The truth of global warming II

[Catawba]

No... A, as in one of, warming effect. NOT THE MAIN one... glad to see your capacity to twist words.

You tell me what the main factor is that changed and caused the increased warming if not CO2?

 

[BmanMcfly]

First off, this was not based on the IPCC fourth assessment, this is a paper by:
This means their work was subjected to review by other scientists under the peer review process. Therefore, their reviewed conclusions are based on the most up to date scientific information at the time.

Read the references... the premises are listed out and referenced as IPCC's FAR.

They used "the Bern 2.5CC EMIC, whose results are comparable to the suite of assessed EMICs (5, 7)." And they looked at other observational data such as the carbon isotope studies.

Solar activity != constant.

That's right, and the longer we wait to do something about it, the worse it will be.

OMG!!! I'm gonna go run to the bank and give all my money to Al Gore so that he can plant a tree...

 

[BmanMcfly]

You tell me what the main factor is that changed and caused the increased warming if not CO2?

The sun.

Blot out the sun and you can have an atmosphere of 100% Co2 and it will still be cold as ****.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Elaborate on how this clip is a 'conspiracy theory'???
A) that's not a conspiracy
b) it's not a theory.

Um... doctors and pharmacists are making money selling vaccines that are really harming children? (conspiracy)

But, no, it isn't a theory unless you add the W to WCT. That one has been debunked.

Last point, if you DO NOT believe in draconian solutions, then you should be REBUKING the IPCC and other groups offering similar 'solutions',

The science says that GW is real, and that human activities are accelerating it. It is not saying we must all start living like the Amish in order to survive. It is not saying that Al Gore is the savior of all mankind.

NOT embracing them as 'reasonable' or 'necessary'... because, frankly, the last time there was a major environmental push by a leader the 'solution' envisioned by that leader became known as the 'final solution'.

Ah, yes, we must bring up Hitler. What's that principle called again, that every argument eventually goes back to Hitler?


So, we've established that you support at least three WCT: The scientists and environmentalists are trying to take over the world in the name of GW, the government was behind the attack on the twin towers, and doctors are pushing harmful vaccines full of mercury. at least, you aren't supporting the KFC as a method of eliminating black people.

How many more do you buy into?

(check all that apply)


Top 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories
Published on 1/16/2006

Dinosauroid-like Alien Reptiles are dominating the World
Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA
Barcodes are really intended to Control people
Charlemagne never existed, is a fictional character
The Truth is out there, on Area 51
Microsoft sends messages on Wingdings Font
U.S. military caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
The Nazis had a Moon Base
the above explained here
Here are some really interesting ones

 

[iamitter]

The sun.

Blot out the sun and you can have an atmosphere of 100% Co2 and it will still be cold as ****.

Well, no kidding. I think we all agreed that >99% of the energy coming to Earth is from the sun.
The issue is not that the sun is heating us, but that the heat is not escaping due to the Co2.
If mars suddenly got venus' atmosphere, it would heat up very quickly despite receiving the same amount of energy it did before.


Also, yes, the sun has cycles. A brief cruising of the site of any organization devoted to space science would tell you that we, right now, are at the trough of both the sun's 50 year and 11 year cycles. Yet, we are still heating up.

 

[Catawba]

The sun.

Blot out the sun and you can have an atmosphere of 100% Co2 and it will still be cold as ****.

They have measurements, not models, measurements that show that solar output decreased during the warming period. What else you think could be the driver, since it is not the sun's heat that has increased?

 

[Dittohead not!]

They have measurements, not models, measurements that show that solar output decreased during the warming period. What else you think could be the driver, since it is not the sun's heat that has increased?

It could be the hot air being generated by the silly pundits and bloggers who are telling us that AGW is a hoax.

Or, perhaps the WCT and the heat that they generate, without generating any light at all.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Um... doctors and pharmacists are making money selling vaccines that are really harming children? (conspiracy)

That wasn't part of the clip... watch the clip and tell me how that is a 'conspiracy' that mercury is good for children's brain development ??

But, no, it isn't a theory unless you add the W to WCT. That one has been debunked.

Oh, so all I gotta do is put WCT and any topic is debunked... gotcha.

The science says that GW is real,

Ya the earth is warming... as it would have done with or without human activity.

and that human activities are accelerating it.

By what degree?? 5%?

It is not saying we must all start living like the Amish in order to survive.

You should really pay attention to what's being pushed as solutions, and then consider the implications of those 'solutions' in real world terms... so, while YOU might not be saying that, that's effectively what the 'solutions' will provide.

