significant change in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere going on. The scientific community that supports this theory makes predictions that come true. Some make exaggerated claims about imminent destruction and should be ignored. But serious problems are coming, and ignoring them won't make them go away.

The issue the world needs to address is the upcoming war that will ravage the Middle East, the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the same region, the failing economies around the world due to the wrong headed leadership and the consequences of runaway debt in the first world countries.

These are all serious issues, but we need to tackle all of our problems, not just the appealing ones. I'd certainly prefer to avoid a huge war. Why do you think it's a certainty?

 

[code1211]

And yet it is only a tiny fraction of researchers who have produced these results and claim that a "lack of warming" is occurring. Meanwhile, the consensus of the scientific community is that there has been substantial warming over the last century. Trying to find historical periods where the temperature was also higher doesn't really have any bearing on the issue. That the planet goes through temperature changes on its own is not in dispute. That problem is that this current change is more acute and is shaping up to be much more extreme than past examples. That water vapor is a more common greenhouse gas is also immaterial. There is not a significant change in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere going on. The scientific community that supports this theory makes predictions that come true. Some make exaggerated claims about imminent destruction and should be ignored. But serious problems are coming, and ignoring them won't make them go away.



These are all serious issues, but we need to tackle all of our problems, not just the appealing ones. I'd certainly prefer to avoid a huge war. Why do you think it's a certainty?

Check this interactive site which allows you to plug in the date you like to gauge the trend of temperature as measured by all of the data collection organizations on the planet:

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This demonstrates pretty conclusively that the temperature has leveled off and is trending down exactly as it always does every 60 years.

To doubt any notion presented as science, all you need is one question that is not answered. I think I've presented many. To have an actual scientific theory, you must be able to answer all of the questions and make predictions that work in the real world. Anthropogenic Global Warming Science can do none of this.

Why do I think the Middle East is going to break out in war? Well, for one thing, it already is. Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Israel, and all of the interactions with and the notable violence of Islam wherever an islamic majority contacts a different philosophy. The Hindus say that the borders of Islam are bloody.

There is little that I've seen to disprove that.

Add to that that our President has a foreign policy that is seemingly designed to disrupt and abandon the region and you have the stage set for a disaster.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[code1211]

And yet it is only a tiny fraction of researchers who have produced these results and claim that a "lack of warming" is occurring. Meanwhile, the consensus of the scientific community is that there has been substantial warming over the last century. Trying to find historical periods where the temperature was also higher doesn't really have any bearing on the issue. That the planet goes through temperature changes on its own is not in dispute. That problem is that this current change is more acute and is shaping up to be much more extreme than past examples. That water vapor is a more common greenhouse gas is also immaterial. There is not a significant change in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere going on. The scientific community that supports this theory makes predictions that come true. Some make exaggerated claims about imminent destruction and should be ignored. But serious problems are coming, and ignoring them won't make them go away.

Please present one prediction of global warming that is 30 or more years old that is accurate. I have looked for one and cannot find one.

I think scientists are very smart folks. In this particular discipline, they just can't figure it out at this time. They probably will and we'll be able to nail the weather for the destination of the anniversary holiday 5 years out, but it just isn't in the cards right now to even take a stab at it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What exactly is this 400 PPM level symbolic of ?

Well, because of my investment, I get excited when the Dow hits certain point. I'll bet Al Gore is real happy with so much invested in Carbon Trading!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can anyone tell me how long I have to wait before my house is beachfront property? I live in Ohio and am trying to evaluate my options for retirement planning.

I think I will be dead before my place is beachfront property. I should check a map though. I think I', about 400 ft above sea level, but I could be lower.

 

[Paschendale]

Please present one prediction of global warming that is 30 or more years old that is accurate. I have looked for one and cannot find one.

I think scientists are very smart folks. In this particular discipline, they just can't figure it out at this time. They probably will and we'll be able to nail the weather for the destination of the anniversary holiday 5 years out, but it just isn't in the cards right now to even take a stab at it.

You do know that climate and weather are two completely different things, right? Weather is an acute, local phenomenon, while climate is large scale and refers to general, overarching trends. Weather is why it snows one day and not the other. Climate is why Greenland is melting. Weather is unpredictable and changes quickly. Climate changes slowly and is thus predictable.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

You do know that climate and weather are two completely different things, right? Weather is an acute, local phenomenon, while climate is large scale and refers to general, overarching trends. Weather is why it snows one day and not the other. Climate is why Greenland is melting. Weather is unpredictable and changes quickly. Climate changes slowly and is thus predictable.

What do you think man can do to affect climate, which is the overarching in a planetary sense?

 

[Lord of Planar]

What is the impact that passing the 400 ppm level will have on climate?

I haven't seen any yet. We seem to be in a long term peak of temperature rise. Question is, do we later continue to rise, or is this it?

I think until we have another increase in the sun's output, this is our new average. I think between clearing the skies since the 70's and the lag of solar changes, i think this is the new long term average.

I contend CO2 will not change our average temperature. I contend that CO2 will continue to rise, even if we were to stop all CO2 output. This has to so with equilibrium of gas solubility in fluids. The ocean still has a lot of CO2 to out gas. Hold on for the ride.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm confused here. You don't seem to have a problem with the issue that carbon dioxide emissions is a serious problem. That's the main conclusion of climate science so far. Too much CO2 makes the heat not escape through the atmosphere and warm the planet. We can also see the effects of that warming. So what is there that we don't know? The only disagreement seems to be "should wealthy businesses give up some profits and undertake the expense and effort to embrace alternate technologies that will stop emitting so much CO2?" The pro big business faction goes bananas in opposition to any steps to control big business at all, as does the anti government faction. Hence why climate change became a left/right issue. The mantra of that issue is to say that human activity needn't change at all. Well, how is that possible? Why does Siberian CO2 act differently from human CO2? And why does only the amount that the USA emits matter? The global climate is a global problem. It's an issue the whole world needs to address.

