Some basic, empirical evidence in favor of AGW

[Deuce]

Since Venus was brought up I think we should all understand the exact nature of the Venutian atmosphere. It is almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide and is 93 times as massive as the atmosphere of Earth. We are thus talking about nearly 2000 times as much carbon dioxide and yet the temperature is only about nine times that of Earth. Now I'm sure you'll come up with some reason for why that is, but let's be honest here: How much of an effect can it really have on Earth given this fact?

Well, for one, the effects of carbon dioxide are not linear and nobody ever claimed they were. Next, carbon dioxide doesn't cover the entire spectrum of outgoing radiation. Some energy will always escape, and as temperature rises, the intensity of that "missed" outgoing radiation will increase. Also, the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. We're not particularly interested in what it takes to heat the earth to that temperature, because we'd all have burnt alive long before that! A few degrees C over too short a time can have a strong adverse effect on animal and plant life. We eat those animals and plants, so that's not so good for us either.

There are countless reasons why outgoing radiation would be lower than incoming radiation that do not involve carbon dioxide. Our climate is incredibly complex and can be affected by dozens of occurrences. When the scientific community is so quick to claim carbon emissions as the cause of all our ills I get skeptical. Certainly pointing to fossil fuels as the main culprit is purely political in nature. Unfortunately, some people actually believe in the integrity of the scientific establishment.

Name one other reason that outgoing longwave infrared radiation would get absorbed as it travels through the atmosphere, and why by sheer coincidence that the radiation we're observing being absorbed is exactly in the spectrum that CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb.

 

[Demon of Light]

Well, for one, the effects of carbon dioxide are not linear and nobody ever claimed they were. Next, carbon dioxide doesn't cover the entire spectrum of outgoing radiation. Some energy will always escape, and as temperature rises, the intensity of that "missed" outgoing radiation will increase. Also, the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. We're not particularly interested in what it takes to heat the earth to that temperature, because we'd all have burnt alive long before that! A few degrees C over too short a time can have a strong adverse effect on animal and plant life. We eat those animals and plants, so that's not so good for us either.

It is a nice cop-out to say the effects are not linear. You haven't explained the reason. Venus is also closer to the Sun so one has to consider that as well. We are talking about 1800 times as much carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere as in Earth's atmosphere. The result of all this being just nine times the temperature. Yet here people are claiming increasing carbon dioxide by just about 50% is causing an increase of over a degree.

Name one other reason that outgoing longwave infrared radiation would get absorbed as it travels through the atmosphere, and why by sheer coincidence that the radiation we're observing being absorbed is exactly in the spectrum that CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb.

For one the ice is melting and doesn't reflect said radiation back. You might try to claim that was caused by global warming, but then I could say it was the end of the Little Ice Age. Then maybe you will claim it was anthropogenic global warming that ended the Little Ice Age. We could do this little do-si-do all day long.

Ultimately, however, your position requires humanity to be insanely accurate in measuring these things and fully understanding the mechanisms at play. Really the science is more speculative than concrete.

 

[Deuce]

It is a nice cop-out to say the effects are not linear. You haven't explained the reason. Venus is also closer to the Sun so one has to consider that as well. We are talking about 1800 times as much carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere as in Earth's atmosphere. The result of all this being just nine times the temperature. Yet here people are claiming increasing carbon dioxide by just about 50% is causing an increase of over a degree.

It's a cop-out to agree with you on basic physics principles? I didn't think I needed to explain your own argument to you.

For one the ice is melting and doesn't reflect said radiation back. You might try to claim that was caused by global warming, but then I could say it was the end of the Little Ice Age. Then maybe you will claim it was anthropogenic global warming that ended the Little Ice Age. We could do this little do-si-do all day long.

Ultimately, however, your position requires humanity to be insanely accurate in measuring these things and fully understanding the mechanisms at play. Really the science is more speculative than concrete.

"It's too hard" is the real cop-out. If you're not involved in climate research I don't see how you'd possibly be qualified to make such a statement. Surely building a nuclear weapon would require precision humanity is incapable of! Oh wait.

Ice reflection wouldn't explain the increase in downward radiation in this same spectrum. The outgoing radiation is absorbed by atmospheric gases and re-emitted in all directions. If it were just ice, we'd see outgoing radiation decrease but downward radiation stay the same. It really astonishes me when people come up with stuff like this and assume somehow in a century of work that nobody bothered to check for that sort of thing.

Yet again we're at the "it's magic" answer for why the temperature started increasing. So the little ice age ended. Why? It coincides with the industrial revolution. It does not coincide with an increase in the long-term trend of solar activity nor does it coincide with the milankovitch cycle.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Since Venus was brought up I think we should all understand the exact nature of the Venutian atmosphere. It is almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide and is 93 times as massive as the atmosphere of Earth. We are thus talking about nearly 2000 times as much carbon dioxide and yet the temperature is only about nine times that of Earth. Now I'm sure you'll come up with some reason for why that is, but let's be honest here: How much of an effect can it really have on Earth given this fact?

Compared to the amount of carbon dioxide that has been emitted by humans from all effects we are talking about an essentially irrelevant amount when considered with regards to Venus.

There are countless reasons why outgoing radiation would be lower than incoming radiation that do not involve carbon dioxide. Our climate is incredibly complex and can be affected by dozens of occurrences. When the scientific community is so quick to claim carbon emissions as the cause of all our ills I get skeptical. Certainly pointing to fossil fuels as the main culprit is purely political in nature. Unfortunately, some people actually believe in the integrity of the scientific establishment.

Venus.

Roughly twice the insolation.
No water.
No rotation.

Earth.

Rapid rotation.
Water retained by atmospheric cold trap.
Water comprises 99% of green house gases in atmosphere.
Biologic and geologic feedback mechanisms extract CO2 from atmoshere and return it to lithosphere in long term cycle.
Climatic variations of severe nature and rapid onset evidenced throughout all of Earth history, many notably more significant than the recent changes. Very few induce any form of mass extinction.

Mar.

Rapid rotation.
No notable surface water.
Thin atmosphere, mostly CO2.
Roughly half earth's insolation.
Apparently undergoing mild global warming period. Probably unrelated to Earth's, but not conclusive.


So, we have three planets to provide comparisons.

The assertion by many that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the current climate shifts are unfounded.

 

[Deuce]

Venus.

Roughly twice the insolation.
No water.
No rotation.

Earth.

Rapid rotation.
Water retained by atmospheric cold trap.
Water comprises 99% of green house gases in atmosphere.
Biologic and geologic feedback mechanisms extract CO2 from atmoshere and return it to lithosphere in long term cycle.
Climatic variations of severe nature and rapid onset evidenced throughout all of Earth history, many notably more significant than the recent changes. Very few induce any form of mass extinction.

Mar.

Rapid rotation.
No notable surface water.
Thin atmosphere, mostly CO2.
Roughly half earth's insolation.
Apparently undergoing mild global warming period. Probably unrelated to Earth's, but not conclusive.


So, we have three planets to provide comparisons.

The assertion by many that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the current climate shifts are unfounded.

This post does not provide evidence of this statement.

 

[Demon of Light]

"It's too hard" is the real cop-out. If you're not involved in climate research I don't see how you'd possibly be qualified to make such a statement. Surely building a nuclear weapon would require precision humanity is incapable of! Oh wait.

That is not what I was saying at all. Our climate is a highly complex system. Solar activity, the composition of the atmosphere, water salinity, and ocean currents are just some of the variables. Effectively modeling, monitoring, and predicting the behavior of our climate requires measuring all of these things constantly with considerable accuracy on a global level. It also requires being able to quantify the interrelated nature of all these varying effects. Small developments deep within the ocean, high up in the atmosphere, and far off in space can cause a cascading effect.

Countless ways, both natural and artificial, exist that can upset these elements of our climate. We do not even fully understand or have the ability to quantify the exact nature of these elements let alone how they could be affected and yet people seem to think they can say with 99% certainty that driving an SUV is turning the Earth into a frying pan. It's nonsense and clearly motivated more by politics than hard science.

A similar idea existed that predicted cataclysmic destruction from a man-made climatological disaster and it too was distorted and exaggerated by politically-motivated scientists. People still act as if a nuclear winter is a foregone conclusion in a nuclear war yet the world had detonated thousands of nuclear weapons of varying yields in varying areas and hardly made a dent.

Even on what were once foregone conclusions about the effect of an asteroid impact the actual effects are being challenged by recent discoveries.