It is not saying that Al Gore is the savior of all mankind.

That's blaspheming against church of climatology.

Ah, yes, we must bring up Hitler. What's that principle called again, that every argument eventually goes back to Hitler?

That's WTC.... DEBUNKED!

So, we've established that you support at least three WCT: The scientists and environmentalists are trying to take over the world in the name of GW, the government was behind the attack on the twin towers, and doctors are pushing harmful vaccines full of mercury. at least, you aren't supporting the KFC as a method of eliminating black people.

Oh and you believe the carbon monsters are going to kill us all if we don't allow Gore to profit on carbon taxes...

How many more do you buy into?

(check all that apply)

This is asinine... for so many reasons, it's surprisng after the serving of facts you ignored last time using that same lame list...

What's amazing, that you maintain willing ignorance of a subject, that I could give you ISBN numbers, authors, title and years of publication of MULTIPLE books (books are WCT's now too, right?)

Top 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories
Published on 1/16/2006

Dinosauroid-like Alien Reptiles are dominating the World
Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA
Barcodes are really intended to Control people
Charlemagne never existed, is a fictional character
The Truth is out there, on Area 51
Microsoft sends messages on Wingdings Font
U.S. military caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
The Nazis had a Moon Base
the above explained here
Here are some really interesting ones

WCT ... DEBUNKED!!!

Man this is easy, I'm going to use this on all your posts now... maybe you'll see how pitiful of an argument against facts that really is.... I kinda doubt it, but there's still a chance.

 

[BmanMcfly]

It could be the hot air being generated by the silly pundits and bloggers who are telling us that AGW is a hoax.

Like that physicist that resigned because the APS had grown so corrupt that he felt shame to belong in the society... SPECIFICALLY on the issue of their stance on global warming.

Or, perhaps the WCT and the heat that they generate, without generating any light at all.

It's all written in books written by billionaires, and other high powered / influential people... that is the what the purpose is, how they intend to accomplish this, why, and in generic terms a time line through which they can accomplish these objectives...

And, in order for me to be honest, I cannot call this a 'conspiracy' of these people, because on some level they TRULY BELIEVE that it is in their best interests to run this scam.

But you wouldn't read the bookS if they were sitting on your lap, so what can I say??

 

[Catawba]

Blot out the sun and you can have an atmosphere of 100% Co2 and it will still be cold as ****.

They have measurements, not models, measurements that show that solar output decreased during the warming period. What else you think could be the driver, since it is not the sun's heat that has increased?

 

[BmanMcfly]

They have measurements, not models, measurements that show that solar output decreased during the warming period. What else you think could be the driver, since it is not the sun's heat that has increased?

The climate is a VERY COMPLEX SYSTEM (as in more then 5 variables) and so, to say that it's JUST the sun, JUST the CO2, JUST whatever... is completely missing the point because it's NOT as simple as 1 variable vs another... that's what science is good at, isolating the variables to study.

Ok, we've checked off CO2 as an influencing factor... but there's more to the story. Now, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but that much is clear.

Consider my locality, a westerly wind might create a difference of 15-20 degrees within a matter of hours JUST BECAUSE the winds pass through the mountains creating a pressure that forces the air to warm. If you used the SAME set of variables from most anywhere else in the world and you forgot that 1 variable then you'll see weather that will just flabbergast the system.

So, scale up to the GLOBAL scale, and not only do you have to consider ALL of those various factors, then you ALSO have to add in variables that will affect the planet... the moon for example, the position of the moon creates tides, it's literally pulling water sometimes several feet towards it, how are you going to say that this massive object has ZERO impact on anything?

Just because we do not know other factors at play does NOT mean that because we've discovered 5 variables at play that this is the end of the story.

 

[Catawba]

The climate is a VERY COMPLEX SYSTEM (as in more then 5 variables) and so, to say that it's JUST the sun, JUST the CO2, JUST whatever... is completely missing the point because it's NOT as simple as 1 variable vs another... that's what science is good at, isolating the variables to study.

Ok, we've checked off CO2 as an influencing factor... but there's more to the story. Now, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but that much is clear.

Consider my locality, a westerly wind might create a difference of 15-20 degrees within a matter of hours JUST BECAUSE the winds pass through the mountains creating a pressure that forces the air to warm. If you used the SAME set of variables from most anywhere else in the world and you forgot that 1 variable then you'll see weather that will just flabbergast the system.

So, scale up to the GLOBAL scale, and not only do you have to consider ALL of those various factors, then you ALSO have to add in variables that will affect the planet... the moon for example, the position of the moon creates tides, it's literally pulling water sometimes several feet towards it, how are you going to say that this massive object has ZERO impact on anything?