I contend they have the sciences wrong when it comes to radiative forcing on the atmosphere with CO2.

 

[Paschendale]

What do you think man can do to affect climate, which is the overarching in a planetary sense?

The same thing that the blue-green algae did, or the meteor that killed the dinosaurs did. Alter the content of the atmosphere. What do you think we're talking about? And why do you think that women can't join in the fun?

 

[Papa bull]

I think I will be dead before my place is beachfront property. I should check a map though. I think I', about 400 ft above sea level, but I could be lower.

You're screwed. You won't have beachfront property until Charleton Heston finds a big ass torch sticking out of the sand while trying to escape from the gorillas.

 

[code1211]

You do know that climate and weather are two completely different things, right? Weather is an acute, local phenomenon, while climate is large scale and refers to general, overarching trends. Weather is why it snows one day and not the other. Climate is why Greenland is melting. Weather is unpredictable and changes quickly. Climate changes slowly and is thus predictable.

Then it should be very easy to find that prediction that is thirty years old and that is accurate and that is based on AGW Science.

Despite how easy this should be, I have never found one. When you do find it, I would appreciate it if you could post it and provide the link to it.

Please do so.

 

[Threegoofs]

Then it should be very easy to find that prediction that is thirty years old and that is accurate and that is based on AGW Science.

Despite how easy this should be, I have never found one. When you do find it, I would appreciate it if you could post it and provide the link to it.

Please do so.

Hansen,1981 and Hansen,1988.

Not that you'll accept then, of course. They were only published in Nature, not on an esteemed blog.

 

[code1211]

Hansen,1981 and Hansen,1988.

Not that you'll accept then, of course. They were only published in Nature, not on an esteemed blog.

Whether they were published in nature or printed on toilet paper, they were wrong. They missed the mark by 150%.

Keep posting the same erroneous guess by the absolute most accomplished scientist in the field which is sad because he is the absolute best there is and he is just awful.

If there was an equivalent to this in sports, it would be a team comprised only of 120 pound CPA's playing in the NFL with Danny Werfel at QB.

They would all be praying that none of them audited the opposition defense, but I digress.

If the best you have is a prediction that missed, and this is generous, by 150%, you've got nothing. If it was accurate, then there might be something to it. It's not. It's as simple as that.

Norwegian Climate Professor: Hansen’s Projection Off By 150%…Regrettable That Politicians Still View It As Reliable
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

The Hansen Model: Another very simple disproof of Anthropogenic Global Warming. | Debunk House

<snip>
Hansen’s scenarios “A” and “B” predicted a temperature anomaly about 1.0°C by 2009. Scenario “C” predicted an anomaly of about 0.7°C by 2009. Since Hansen’s publication, atmospheric CO2 levels have tracked Scenario “A” and CH4 levels have tracked Scenario “C”. Even though CH4 is a more potent greenhouse gas, it accounts for only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect:

CO2 is the “Big Kahuna”. Even if CH4 has 20X the greenhouse effect of CO2. 1800 ppb is 0.46% of 390 ppm…20 X 0.46% = 9.2%. At most, CH4 accounts for only about 10% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 in Earth’s current atmosphere.

So, according to Hansen’s 1988 predictions, the global temperature anomaly should be about 90% of the way from Scenario “C” to Scenario “A”… ~0.97°C. In reality, the global temperature anomaly is about half of what Hansen predicted for a similar rise in greenhouse gases.

The actual warming has been slightly less than Hansen’s Scenario C…

“In scenario C the CO2 growth is the same as scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv/yr; after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”

In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…
<snip>

 

[Threegoofs]

In most branches of science, they don't accept blogs, such as you posted as evidence.

Hansen is still cited in the literature quite often as a valid paper. I can't recall seeing your blog posting cited, ever.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

CO2 increase has almost always followed the increase of temperature and is usually caused by the increase in temperature as sequestered carbon is released. There may have been three instances in 4.5 billion years on this planet when the CO2 increase may have preceded the rise of temperature, but the distance back in time, tens of millions of years makes reading the difference of hundreds of years in the proxies a bit difficult.

At the time you cite, the global temperature was about 4 degrees higher than today and jungles covered Canada and most of the arctic. The higher CO2 ppm was almost certainly the result of the warmer temperature, not the cause. The vegetation that formed jungles that covered what we call the arctic today died as the temperature dropped and have been held in permafrost and the thawing of that permafrost is one of the largest contributors to CO2 today.

The reason that our climate changed so dramatically from that point probably has more to do with the drift of the continents and the resulting change in the currents of the oceans than with any other factor

There were no SUV's at that time nor were there coal fired power plants.

File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

it is true that CO2 can increase as a result of increased temps. the science, and the reasons why this is, is well known.

To confuse this with what is happening now is either evidence of not being aware of the science, or a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation to confuse the public.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

This is an interactive web site.

You can plug in any start date you would like for any of the major temperature data gathering organizations in operation today. It's actually kind of fun.

Plug in a date of 1980, for instance, and the warming trend is steeply warming. Plug in 2000 and, for most, it's flat. Plug in 2003 and, for most, there is cooling.

Have fun!

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

games don't always reflect reality.

 

[code1211]

it is true that CO2 can increase as a result of increased temps. the science, and the reasons why this is, is well known.

To confuse this with what is happening now is either evidence of not being aware of the science, or a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation to confuse the public.

In what way am I not aware of the science or attempting to spread misinformation?

If anything, from what i've seen in this thread, I'm one of the few that is actually linking to information.