I think many scientists and politicians believe their ideological or political motives are pure enough that they can distort and misrepresent the science so as to make people more frightened than they would be in the hopes this will lead to the desired changes. Being good stewards of the environment and preventing nuclear war are admirable goals and some people think they are worth lying to achieve.

Ice reflection wouldn't explain the increase in downward radiation in this same spectrum. The outgoing radiation is absorbed by atmospheric gases and re-emitted in all directions. If it were just ice, we'd see outgoing radiation decrease but downward radiation stay the same. It really astonishes me when people come up with stuff like this and assume somehow in a century of work that nobody bothered to check for that sort of thing.

How exactly do they measure that radiation? Also, more importantly, how do you tell if it is in fact being reflected back and that there isn't just more coming in? I am not certain about this point, but what of reflection from ice being stronger and thus more capable of passing through the atmosphere than any reflection from water?

Yet again we're at the "it's magic" answer for why the temperature started increasing. So the little ice age ended. Why? It coincides with the industrial revolution.

Actually most estimates show the temperature began increasing well before that. The lowest point of the Little Ice Age ended well before any industrial revolution. Your own graphs show the increase in emissions and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are both extremely small during this time as well. I am not sure how precise this is, but it appears the increase only becomes significant a few decades after the Little Ice Age ended.

It does not coincide with an increase in the long-term trend of solar activity nor does it coincide with the milankovitch cycle.

I told you before our climate is a very complex system. Much more than the sun and movements of the Earth determine how it behaves.

 

[Deuce]

How exactly do they measure that radiation? Also, more importantly, how do you tell if it is in fact being reflected back and that there isn't just more coming in? I am not certain about this point, but what of reflection from ice being stronger and thus more capable of passing through the atmosphere than any reflection from water?

This was explained in the OP. Incoming radiation from the sun and the outgoing radiation are of entirely different wavelengths. Shortwave infrared is the bulk of incoming energy. (along with the visible spectrum, obviously) Atmospheric gases do not absorb this energy, which is convenient because otherwise we'd probably be a ball of ice. We've tracked that energy indirectly via sunspot activity for more than a century, and more recently directly via ground stations and sattelites. Trivial to keep track of, these days. Longwave is the outgoing. The heat energy that any object emits is in the longwave infrared spectrum, and that includes the earth. CO2, water vapor, and the other greenhouse gases absorb this spectrum. Energy in this spectrum:
1) Is escaping the atmosphere in smaller amounts, correlating to the rise in greenhouse gases
2) Reflecting to earth in increasing amounts, correlating to the rise in greenhouse gases.
To reiterate again and again: Energy in exactly the spectrum that CO2 absorbs is escaping the atmosphere in smaller amounts and is returning to the surface in increasing amounts. It's getting absorbed. When these gases absorb this energy, they re-emit it, but in random/all directions. Some of it comes back down.

Ice does reflect solar energy. However, ice caps do not melt on a global scale just for fun. You need to raise the temperature to start them melting. I haven't heard icecaps described this way, but I believe this would make them a climate feedback (rather than a climate forcing.) Since icecaps are such a small percentage of the earth's surface area, I suspect their impact would be relatively small, but I don't recall numbers on this. If you want to point at melting ice as a cause of the current temperature trend, you're going to have to post some evidence. Oh wait, I get to just handwave your evidence because we couldn't possibly measure accurately enough, right? See how annoying that "argument" is?

Actually most estimates show the temperature began increasing well before that. The lowest point of the Little Ice Age ended well before any industrial revolution. Your own graphs show the increase in emissions and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are both extremely small during this time as well. I am not sure how precise this is, but it appears the increase only becomes significant a few decades after the Little Ice Age ended.

Evidence please.

I told you before our climate is a very complex system. Much more than the sun and movements of the Earth determine how it behaves.

Climate is complicated. Temperature is not. You're just repeating the same mantra of every other skeptic. It's too complicated. It's natural. We don't know. That's not an argument, that's not evidence, that's throwing your hands up. I only mentioned those two because those two are the primary "natural cycle" drivers that skeptics love to point to. You keep mention that there are numerous variables. Show me one that actually accounts for the current trend. And some evidence to back up your statement.

 

[Demon of Light]

This was explained in the OP. Incoming radiation from the sun and the outgoing radiation are of entirely different wavelengths. Shortwave infrared is the bulk of incoming energy. (along with the visible spectrum, obviously) Atmospheric gases do not absorb this energy, which is convenient because otherwise we'd probably be a ball of ice. We've tracked that energy indirectly via sunspot activity for more than a century, and more recently directly via ground stations and sattelites. Trivial to keep track of, these days. Longwave is the outgoing. The heat energy that any object emits is in the longwave infrared spectrum, and that includes the earth. CO2, water vapor, and the other greenhouse gases absorb this spectrum. Energy in this spectrum:
1) Is escaping the atmosphere in smaller amounts, correlating to the rise in greenhouse gases
2) Reflecting to earth in increasing amounts, correlating to the rise in greenhouse gases.
To reiterate again and again: Energy in exactly the spectrum that CO2 absorbs is escaping the atmosphere in smaller amounts and is returning to the surface in increasing amounts. It's getting absorbed. When these gases absorb this energy, they re-emit it, but in random/all directions. Some of it comes back down.

Ice does reflect solar energy. However, ice caps do not melt on a global scale just for fun. You need to raise the temperature to start them melting. I haven't heard icecaps described this way, but I believe this would make them a climate feedback (rather than a climate forcing.) Since icecaps are such a small percentage of the earth's surface area, I suspect their impact would be relatively small, but I don't recall numbers on this. If you want to point at melting ice as a cause of the current temperature trend, you're going to have to post some evidence. Oh wait, I get to just handwave your evidence because we couldn't possibly measure accurately enough, right? See how annoying that "argument" is?

You responded to precisely one question I asked. Also, melting of the ice caps has another effect on the salinity of the oceans which impacts the ocean current system that plays a significant role in the climate.

Evidence please.

You will see that the lowest point in most of those estimates is around 1600, well before the industrial revolution in any country. Go back to the first part with your own graph of carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric content and you will see also that the temperature was rising apparently before the rise in carbon dioxide and well before that rise became significant.

Climate is complicated. Temperature is not. You're just repeating the same mantra of every other skeptic. It's too complicated. It's natural. We don't know. That's not an argument, that's not evidence, that's throwing your hands up. I only mentioned those two because those two are the primary "natural cycle" drivers that skeptics love to point to. You keep mention that there are numerous variables. Show me one that actually accounts for the current trend. And some evidence to back up your statement.

This is what's even more annoying. It is not on me to show only carbon emissions by man could have caused the warming effect. That, my friend, is on you and those pushing anthropogenic global warming due to carbon emissions. Especially you have to show it is our use of fossil fuels that is doing this since you are using that as a basis for the claim that reducing use of such fuels will appreciably impact the warming effect.

 

[Deuce]

You responded to precisely one question I asked. Also, melting of the ice caps has another effect on the salinity of the oceans which impacts the ocean current system that plays a significant role in the climate.

You asked several questions on a related subject and I gave an answer I thought covered the important parts. We know it's not just "more energy coming in" because this energy isn't seen at the satellite level.

You will see that the lowest point in most of those estimates is around 1600, well before the industrial revolution in any country. Go back to the first part with your own graph of carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric content and you will see also that the temperature was rising apparently before the rise in carbon dioxide and well before that rise became significant.

The low point is around 1600 but the steep climb doesn't begin until 1850. Depending on which line you use, there isn't even any rise until 1850. This would probably be a more helpful chart if separated out.

This is what's even more annoying. It is not on me to show only carbon emissions by man could have caused the warming effect. That, my friend, is on you and those pushing anthropogenic global warming due to carbon emissions. Especially you have to show it is our use of fossil fuels that is doing this since you are using that as a basis for the claim that reducing use of such fuels will appreciably impact the warming effect.

Ahh yes, the "no YOU show evidence" argument. Look, I've shown evidence that CO2 causes warming. I'm not going to do a detailed explanation of every single possible cause of temperature changes. You'll just come up with more excuses/ideas or claim we can't measure things properly or can't trust the scientists because they're political. It's not the sun and it's not the earth's orbit. If you have another theory, show some evidence to back it up. This is a debate forum. If you have alternatives, you can't just throw them out there and expect me to prove or disprove them for you.

I think it's aliens. PROVE TO ME THAT IT'S NOT!

 

[Demon of Light]

You asked several questions on a related subject and I gave an answer I thought covered the important parts. We know it's not just "more energy coming in" because this energy isn't seen at the satellite level.