Just because we do not know other factors at play does NOT mean that because we've discovered 5 variables at play that this is the end of the story.

"Causes of Change Prior to the Industrial Era (pre-1780)

Known causes, “drivers” or “forcings” of past climate change include:

Changes in the Earth's orbit: Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth's tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital processes -- which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.

Changes in the sun's intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.)

Volcanic eruptions: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1816 as “the year without a summer.”
Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).
These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them (whether the response is warming or cooling).

Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


All three have been ruled out by physical methods. What does that leave as the driver or forcing of this warming period?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh, so all I gotta do is put WCT and any topic is debunked... gotcha.

It's not debunked because it's a WCT. It's a WCT because it's been debunked.

Ya the earth is warming... as it would have done with or without human activity.

So, on position 1, you're a believer.

By what degree?? 5%?

But, on position 2, you aren't.

You should really pay attention to what's being pushed as solutions, and then consider the implications of those 'solutions' in real world terms... so, while YOU might not be saying that, that's effectively what the 'solutions' will provide.

And on position 3, you most certainly aren't. I'm not going to argue with you there. You might actually be right.

That's WTC.... DEBUNKED!

Once again: It's not debunked because it's a WCT. It's a WCT because it's been debunked.

Oh and you believe the carbon monsters are going to kill us all if we don't allow Gore to profit on carbon taxes...

If you've been reading my posts at all, you already know that's a giant strawman.

This is asinine... for so many reasons, it's surprisng after the serving of facts you ignored last time using that same lame list...

So, you don't believe any of the WCT I listed?

What's amazing, that you maintain willing ignorance of a subject, that I could give you ISBN numbers, authors, title and years of publication of MULTIPLE books (books are WCT's now too, right?)

Ohh.. ISBN numbers. Now, that's proof enough of any WCT.

 

[ptif219]

It is a matter of simple physics and ruling out other possible driving forces, which has been done.

No it is a political agenda not proven science.

 

[ptif219]

First off, this was not based on the IPCC fourth assessment, this is a paper by:

"Susan Solomona,1, Gian-Kasper Plattnerb, Reto Knuttic, and Pierre Friedlingsteind

aChemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO 80305; bInstitute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics and cInstitute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland; and dInstitut Pierre Simon Laplace/Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Unite ́ Mixte de Recherche 1572 Commissariat a` l’Energie Atomique–Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique–Universite ́ Versailles Saint-Quentin, Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique-Saclay, l’Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France

Contributed by Susan Solomon, December 16, 2008 (sent for review November 12, 2008)

This means their work was subjected to review by other scientists under the peer review process. Therefore, their reviewed conclusions are based on the most up to date scientific information at the time.



They used "the Bern 2.5CC EMIC, whose results are comparable to the suite of assessed EMICs (5, 7)." And they looked at other observational data such as the carbon isotope studies.




That's right, and the longer we wait to do something about it, the worse it will be.

NOAA Another government organization so we know the peer review was GW scientist approving GW science

 

[ptif219]

Well, no kidding. I think we all agreed that >99% of the energy coming to Earth is from the sun.
The issue is not that the sun is heating us, but that the heat is not escaping due to the Co2.
If mars suddenly got venus' atmosphere, it would heat up very quickly despite receiving the same amount of energy it did before.


Also, yes, the sun has cycles. A brief cruising of the site of any organization devoted to space science would tell you that we, right now, are at the trough of both the sun's 50 year and 11 year cycles. Yet, we are still heating up.

So co2 is the only greenhouse gas that holds heat? Is it more natural causes as we have seen for thousands of years? Climate change did not start in the 20th century

 

[BmanMcfly]

It's not debunked because it's a WCT. It's a WCT because it's been debunked.

Right... so, it's a 'conspiracy theory' that mercury is a toxic heavy metal.

So, on position 1, you're a believer.

Only based on the assumption that past records have been accurate ... which, because of things like 'climategate' and other scandals, well... the data since the late 80's is suspect...

But, on position 2, you aren't.

when you consider size and scale and the way GHG's work... I could see a 5% warming influence, then you add factors like how we have these huge artificially heated concrete metropolis' that will hold more heat then the terrain that existed prior... but really, nothing hugely drastic... and well, there's only been an average 0.5 degree change in the past 150 years or so... with a great deal of hot and cold spikes in between.

And on position 3, you most certainly aren't. I'm not going to argue with you there. You might actually be right.

Un biological diversity assessment (1996 in particular) and agenda 21...

Once again: It's not debunked because it's a WCT. It's a WCT because it's been debunked.

Of course, when you actually see the specific evidence of a specific conspiracy theory, and then compare that to the specific 'debunking', well, now and then I see some legitimate counter-points (which actually makes me happy when I'm wrong on such subjects, believe it or not), the vast majority of the time the actual 'debunkings' are disappointing... to say the least.

If you've been reading my posts at all, you already know that's a giant strawman.

Exactly.

So, you don't believe any of the WCT I listed?

Not as they are listed, and especially not as they related to the linked article... take what you pointed out as a strawman and multiply it by each word in that list, and that's about how much time it would take to go through it all in detail.

Ohh.. ISBN numbers. Now, that's proof enough of any WCT.

Point being, it's not a 'theory' if you're holding the book in your hand.... and when you consider those involved in the writing of such books... well, different people's actions start to make more sense ; Gates, Gore, Turner, and others...

 

[ptif219]

"Causes of Change Prior to the Industrial Era (pre-1780)

Known causes, “drivers” or “forcings” of past climate change include:

Changes in the Earth's orbit: Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth's tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital processes -- which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.

Changes in the sun's intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.)

Volcanic eruptions: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1816 as “the year without a summer.”
Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).
These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them (whether the response is warming or cooling).

Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


All three have been ruled out by physical methods. What does that leave as the driver or forcing of this warming period?

It seems the orbit of the earth is not understood and still being researched

How well do scientists understand how changes in Earth's orbit affect long-term natural climate trends?

 

[Dittohead not!]

So co2 is the only greenhouse gas that holds heat?

Nope. I believe I've mentioned water vapor and methane as well.

Is it more natural causes as we have seen for thousands of years?

Yes, it is, along with human activities. That's why AGW says that human activities are accelerating the change. Oh yes, and one of those natural causes, solar intensity, is decreasing currently. fascinating bit of data, that.

Climate change did not start in the 20th century

No, it didn't. AGW did, however.

Posted by Bman:

when you consider size and scale and the way GHG's work... I could see a 5% warming influence, then you add factors like how we have these huge artificially heated concrete metropolis' that will hold more heat then the terrain that existed prior... but really, nothing hugely drastic... and well, there's only been an average 0.5 degree change in the past 150 years or so... with a great deal of hot and cold spikes in between.

Based on a decade of painstaking research, or based on the same thing that the government's involvement in the attack of 9/11, faked videos from the moon landing, and toxic vaccines are based on? Where did that 5% figure come from?

 

[ptif219]

Nope. I believe I've mentioned water vapor and methane as well.



Yes, it is, along with human activities. That's why AGW says that human activities are accelerating the change. Oh yes, and one of those natural causes, solar intensity, is decreasing currently. fascinating bit of data, that.



No, it didn't. AGW did, however.

Posted by Bman:



Based on a decade of painstaking research, or based on the same thing that the government's involvement in the attack of 9/11, faked videos from the moon landing, and toxic vaccines are based on? Where did that 5% figure come from?

Nice spin except no one can say how much man has affected climate change. I would say it is minimal if any

 

[Dittohead not!]

Nice spin except no one can say how much man has affected climate change. I would say it is minimal if any

Based on a decade of painstaking research, or on wishful thinking and the rantings of radio hosts?

 

[ptif219]

Based on a decade of painstaking research, or on wishful thinking and the rantings of radio hosts?

Based on the fact no GW propagandist can tell you how much man has affected climate change. Wait they do make claims they just have no proof to back up their claims.

 

[Catawba]

It seems the orbit of the earth is not understood and still being researched

How well do scientists understand how changes in Earth's orbit affect long-term natural climate trends?

Once again, you think you have found evidence to dispute AGW when in fact you just do not understand what you read. From your article, which is good one BTW:

"Future research should more precisely narrow down the influence of orbital changes on climate," said Rohling: "This is crucial for a better understanding of underlying natural climate trends over long, millennial timescales. And that is essential for a better understanding of any potential long-term impacts on climate due to man's activities."

 

[Dittohead not!]

Based on the fact no GW propagandist can tell you how much man has affected climate change. Wait they do make claims they just have no proof to back up their claims.

Yes, they make claims based on research. What are your claims based on?

 

[Catawba]

Based on the fact no GW propagandist can tell you how much man has affected climate change. Wait they do make claims they just have no proof to back up their claims.

Yes, they make claims based on research. What are your claims based on?

Denial

"(Science: psychology) - Refusal to admit the truth or reality of a situation or experience."