Actually they all concerned different subjects and you only answered one.

The low point is around 1600 but the steep climb doesn't begin until 1850. Depending on which line you use, there isn't even any rise until 1850. This would probably be a more helpful chart if separated out.

I agree that it would be easier to read, but still you can tell a few things. There seem to be only two estimate that show a rise only in 1850. Also, as I noted, your graph shows carbon dioxide levels were not rising seriously until long after 1850. Here is another interesting comparison showing a disconnect between the claims:

That is a measure of sea ice over the years. You will notice the shrinkage begin right about the beginning of the 1970's, though we cannot determine their full reliability since earlier data used less capable methods. Here is a graph of global temperatures in that period:

There you will see clearly that the next big rise did not come until the late 1970's. In other words the icecaps melting was before the warming effect. You will look back further and see a smaller shrinkage of sea ice from the 1950 to 1960 that corresponded with lower global temperatures. There is an apparent delay between sea ice melting and global temperatures rising as you will note temperatures did rise a few years after the first period in the 1950's and in the current period of shrinkage.

Such a delay could reasonably suggest it is the sea ice melting that is causing the warming effect.

Here is a chart on solar activity:

List of solar cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is particularly interesting is that the two periods of ice shrinkage I noted correlated much closer with the solar cycles than temperature changes. The polar ice caps, where most of the sea ice is located, are protected by a thinner portion of the atmosphere as you may very well know. Hence while such activity may not heat most of the world that much on average it can still have a strong effect on the polar ice caps.

Ahh yes, the "no YOU show evidence" argument. Look, I've shown evidence that CO2 causes warming. I'm not going to do a detailed explanation of every single possible cause of temperature changes. You'll just come up with more excuses/ideas or claim we can't measure things properly or can't trust the scientists because they're political. It's not the sun and it's not the earth's orbit. If you have another theory, show some evidence to back it up. This is a debate forum. If you have alternatives, you can't just throw them out there and expect me to prove or disprove them for you.

I think it's aliens. PROVE TO ME THAT IT'S NOT!

Typically, you want to make this into an issue of me not providing evidence, when in fact the burden of proof is on you. It is not about proving any alternative is impossible, but only showing that the effect you mention cannot be reasonably accounted for by another aspect of the climate. That is not on me to do as I am not claiming what caused it, you are. Demanding I find or engage in the required research to present an alternative theory is shirking your responsibility as the theory's proponent. It is up to you to show my objections are unreasonable or accounted for in your theory.

Certainly when that theory carries with it the demand for political action it is up to you to show such action is justified and not me.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Some basic facts to establish
We need to address some fundamental facts in order to act as a base for this discussion. Although you wouldn't know it from spending time at these forums, agreeing on a base set of reality is important to debate!

• Mankind has caused an increase in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere.

One would think that this point doesn't need to even be mentioned. After all, .....hot air. (drumbeat) Actually, I'll refer to this as a mistake, rather than making the assumption that they are deliberately misleading people.

Ya, I don't know if I'm aware of TOO MANY people that would go so far as to say that we haven't pushed the CO2 levels artificially high... but then again, knowing people, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it...

I can agree with you... and I like this post, It's worth a legitimate response, and not my usual reduction to the level of a joke.

The reason this mistake is made is a lack of consideration for the other half of nature's carbon cycle. While natu....pulls more carbon out of the air than it releases into the air.

Thanks, nature! Say, where does all this carbon go? Ahh, plants you say. Every year when plants grow, they do so by ... bottle that hasn't been open for too long. the moral of the story is, don't shake the ocean)

I think your linked pictures are a bit misleading... Seriously, in total humans have made a difference in the atmosphere of 0.01% of it's composition. It's on the level of 'background noise' in the grand scheme.

Though this does not differentiate between 'man-made' vs natural, but at least the pic was accurate in showing the sources of CO2.

I don't have the specific numbers, but it was fairly recently I heard the number of 450ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere... here's the thing, if you go into most greenhouses they keep the CO2 are MORE then double that. So... even if you double CO2, sure it might get a little bit hotter on average, but it certainly won't cause the end of civilization like :



Sorry, i can't help but put the ways in which this 'green movement' is really just a way to get the people behind a certain objective... the carbon tax... it doesn't matter WHAT the problem is, the solution is a big tax, and a tax on exhalation and training gestapo level squads from kids to be completely 'green' enforcement...

I know the commercial is just a joke, but within that 'joke' is a grain of truth about the intentions of the aims of the global warming extremists.

This is simple, unassailable physics. We've known this for more than a century, but more recently fine-tuned the wavelengths when the Air Force needed to work on....some not-pictured gases like CFCs and methane. Oh no! The radiation comes in, but not all of it gets out! The greenhouse effect, we're doomed! Actually, for the most part this is a good thing. Without this effect, the earth would be about 33 C colder than it is now. Giant, lifeless ball of ice. Good for snowmen, bad for humans.

Ya, CO2 is a GOOD gas... I mean, of course if you're breathing into a bag you'll succumb to CO2 poisoning... but I think it was somewhere around 4500ppm of atmospheric levels of CO2 before you start having ill effects... That's according to the MSDS sheet (though that concerns CO2 cartridges like for pellet guns). What the studies won't tell you is that it takes nearly that 10X atmospheric levels before there starts being some real ill effects... but that's not reasonable, because plants become more efficient as you increase CO2. Also, in the longer history of the earth we are in a state that would be considered 'co2 starved'... but then again, there were mosquitos the size of footballs back then too, so let's not get crazy

Ok, so why is THIS important? The fundamental fact is that CO2 is one of several greenhouse gases. It absorbs radiation that would otherwise have gone to space. This energy gets re-emitted in all directions, causing heating.

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer
A whole bunch of papers on the subject.

Yes, CO2 really is a 'green house gas'... the main problem with the 'extremist' science is that they've created the fallacy that their climate models were based somewhere along reality... I've yet to be corrected on my claim that they had NOT considered solar rays in these models but temperature readings to create sometimes generational predictions of doom... those are the ones that all failed ever test . But, as far as the 'green movement' behind the extremists... I will only say that even if you cut off a wolf's head it can still bite your head off.... and yes, these people ARE that dangerous now that the whole agenda is failing.

Sorry, back to the subject.

Yes, it's a greenhouse gas, but the most I'll give the science is that they know it has AN effect... but not HOW MUCH of ANY effect... but there are larger factors, if the sun stops producing energy we'll cool and most of any warming seen by co2 would be completely offset by the lack of radiation coming in.

On to the empirical evidence
Phew, finally. So, we've got these theories about CO2 causing warming, but can we back that up with evidence? Why yes, we can! These days, it's actually quite easy. Remember that longwave infrared radiation that the earth radiates and CO2 absorbs? We can track that. What we monitor:
1) Outgoing radiation across the spectrum, via satellites.
2) Incoming radiation across the spectrum, via ground stations.
3) Temperature, of course

Those are sound scientific principles, but until the errors of the extremists are out of the picture the science has a gushing wound in it's public appearance... many of the lead scientists no longer debate if 'deniers' (like holocaust deniers) are going to be present.

Now, I'll give that our tracking systems have improved dramatically over even the past 10 years. What I don't think is that they are still able to get anything of notable accuracy beyond the 7-14 days out given the most powerful computers and experts in predicting the weather.... cause we're so dependant as a society that we need someone to tell us when to wear a jacket or bring an umbrella, side point. It's mathematically proven that the weather networks are 50% accurate 7days out (maybe that's increased since I've last actually seen numbers, but not past 14 days... if they could predict with any accuracy they would push the predictions further.

While the technology is improving, we still don't understand fully all the cycles, and influences that lead into the climate on any given day in one of the thousands of microclimates around the world, nevermind how to predict how these things will occur in the future.

So, if the theory is that increases in greenhouse gases will cause the atmosphere to absorb more energy that would otherwise escape, causing heating, what can we expect to see?
1) Outgoing radiation in the spectrum absorbed by CO2 to decrease, relative to sun's output.
2) Incoming radiation in the spectrum absorbed by CO2 to increase, as some of this outgoing radiation is reflected back down to earth.
3) The changes in these two to correspond to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
4) A rise in temperature

Ok, but this rise in temperature is offset by many things :
- The time of day, for example
- The part of the world
- The time of the year
- variable pressures, and so many other factors that even if I tried naming it all I woulnd't do justice.

To illustrate my point, when it's winter over hear, I can go into a bus shelter, where the CO2 level would be notedly higher within and it would still be cold. So, for CO2 to provide any warming, there must be energy sufficient to produce that heat, and the conditions for that make it so that, if you're in the northern hemisphere, the earth is cooler when the planet is closer to the sun.

But, ultimately, what is the PURPOSE of the science???? Is it to determine what is going to end the species, or is it to produce super energy efficient products using, or is it to end the use of fossil fuels??? Since there are many liars in the green extremists, (some of them wearing a labcoat) one has to wonder what motivates the people that push the movement with the end of the world predictions???

Phew! That was a bit of work. I had typed up some more on the common skeptics' counter-arguments, but it got eaten by the computer and I don't feel like retyping it at this particular moment.

Because if you were around my age or older and took a science class through to grade 12 you had the knowledge to debunk global warming scientists and the intense predictions of doom.... (btw, I also have to note Al Gores new beach house property, cause he's so concerned about the ocean levels rising). I remember being taught about DDT's, CFC's, and dioxins and how those things were destroying the earth (which I later heard how these products had patents expiring around the same time frame, I don't know... I just remember how it made eggshells soft, etc... real problems. So, to look at 'co2', it's like come on man, the more CO2 you pump in the more plants will grow and the faster they will grow... that's why it's much more difficult to get really good hardwoods anymore, because the trees grow faster.

Now, I know there are skeptics out there who will just handwave this entire post with "CANT TRUST THE SCIENTISTS," but those people might very well be beyond help. The hope is that there are people out there who are more open-minded while being skeptical, who perhaps just haven't taken the time to learn more about the science behind it all. Maybe they'll read this and go "hmm, maybe there's more to this than I thought. I'll go read more and learn things!"

Hooray for learning.

No no... it's not 'i don't trust scientists' I don't trust people with dual agendas.

Ex : IPCC science have the open agenda to save the earth but the secret agenda to create a situation that gets a carbon tax system in place.

Or, Al Gore, open agenda, save the planet, secret agenda, get paid by funding carbon trading companies... though he'd deny that allegation. Which I would do as well in his position.

 

[Deuce]

Ya, I don't know if I'm aware of TOO MANY people that would go so far as to say that we haven't pushed the CO2 levels artificially high... but then again, knowing people, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it...

I can agree with you... and I like this post, It's worth a legitimate response, and not my usual reduction to the level of a joke.



I think your linked pictures are a bit misleading... Seriously, in total humans have made a difference in the atmosphere of 0.01% of it's composition. It's on the level of 'background noise' in the grand scheme.

Though this does not differentiate between 'man-made' vs natural, but at least the pic was accurate in showing the sources of CO2.

Of course, nitrogen, oxygen, and argon are not greenhous gases. They do not absorb energy in the longwave infrared spectrum and therefore are not particularly relevant to a discussion in climate change.

I don't have the specific numbers, but it was fairly recently I heard the number of 450ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere... here's the thing, if you go into most greenhouses they keep the CO2 are MORE then double that. So... even if you double CO2, sure it might get a little bit hotter on average, but it certainly won't cause the end of civilization like :



Sorry, i can't help but put the ways in which this 'green movement' is really just a way to get the people behind a certain objective... the carbon tax... it doesn't matter WHAT the problem is, the solution is a big tax, and a tax on exhalation and training gestapo level squads from kids to be completely 'green' enforcement...

Which is why I always stress listening to scientists and not spokesman like Al Gore or borderline ecoterrorists like Greenpeace. The "objective" of those scientists isn't a carbon tax. It's "hey we want the third world to still be able to feed itself in 50 years."

I know the commercial is just a joke, but within that 'joke' is a grain of truth about the intentions of the aims of the global warming extremists.

Why does anybody care what extremists think?

Ya, CO2 is a GOOD gas... I mean, of course if you're breathing into a bag you'll succumb to CO2 poisoning... but I think it was somewhere around 4500ppm of atmospheric levels of CO2 before you start having ill effects... That's according to the MSDS sheet (though that concerns CO2 cartridges like for pellet guns). What the studies won't tell you is that it takes nearly that 10X atmospheric levels before there starts being some real ill effects... but that's not reasonable, because plants become more efficient as you increase CO2. Also, in the longer history of the earth we are in a state that would be considered 'co2 starved'... but then again, there were mosquitos the size of footballs back then too, so let's not get crazy

Nobody ever claimed the toxicity of CO2 is what would be a problem for us.

Yes, CO2 really is a 'green house gas'... the main problem with the 'extremist' science is that they've created the fallacy that their climate models were based somewhere along reality... I've yet to be corrected on my claim that they had NOT considered solar rays in these models but temperature readings to create sometimes generational predictions of doom... those are the ones that all failed ever test . But, as far as the 'green movement' behind the extremists... I will only say that even if you cut off a wolf's head it can still bite your head off.... and yes, these people ARE that dangerous now that the whole agenda is failing.

Uhh. Solar output is very well tracked and discussed. We've been monitoring solar activity via sunspots for centuries, and since the 1970's solar output has been directly monitored by satellites. (Total Solar Irradiance, the measurement is called.) Unless you mean cosmic rays? These change on a multi-million year time scale, as the earth passes through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Even the prominent climate skeptic who did the research on cosmic rays admits that the principle his work is based on would not account for the current warming trend.

Since 1960, the long-term trend in solar output has been completely flat, yet the largest increase in temperature was during this period.

Yes, it's a greenhouse gas, but the most I'll give the science is that they know it has AN effect... but not HOW MUCH of ANY effect... but there are larger factors, if the sun stops producing energy we'll cool and most of any warming seen by co2 would be completely offset by the lack of radiation coming in.

See above. Here's a fun chart!


I mean, really? You think that in a century's worth of research, nobody bothered to check if maybe the sun was influencing temperature? Solar output, obviously, has a strong influence on temperature trends. It does not, however, account for the current warming trend.

Those are sound scientific principles, but until the errors of the extremists are out of the picture the science has a gushing wound in it's public appearance... many of the lead scientists no longer debate if 'deniers' (like holocaust deniers) are going to be present.

They are sound principles. They are also not the cause of the current warming trend. Why continue discussing something that is already disproven? The sun is not causing this. Period.

Now, I'll give that our tracking systems have improved dramatically over even the past 10 years. What I don't think is that they are still able to get anything of notable accuracy beyond the 7-14 days out given the most powerful computers and experts in predicting the weather.... cause we're so dependant as a society that we need someone to tell us when to wear a jacket or bring an umbrella, side point. It's mathematically proven that the weather networks are 50% accurate 7days out (maybe that's increased since I've last actually seen numbers, but not past 14 days... if they could predict with any accuracy they would push the predictions further.

Climate is not weather. Odd as it may seem, Global Average Temperture is way easier to calculate than predicting weather, because an average by nature will eliminate local variations. The only variables in Global Average Temperatures are Energy In and Energy Out. Nobody is predicting rain on august 14, 2036, or that the temperature in Houston, TX will be 102 degrees. It's "the world's average temperature will be approximately ____, which is higher than today."

While the technology is improving, we still don't understand fully all the cycles, and influences that lead into the climate on any given day in one of the thousands of microclimates around the world, nevermind how to predict how these things will occur in the future.

We don't really need to predict microclimates. Global temperature drives microclimates, not the other way around.

Ok, but this rise in temperature is offset by many things :
- The time of day, for example
- The part of the world
- The time of the year
- variable pressures, and so many other factors that even if I tried naming it all I woulnd't do justice.

-No
-No
-Sortof
-No.

These drive weather. Not global average temperature.

To illustrate my point, when it's winter over hear, I can go into a bus shelter, where the CO2 level would be notedly higher within and it would still be cold. So, for CO2 to provide any warming, there must be energy sufficient to produce that heat, and the conditions for that make it so that, if you're in the northern hemisphere, the earth is cooler when the planet is closer to the sun.

See above. You're still on local scales when you should be global. Averages. AVERAGES.

But, ultimately, what is the PURPOSE of the science???? Is it to determine what is going to end the species, or is it to produce super energy efficient products using, or is it to end the use of fossil fuels??? Since there are many liars in the green extremists, (some of them wearing a labcoat) one has to wonder what motivates the people that push the movement with the end of the world predictions???

One might question the motivations of the people who push the opposite. Except those motivations are clear: Profit.
I challenge you to find a peer-reviewed scientific paper that you might classify as "extremist." I think you, like most skeptics, are not distinguishing the difference between real scientific papers and what journalists and spokesmen spit at you.

Because if you were around my age or older and took a science class through to grade 12 you had the knowledge to debunk global warming scientists and the intense predictions of doom.... (btw, I also have to note Al Gores new beach house property, cause he's so concerned about the ocean levels rising). I remember being taught about DDT's, CFC's, and dioxins and how those things were destroying the earth (which I later heard how these products had patents expiring around the same time frame, I don't know... I just remember how it made eggshells soft, etc... real problems. So, to look at 'co2', it's like come on man, the more CO2 you pump in the more plants will grow and the faster they will grow... that's why it's much more difficult to get really good hardwoods anymore, because the trees grow faster.

CO2 boosts plant growth... to a point. A point not much higher than the current CO2 levels, because plants are adapted to this particular level of absorption. Plants might like extra CO2, but they are only physically capable of absorbing so much.

Extreme temperature events, on the other hand, do not help plant growth. They seriously, seriously harm it. Ask the Russians, who had to ban export of wheat because their crops are so bad this year they aren't sure they'll be able to feed themselves properly.

No no... it's not 'i don't trust scientists' I don't trust people with dual agendas.

Ex : IPCC science have the open agenda to save the earth but the secret agenda to create a situation that gets a carbon tax system in place.

I'm not asking for blind faith. Read the science, not the propoganda. What would an IPCC scientist stand to gain from a carbon tax, anyway? You think there's some sort of kickback from carbon credits to the scientists?

Or, Al Gore, open agenda, save the planet, secret agenda, get paid by funding carbon trading companies... though he'd deny that allegation. Which I would do as well in his position.

Conspiracy theory forum is that way ---->
You started off at least discussing science... sortof. Then you went into conspiracy theory mode. Seriously, this thread is not about conspiracies, it's about science. Take it somewhere else.

Climate skeptics often say that the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle. Here's a challenge for you:

Tell me the physical mechanism for this "natural cycle," and provide some peer-reviewed evidence supporting that statement. "It's natural" is not a better answer than "it's magic" or "God did it." What physical process causes this warming?

 

[Demon of Light]

Sorry, i can't help but put the ways in which this 'green movement' is really just a way to get the people behind a certain objective... the carbon tax... it doesn't matter WHAT the problem is, the solution is a big tax, and a tax on exhalation and training gestapo level squads from kids to be completely 'green' enforcement...

It is not just about a tax. Rather they want to create an entire global regulatory structure. Just like with the financial crisis they have cultivated a myth about global warming that is favorable to their ends.

Yes, it's a greenhouse gas, but the most I'll give the science is that they know it has AN effect... but not HOW MUCH of ANY effect...

Here are a few interesting pictures on that. The first show global carbon dioxide concentrations as of 2003:

The next pictures show the change in temperatures globally:

Orange means it is getting a lot hotter while blue means it is getting a lot colder. The arctic, where there are lower concentrations of carbon dioxide, is showing a huge increase in temperatures while some areas that have a higher concentration are actually colder.

Tell me the physical mechanism for this "natural cycle," and provide some peer-reviewed evidence supporting that statement. "It's natural" is not a better answer than "it's magic" or "God did it." What physical process causes this warming?

I gave a pretty good suggestion up above, but you have ignored it for weeks.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Some basic empirical evidence against the global warming hoax.

It's cold in California.

It's been cold in California all "summer".

It's cold in Antartica, too.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Global Warming Debate


There is evidence that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. The rate of increase is slow, and is certainly not unreasonable. The average temperature has fluctuated rather widely in recent geological history. In fact, it is generally assumed that we are in an interglacial era, and that the temperature is changing is less remarkable than if it remained unchanged. The reasons for continental glaciation are still quite unknown, and prediction is not possible. It is somewhat remarkable that permanent ice still persists at polar latitudes and high altitudes, since this does not appear to be typical in geologic history. At present, then, it would be reasonable for the Earth's temperature either to decrease or to increase, since it is at a rather intermediate level, perhaps cooler than normal, so an increase would not be surprising.

The argument current among some scientists, politicians and the general public (not remarkable for geologic knowledge) is that the increase in temperature is caused by carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activity, and that restriction of coal burning by electrical utilities, together with some less effective measures, will reduce the carbon dioxide concentration and solve the problem. It is indeed an inconvenient truth that this simple argument is rubbish.

We have noted above that by far the most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor. Some very small increase in its atmospheric concentration, perhaps caused by human activity, would also cause an increased greenhouse effect, and an increase in the Earth's average temperature if the greenhouse effect is indeed responsible for climate. Exactly the same argument can be made for water vapor as for carbon dioxide. For example, burning natural gas produces large quantities of the principal greenhouse gas, while if coal is burned to produce the same amount of heat, only the much less effective carbon dioxide is emitted, turning the usual argument on its head. The atmosphere is no more a closed system for water vapor than it is for carbon dioxide, and what is added may not end up in the atmosphere after all. In fact, agriculture could be responsible for much water vapor, and since agriculture increases at the same rate as population, this would provide an anthropogenic source as well.

Not only is water vapor not mentioned in connection with global warming, neither is the effect of population, except peripherally. If global warming is anthropogenic, then the only means of preventing it would be a significant reduction in human numbers, which seems politically impossible. It is another inconvenient truth that there appears to be no way for human population to be self-limiting until resources are exhausted and starvation does the job. Russia seems to be the only major country expecting a decrease in population (which they are doing all possible to avoid). This is valid even in the carbon dioxide picture. Predictions are now being made for times when the population will certainly exceed the resources, as soon as 2050, when the population will (hypothetically) have doubled. How much limitation of carbon dioxide can be realized in this case?

More carbon dioxide and warmer weather are good news for plants (they survive and give us food even with the small amount of carbon dioxide available in the atmosphere). Such conditions are maintained in some actual greenhouses to increase crop yield, but any positive consequences of global warming or increased carbon dioxide are extremely unpopular with the enthusiasts.

None of the proposals for controlling climate can be expected to have any measurable effects whatever, as good as they may be for conservation and efficiency.

Dr James B. Calvert
Associate Professor Emeritus of Engineering, University of Denver
Registered Professional Engineer, State of Colorado No.12317


I've been using stronger words than "rubbish".

 

[BmanMcfly]

Of course, nitrogen, oxygen, and argon are not greenhous gases. They do not absorb energy in the longwave infrared spectrum and therefore are not particularly relevant to a discussion in climate change.

Right, but the point was to show that were' talking about a trace gas, so the relevance is that while sure there might be an influence, it's hardly a guiding influence... and there are many intricacies. The main example is that because of CO2 increasing forests are starting to regrow at a much faster rate then anticipated.

The bottom line, 30 years ago it was global cooling and the discussion was to attempt weather modification to prevent an ice age... and now we're supposed to be in a panic because the the oceans will turn to acid... SO, before we start looking at solutions to a 'problem' which is probably not even a problem, since it's preferable to have a warmer climate then a cooler one.

Which is why I always stress listening to scientists and not spokesman like Al Gore or borderline ecoterrorists like Greenpeace. The "objective" of those scientists isn't a carbon tax. It's "hey we want the third world to still be able to feed itself in 50 years."

hehe... no, the UN and the IPCC, the CRU and all those other groups that are at the head of the global warming "consensus science" / extremist alarmists... they are going off of Club of Rome plans for the environment.

Why does anybody care what extremists think?

Because the 'extremists" are in lab coats and trying to sell the world that a trace nutrient gas is a deadly toxin that will catastrophically change the earths climate next year or at the latest sometime in the next century.

Those from greenpeace are more like the 'low level activists' for this agenda.

Nobody ever claimed the toxicity of CO2 is what would be a problem for us.

The point is that by the time that CO2 is the cause of environmental concerns IS the point that the atmosphere begins to get toxic.

CO is more toxic, the lead that was burnt in many gasolines is more toxic, many plastics have hormone disrupting chemicals, runoff of birthcontrol drugs, pulp and paper, the chemicals that shed off your tires while you drive, etc... even genetic pollution is a real environmental concern that needs to be addressed, but instead we get propaganda which targets the lowest common denominator, to literally make humanity the enemy of mankind. Sure you're saying now that it's necessary to create a post-industrial society, but that's not the end of this... by targeting CO2, eventually it gets to the point where cap and tax gets so low (remember EVERY policy advisor's solution to global warming IS carbon taxes OR cap and trade, unless you're able to show different) that it will become evident that, 'eventually one of these is going to come down almost to 0' (refering to CO2 = People * Activities * Energy / Activity) important to note that when he said this the 'People' section of the equation was highlighted. Though his solution was to use vaccines to lower birth rates.

Uhh. Solar output is very well tracked and discussed. We've been monitoring solar activity via sunspots for centuries, and since the 1970's solar output has been directly monitored by satellites. (Total Solar Irradiance, the measurement is called.) Unless you mean cosmic rays? These change on a multi-million year time scale, as the earth passes through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Even the prominent climate skeptic who did the research on cosmic rays admits that the principle his work is based on would not account for the current warming trend.

Since 1960, the long-term trend in solar output has been completely flat, yet the largest increase in temperature was during this period.

Well, you have to remove the 15- 20 or so years that the UN has been responsible until the data is re-verified by a neutral source... sorry, but you commit scientific fraud and NONE of your data is good.... the warming had gone on, then planed off around 1999-2000, and has cooled down slightly since.

See above. Here's a fun chart!


I mean, really? You think that in a century's worth of research, nobody bothered to check if maybe the sun was influencing temperature? Solar output, obviously, has a strong influence on temperature trends. It does not, however, account for the current warming trend.

Actually, it's only the extremists that have been saying the world has heated since 2000... The REAL data shows a much closer correlation, THOUGH that's not the whole picture, because there's also the consideration of stellar radiation, which creates the nuclei to cause cloud formation... if a greater portion of the earth is covered in water vapor (cloud cover) then the earth will be cooler then if more of the surface is getting sun.

But, even that relationship is not thoroughly understood.

They are sound principles. They are also not the cause of the current warming trend. Why continue discussing something that is already disproven? The sun is not causing this. Period.

It was disproven with flawed data. Period.

Climate is not weather. Odd as it may seem, Global Average Temperture is way easier to calculate than predicting weather, because an average by nature will eliminate local variations. The only variables in Global Average Temperatures are Energy In and Energy Out. Nobody is predicting rain on august 14, 2036, or that the temperature in Houston, TX will be 102 degrees. It's "the world's average temperature will be approximately ____, which is higher than today."

Yes, but if the models are based on flawed data and on an incomplete understanding of the intricacies of these factors, then you don't really have anything of serious value in terms of a prediction... and honestly, EVERY prediction has been a failure... many of these people couldn't predict what time they'll wake up even when they set the alarm... jokes aside. You can't say there's NOTHING to the science... but the scientists require a state of alarm, because if they come up with a report saying 'for the next 10 years we expect the temperature to rise and then cool down further for a few years. The funding would dry up pretty quick when compared with "IF we don't cut CO2 by 45% in the next 15 minutes polar bears will be drowning by lunch tomorrow"

-No
-No
-Sortof
-No.

These drive weather. Not global average temperature.

Global average temperature CONSISTS of all these as data points... Seriously, don't you see a problem if half your data points are collected at 6 am others at noon, the rest at 9pm?? Then again, the CRU has no problem collecting data from close to heat sources either, that's part of why they've been so dicredited.

See above. You're still on local scales when you should be global. Averages. AVERAGES.

Yes, but what's going on locally is true globally. Think about it... you couldn't say there's global warming if every microclimate is cooler then it was the year before... but your simultaneously alluding that the average is the driver of the different zones...

One might question the motivations of the people who push the opposite. Except those motivations are clear: Profit.

WHO? HOW? WHEN?? There's no 'profits' in opposing the 'democratic science of climate'. I always laugh when people accuse those 'deniers' as profiting... there's SO LITTLE profit, I mean, they couldn't even get papers published in some journals if the findings opposed 'consensus'.

The 'profit' line is by getting funding for further research... for the beaurocrats is by getting paid off to let certain interests to use loopholes, for energy companies is by getting a carbon tax in place where they can fully regulate society.

I challenge you to find a peer-reviewed scientific paper that you might classify as "extremist." I think you, like most skeptics, are not distinguishing the difference between real scientific papers and what journalists and spokesmen spit at you.

Anything out of the IPCC and CRU... so much has been exposed as scientific fraud, that's been going on since up to around the 80's when these organizations started their 'work'. For a time in there reporting the truth, and showing the warming was good, because that's where the climate was headed, but more and more as reality started setting in they started more and more desperate strategies... you remember what happened to Moncton at Copenhagen?>?

CO2 boosts plant growth... to a point. A point not much higher than the current CO2 levels, because plants are adapted to this particular level of absorption. Plants might like extra CO2, but they are only physically capable of absorbing so much.

Just a bit more then double... but sure... they can only handle so much but then they start growing, it's like when a species has plenty of food around the numbers multiply explosively... much the same, each try might be able to only take care of so much CO2 in any given span of time... but then more trees will be produced naturally to add to the global forest.

Extreme temperature events, on the other hand, do not help plant growth. They seriously, seriously harm it. Ask the Russians, who had to ban export of wheat because their crops are so bad this year they aren't sure they'll be able to feed themselves properly.

That wasn't simply the result of high heat, but also of low precipitation, and other factors, where they simply had to protect themselves... I don't know all the intricacies beyond that, but I will note the fact forests MUST burn every so often... some trees will not germinate without the heat of a forest fire. Not sure how much that was a factor for russia though. That said, one extreme zone, in Canada most areas have had an exceptionally cold summer... so there's going to be hot and cold spots regardless... I think we agree that far.

I'm not asking for blind faith. Read the science, not the propoganda. What would an IPCC scientist stand to gain from a carbon tax, anyway? You think there's some sort of kickback from carbon credits to the scientists?

Umm... well.... historically speaking... if there was a carbon tax and the goal was achieved, most often the people that help achieve the goal are killed for their troubles.

So, no, the scientists are doing their best to ensure max amount of funding for their research projects... but the politicians take the least scientific elements of those papers to generate 'policy reports'. beyond that it's really hard to use words when a flow chart would be more appropriate.

Conspiracy theory forum is that way ---->
You started off at least discussing science... sortof. Then you went into conspiracy theory mode. Seriously, this thread is not about conspiracies, it's about science. Take it somewhere else.

Well, honestly, that's because there's SO MUCH corruption around this issue that it's impossible to go without pointing out the glaring inconsistencies of what is said and what is being done. That you call it 'conspiracy theory'... but to illustrate my point : carbon taxes alone USED TO BE a conspiracy theory.... but as you're aware it's not anmyore...

Climate skeptics often say that the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle. Here's a challenge for you:

Tell me the physical mechanism for this "natural cycle," and provide some peer-reviewed evidence supporting that statement. "It's natural" is not a better answer than "it's magic" or "God did it." What physical process causes this warming?

The science says that the sun has no impact, even though the solar cycles actually do match the climate... not just on earth, but on mars and the moons of saturn as well, but stupid people that had to ruin the scientific integrity of the organization in order to push their goals have altered the data in such a way that the figures NO LONGER match the reality in the world. The more these people get defeated the more they will start to expose themselves as tyrants... you can call that 'conspiracy theory'... but I call that 'part of the plan' as it's been written in several books LONG BEFORE global warming was an issue.... and even one that was discussing global warming while the world was still in the global cooling frenzy.... talking about global carbon taxes back in the 70's....

 

[Deuce]

Some basic empirical evidence against the global warming hoax.

It's cold in California.

It's been cold in California all "summer".

It's cold in Antartica, too.

Look up empirical in a dictionary.

 

[Deuce]

The science says that the sun has no impact, even though the solar cycles actually do match the climate... not just on earth, but on mars and the moons of saturn as well, but stupid people that had to ruin the scientific integrity of the organization in order to push their goals have altered the data in such a way that the figures NO LONGER match the reality in the world. The more these people get defeated the more they will start to expose themselves as tyrants... you can call that 'conspiracy theory'... but I call that 'part of the plan' as it's been written in several books LONG BEFORE global warming was an issue.... and even one that was discussing global warming while the world was still in the global cooling frenzy.... talking about global carbon taxes back in the 70's....

Most of your post is more conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up, so I'll focus on this.

The statement I put in bold is completely and utterly false. Literally no scientist ever has claimed that the sun has no impact. That's just downright retarded, and is a ridiculous straw man. It's obvious that you have no clue about what climate science actually says.

 

[Deuce]

I gave a pretty good suggestion up above, but you have ignored it for weeks.

What, the reflection thing? You posted no evidence to back that up.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Most of your post is more conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up, so I'll focus on this.

First, the label of 'conspiracy theory'... this is just a way of saying 'don't pay attention'... but, the CRU has been CAUGHT in a CONSPIRACY to commit scientific fraud, conspiracy to silence opposition,

The statement I put in bold is completely and utterly false. Literally no scientist ever has claimed that the sun has no impact. That's just downright retarded, and is a ridiculous straw man. It's obvious that you have no clue about what climate science actually says.

You are engaged in what is called 'crimestop' in Orwells 1984. The simultaneous beliefs are : The sun has an impact on climate, but then with an earlier graph had demonstrated that the sun DOES NOT have an impact on climate. And you seem to hold both these opposing beliefs simultaneously.

So, it's only a 'strawman' if you were LYING.

Think about it for a second : If the suns output is reduced by say 30%, that is LESS incoming energy for co2 to reflect inward... It also happens that you're using data that is admitted by Pachauri to be false... I was thinking of just one result... but putting "pachauri admits" in a google search gives articles about admissions concerning the himalayan glacier fraud, about 'guessing' numbers, as well as a series of other 'mistakes'.

The fact that this man's track record is one of fraud, it's amazing to me that this man is not fired, dishonored and stripped of all scientific credentials, and his direct subordinates investigated similarly. In such a case the ONLY reasonable thing to do is to throw out ALL findings associated with this group as the track record alone is enough to have anyone question anything that comes out of these groups.

Instead what do we get?? We get this agency that's PROVEN itself to be corrupt and they are now discussing investigating themselves... which is about as useful as sending the fox to investigate the hen house.

I got a better idea over researching 'co2'... how about researching ways to reduce legitimate toxins from the environment?? You know, those chemicals and other waste products that are causing mutations in animals, REAL destruction of impacted areas, and even death. That WILL NOT happen, BECAUSE then there's no legitimate way to offer the solution as a tax on every person on earth. So, the studies will all be about CO2 and how bad it is, because EVERYBODY, even if you're the poorest of africans that lives off mudcakes you'll be subject to these taxes.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me ANY scientist, politcal group or organization that looks at climate change that offers as their solution ANYTHING OTHER then 'cap and trade' or 'carbon taxes'??? Edit : Actually that's a slight lie... you might be able to point out some of the scientists that are advocating multi-billion dollar global geo-engineering projects, though many of those are intended to be funded through the carbon taxes it might be brought up as an alternate solution. Then there are some extremists^2 that simply advocate that we need to start reducing human numbers... drastically.

That's because the "conspiracy theory" holds more water then you would give credit, even if I spent the next 4-5 pages accounting the various ways in which this is documented in publicly available by under-advertised sources, written by the same people that work in the groups that serve to fund the science and influence the policies.

It's not JUST greenpeace that is the climate extremists... it's the scientists and the whole network of corruption that emanates from the UN.

 

[Demon of Light]

What, the reflection thing? You posted no evidence to back that up.

Actually, I did and that is what you ignored.

 

[Deuce]

First, the label of 'conspiracy theory'... this is just a way of saying 'don't pay attention'... but, the CRU has been CAUGHT in a CONSPIRACY to commit scientific fraud, conspiracy to silence opposition,

No. They've been CAUGHT with a few OUT OF CONTEXT emails that PROVE NOTHING.

You are engaged in what is called 'crimestop' in Orwells 1984. The simultaneous beliefs are : The sun has an impact on climate, but then with an earlier graph had demonstrated that the sun DOES NOT have an impact on climate. And you seem to hold both these opposing beliefs simultaneously.

Hint: More than one variable can influence temperature. Nobody claimed that the sun does not influence temperature, only that it is not causing the present warming trend. You seem to be in over your head.

Think about it for a second : If the suns output is reduced by say 30%, that is LESS incoming energy for co2 to reflect inward... It also happens that you're using data that is admitted by Pachauri to be false... I was thinking of just one result... but putting "pachauri admits" in a google search gives articles about admissions concerning the himalayan glacier fraud, about 'guessing' numbers, as well as a series of other 'mistakes'.

I haven't mentioned glaciers. What are you talking about?

I got a better idea over researching 'co2'... how about researching ways to reduce legitimate toxins from the environment?? You know, those chemicals and other waste products that are causing mutations in animals, REAL destruction of impacted areas, and even death. That WILL NOT happen, BECAUSE then there's no legitimate way to offer the solution as a tax on every person on earth. So, the studies will all be about CO2 and how bad it is, because EVERYBODY, even if you're the poorest of africans that lives off mudcakes you'll be subject to these taxes.

CO2 causes warming. See thread OP.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me ANY scientist, politcal group or organization that looks at climate change that offers as their solution ANYTHING OTHER then 'cap and trade' or 'carbon taxes'??? Edit : Actually that's a slight lie... you might be able to point out some of the scientists that are advocating multi-billion dollar global geo-engineering projects, though many of those are intended to be funded through the carbon taxes it might be brought up as an alternate solution. Then there are some extremists^2 that simply advocate that we need to start reducing human numbers... drastically.

Cap and trade was a conservative idea because it's a "free market solution" to emissions. Scientists tend to advocate working harder to reduce CO2 emissions to 0, not assuming the free market will fix everything. Cap and Trade is as close to politically viable as we seem to be capable of.

It's not JUST greenpeace that is the climate extremists... it's the scientists and the whole network of corruption that emanates from the UN.

More conspiracy theory. It must be really convenient to be able to handwave a century's worth of research with "NUH UH, THEY'RE CORRUPT"
Here's a conspiracy for you: Oil companies stand to lose trillions of dollars if we drastically reduce the use of their product. You don't think they'd deliberately confuse the issue to protect that interest?

Actually, I did and that is what you ignored.

You posted charts of decreasing sea ice that "started" around 1970, but temperature started changing well before that. I'm not sure what it is that you think this proves. Yes, reflectivity of the earth's surface might influence temperature, but you haven't shown that link, only a weak-at-best correlation in the last couple decades. Glaciers started melting faster when the temperature rose faster. Wow, what a startling revelation. Can you show that they caused a change in temperature?

 

[BmanMcfly]

No. They've been CAUGHT with a few OUT OF CONTEXT emails that PROVE NOTHING.

OUT OF CONTEXT????? Please, explain a 'context' for which things like 'fudging the data', 'running algorithms on the raw data to get desired results', 'blocking opposing viewpoints from being published in science magazines', etc.. would be 'reasonable'???

The emails are ADMISSIONS of wrongdoing... and then when asked to show the raw data, the announcement was made that the raw data was 'lost'. Come on... don't LIE to me and tell me that everything is on the up and up.

Hint: More than one variable can influence temperature. Nobody claimed that the sun does not influence temperature, only that it is not causing the present warming trend. You seem to be in over your head.

No, really, it's a semantics game. Yes, I've seen the papers where they say at the introduction : "The suns' impact was deemed negligible to CO2 concentrations and so is not considered" to paraphrase. I've seen the same arguments being made multiple times. I also agree that there are multiple factors at play in this situation that will cause the overall temperature of the earth to rise or fall or stay the same.

Why do most of the graphs only look at the end of the medieval warm period before showing the 'warming trend'?? Most of that time was before the industrial revolution which is deemed as a 'spark' of this 'global heatwave', according to the extremist theories.

You do realize that water vapor is a much larger greenhouse gas then CO2 and makes up a much larger percentage of the atmosphere?? I've heard 'but water vapor has a shorter half-life'... another inane comment given that there's ALWAYS water in the atmosphere... it's a 'water cycle' that includes precipitation, evaporation and condensation. In the same way that there's a 'carbon cycle' where CO2 gets converted to O2 for animal life to use and generate CO2 for plants to consume.

SO, the reality of the matter is that the overall climate, to bring sensibility and reason to your argument is that there is a relationship from the suns energy, global cloud cover and total energy retention through ALL greenhouse gases, and then there are the factors that impact each region differently according to how the suns energy hits. Our added contribution to CO2 is nowhere near any level that is 'dangerous' or 'unprecedented' and there's still life on earth.... humans can adapt BETTER to a warmer climate then a cold one (longer growing seasons = more food), so even if the 'hysteria' turns true, it would be a benefit to society...

In the grand scheme, we are ants on the planet, and it's hubris to think that we can take full and long-term control of the climate, even with today's technology... but before we endeavor to bring the earth to some 'optimum climate' (whatever that is), we need to be CERTAIN that the science is good and that we are making ACCURATE predictions on these matters.

I haven't mentioned glaciers. What are you talking about?

The glacier study?? You haven't heard that bit of extremist propaganda??

Um... off memory, the actual climate models used said that global warming would cause the himalayans to melt by 2350. This was done in a very 'poor' academic fashion, using the melting during the summer, without considering winter, etc... The "scientist" didn't think that was alarming enough so, published a paper saying these mountains would lose their ice caps by 2035. Then the political and activist extremists ran with it... and there are still people today that think that ice is going extinct.

CO2 causes warming. See thread OP.

A negligable amount of warming given all the influences, cycles, and sheer volume of the atmosphere involved... though, you will argue based on debunked scientists and their bunk science that this is not the fact.

Cap and trade was a conservative idea because it's a "free market solution" to emissions. Scientists tend to advocate working harder to reduce CO2 emissions to 0, not assuming the free market will fix everything. Cap and Trade is as close to politically viable as we seem to be capable of.

Ok, so the scientists are saying we need to shut off all CO2 production... then what?? Carry on the alarmist propaganda, the damage is already done and CO2 production is too high, so we have to reduce population numbers... are you STILL in agreement because it's 'for the earth'??

That's the problem when you propagandize science, you get lab coat cover... hell, I bet alot of these scientists actually believe they are working for a good cause. But then, psychopaths will take this grain of truth coming out of the 'international elite scientists', (trust us, we're experts types), and then turn around and say we gotta start killing 10's of millions of people for the 'ATWA' (Air, Trees, water and animal), and will start engaging in violence thinking that the ends justify the means... that killing masses of people is a 'good thing' if it's done for the earth.

Look at the Mayans, their priesthood was convinced that people needed to be sacrificed in order for crops to grow... so, if it kept the crop gods happy and the people fed, sacrificial killings was a 'good thing'... it's totally reprehensible, but it is the end extension of 'what needs to be done' IF CO2 IS the problem that we are being sold that it is.

More conspiracy theory. It must be really convenient to be able to handwave a century's worth of research with "NUH UH, THEY'RE CORRUPT"
Here's a conspiracy for you: Oil companies stand to lose trillions of dollars if we drastically reduce the use of their product. You don't think they'd deliberately confuse the issue to protect that interest?

1 - They are ADMITTEDLY corrupt, and where they have not admitted, they have been CAUGHT in their corruption... hell, I've heard talking heads say to the extent that 'even IF the science is all corrupt we still gotta take action'.

2 - The Oil companies stand to GAIN SO MUCH IT"S INCREDIBLE!!!! If 'oil use' is truly shunned then they will start shutting down operations, demand will go down overall, but prices will be forced up. Oil companies ALSO have purchased MANY patents on energy efficient technologies so as they 'unveil' these clean technologies, they stand to make unbelieveable amounts of money.

ALso, the groups like 'gore and blood' carbon trading market stands to become THE carbon trading company that all others will have to pay into in order to 'offset' the CO2... that is an INFINITELY profitable outcome.

ALSO, beyond mere profits is the CONTROL... It can be decided that one factory will be 'in violation of green laws' where another factory that whose owner is friendly with the right people will get the 'stamp of approuval'... No, you can't drive to work, you gotta carpool, then you gotta take the bus or train, then even that is too 'dirty' so everyone has to walk or ride bikes... There is NO END to how much we as people stand to lose.

 

[Deuce]

OUT OF CONTEXT????? Please, explain a 'context' for which things like 'fudging the data', 'running algorithms on the raw data to get desired results', 'blocking opposing viewpoints from being published in science magazines', etc.. would be 'reasonable'???

Their emails contain none of the phrases you put in quotations. The things you put in quotations are not quotes, but rather faulty interpretations of quotes. Provide evidence of these assertions.

Tree rings do not have temperatures in the celcius scale encoded in arabic numerals. The reason they need "algorithms on the raw data" is because they have to convert non-temperature data (width of tree rings) into temperature data (degrees celcius).

The emails are ADMISSIONS of wrongdoing... and then when asked to show the raw data, the announcement was made that the raw data was 'lost'. Come on... don't LIE to me and tell me that everything is on the up and up.

Quote from one o those emails that proves this. Preferably in a different thread, because this thread is about science, not conspiracies.

No, really, it's a semantics game. Yes, I've seen the papers where they say at the introduction : "The suns' impact was deemed negligible to CO2 concentrations and so is not considered" to paraphrase. I've seen the same arguments being made multiple times. I also agree that there are multiple factors at play in this situation that will cause the overall temperature of the earth to rise or fall or stay the same.

Provide evidence of these statements.

Why do most of the graphs only look at the end of the medieval warm period before showing the 'warming trend'?? Most of that time was before the industrial revolution which is deemed as a 'spark' of this 'global heatwave', according to the extremist theories.

Because a graph of the temperature over the last 10,000 years is impossible to read when you're trying to show people what has happened over the last 200 years. I'm not sure what you think this is evidence of.

You do realize that water vapor is a much larger greenhouse gas then CO2 and makes up a much larger percentage of the atmosphere?? I've heard 'but water vapor has a shorter half-life'... another inane comment given that there's ALWAYS water in the atmosphere... it's a 'water cycle' that includes precipitation, evaporation and condensation. In the same way that there's a 'carbon cycle' where CO2 gets converted to O2 for animal life to use and generate CO2 for plants to consume.

The effects of water vapor are included in these studies. Those explanations you refer to aren't implying that water vapor has no effect, they're only saying that water vapor has less of an effect than their % of atmosphere would indicate, for a few reasons.

SO, the reality of the matter is that the overall climate, to bring sensibility and reason to your argument is that there is a relationship from the suns energy, global cloud cover and total energy retention through ALL greenhouse gases, and then there are the factors that impact each region differently according to how the suns energy hits. Our added contribution to CO2 is nowhere near any level that is 'dangerous' or 'unprecedented' and there's still life on earth.... humans can adapt BETTER to a warmer climate then a cold one (longer growing seasons = more food), so even if the 'hysteria' turns true, it would be a benefit to society...

Rapid changes in temperature are linked with mass extinction events. Animals and plants can only adapt so quickly to changes in their climate. The concern isn't "warm = bad," it's "warming (or cooling) too quickly is bad." You can't just make a blanket statement that warmer will be better. You're just making up arguments now. It must really be easy to "win" a debate when you get to decide yourself what the opposition "says."

In the grand scheme, we are ants on the planet, and it's hubris to think that we can take full and long-term control of the climate, even with today's technology... but before we endeavor to bring the earth to some 'optimum climate' (whatever that is), we need to be CERTAIN that the science is good and that we are making ACCURATE predictions on these matters.

Not control. Influence. It's hubris to think that our actions have no consequences. We're not trying to "control" the climate, we're trying to eliminate or minimize our impact on it, because the "optimum" climate is that which the existing ecosystem is adapted to.

The glacier study?? You haven't heard that bit of extremist propaganda??

You implied I was somehow making an argument based off it.

Um... off memory, the actual climate models used said that global warming would cause the himalayans to melt by 2350. This was done in a very 'poor' academic fashion, using the melting during the summer, without considering winter, etc... The "scientist" didn't think that was alarming enough so, published a paper saying these mountains would lose their ice caps by 2035. Then the political and activist extremists ran with it... and there are still people today that think that ice is going extinct.

Provide evidence that this was a deliberate misrepresentation rather than a typo.

A negligable amount of warming given all the influences, cycles, and sheer volume of the atmosphere involved... though, you will argue based on debunked scientists and their bunk science that this is not the fact.

Who has been "debunked," and how can you prove this?

Ok, so the scientists are saying we need to shut off all CO2 production... then what?? Carry on the alarmist propaganda, the damage is already done and CO2 production is too high, so we have to reduce population numbers... are you STILL in agreement because it's 'for the earth'??

Who said we need to reduce population? You're making up more arguments. I can do that too. Climate skeptics think that God will step in and fix the planet if we ruin it too much. I think relying on God to fix things is just insane. Hahaha. Silly skeptics.

That's the problem when you propagandize science, you get lab coat cover... hell, I bet alot of these scientists actually believe they are working for a good cause. But then, psychopaths will take this grain of truth coming out of the 'international elite scientists', (trust us, we're experts types), and then turn around and say we gotta start killing 10's of millions of people for the 'ATWA' (Air, Trees, water and animal), and will start engaging in violence thinking that the ends justify the means... that killing masses of people is a 'good thing' if it's done for the earth.

Seems to me that you're the one doing the propagandizing. You're just making up all kinds of things and claiming that "scientists" are saying it.

Next up you started talking about Mayan sacrifice so I'm done with you now. Start up a new thread about your conspiracies, showing evidence of all these absurd claims you have about what scientists are saying and doing. I'll be happy to respond there.

 

[Deuce]

Also worth noting:

That "medieval warm period" you refer to is the work of the same scientists you're claiming are untrustworthy. How do you know there ever was an ice age? How do you know there was a warm period 1000 years ago?