Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the facts about global warming
#1
Hi Guys,

I'm new to the forum, and love a good debate. Basically I'm here because I want to test an article I wrote, on why i believe AGW is a reality. I've started a discussion on it here:

discussion: http://www.warmdebate.com/forum/facts-ab...discussion
article: http://www.warmdebate.com/blog/facts-abo...al-warming

Looking forward to your feedback Smile
Reply
#2
Hello Jason,

I am amused that you still think AGW hypothesis is alive and well,when it has failed a famous prediction utterly,and that as of yet no evidence of real positive feed backs empirically observed.

I have skimmed through your article and failed to see anything new that would support your belief that AGW hypothesis is robust and verifiable.So far it is still a modeling construct with NO empirical data to support it with.

It appears that you are unaware of a number of published science papers showing that CO2 lags temperature changes on the scale of centuries.There never has been a single published science paper showing that CO2 LEADS temperature changes.

Sure I agree that there has been GLOBAL warming since the 1850's,but not since the 1960's.That is because the SOUTHERN Hemisphere has not been warming up,it is flat statistically and verified by satellite data.

Thus the warming trend has not been global for the last 40 + years or so.

Can you see why this fact alone is seriously damaging to the AGW hypothesis?

Keep in mind that phrase of CO2 being a "well mixed greenhouse gas" is continually stated by AGW believing scientists.

Sure I agree there have been some human caused warming with all that Urban Heating of the large cities,and land use changes over the decades.

Think about it Jason,why did the IPCC use so many unverified unpublished articles in their META ANALYSIS reports since 1990,when there supposedly thousands of AGW supporting "peer reviewed" published papers available to use?

Recall that Naomi Oreskes several years made the claim that the published science research is overwhelmingly on the side of the AGW believers.So what happened?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
Jason,

I will post a counterpoint response to your article soon.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
I addressed the CO2 lag in my article. I'm interested in the southern hemisphere cooling, can you give some more info and articles?
Reply
#5
(02-22-2010, 02:24 AM)jason_85 Wrote: I addressed the CO2 lag in my article.

Do you mean when you say this:
Quote:Although the graph seems to indicate that CO2 concentration changes are preceded by temperature changes, there is no proof that this is actually the case (the exact times are difficult to estimate). Even if it was, it would only suggest that CO2 concentrations have not been the driving force for temperature variations in the past, and does not indicate that they cannot be a driver in the future. This is an important logical distinction, and many people will try to trick people in missing this link in order to use graphs like this to suggest that CO2 concentrations cannot be a driver for temperature changes.

regarding one specific graphic?

Quote:Although the graph seems to indicate that CO2 concentration changes are preceded by temperature changes, there is no proof that this is actually the case (the exact times are difficult to estimate).
This shows poor research on your part - did you even look for further information, or did you decide this graph is the only "data". The reason the "exact times are difficult to estimate" for you is because you didn't look at the actual data that created that graph, which will show clearly that temps rising and falling preceded the similar rise and fall of CO2 atmospheric levels.

Quote:Even if it was, it would only suggest that CO2 concentrations have not been the driving force for temperature variations in the past, and does not indicate that they cannot be a driver in the future. This is an important logical distinction, and many people will try to trick people in missing this link in order to use graphs like this to suggest that CO2 concentrations cannot be a driver for temperature changes.
Not exactly - since it has never happened a certain way in the past, over tremendously long times, means that to show that this time it is different you must show conclusively how this different process works.

Not conjecture - factual data.

Even the world's greatest scientists have not been able to show that this is happening. They have a concept - CO2 as part of the "green house gas" theory - that the additional CO2 from man's emissions is causing additional atmospheric warming, but no amount of observation shows this to be happening.

Recent admissions by Dr. Jones (CRU) even discuss that none of the warming of recent times is out of the ordinary at all, and the AGW concept is based on the additional CO2 in the atmosphere causing unusual, out of the ordinary, warming.

It is not.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#6
jason Wrote:Although the graph seems to indicate that CO2 concentration changes are preceded by temperature changes, there is no proof that this is actually the case (the exact times are difficult to estimate). Even if it was, it would only suggest that CO2 concentrations have not been the driving force for temperature variations in the past, and does not indicate that they cannot be a driver in the future. This is an important logical distinction, and many people will try to trick people in missing this link in order to use graphs like this to suggest that CO2 concentrations cannot be a driver for temperature changes.


Welcome Jason!

Point taken that past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior.

But

1: It's important to remember what the claims are here and what is being proposed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We are being asked to believe that humans have suddenly taken control of the earth's climate with only circumstantial evidence to back that up. (and compelling evidence against it) And we are being asked to make major lifestyle changes with very weak arguments to back that up.

2: While past behavior is no guarantee, it is certainly a large strike against AGW theory. No one can argue that isn't a very noteworthy point. There is a reason why your side never mentions it. Smile And let's also note that much of this is based on predictions which assume a continued path (i.e. humans won't adapt in any way to potential climate changes). So this exact argument can be used against many of the claims of AGW supporters.

Again welcome. Smile
Reply
#7
Quote:regarding one specific graphic?
most graphs show that Co2 concentrations lag temperature, this isn't heavily disputed. Whether or not it's a fact is uncertain, but it seems like it would be true. The reason I didn't dwell on it is because it's not central to my argument. The mechanisms by which CO2 has been released into the atmosphere are unprecedented, and i've indicated this with the following changes to my document:

Quote:the actual time lag is subject to dispute since the air trapped inside the vostock ice records is younger than the ice itself (New Scientist (2007)). Even if temperature did in fact lag behind CO2 variations in the past, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that CO2 concentrations are not the driving force for temperature variations today, since the mechanisms are distinctly different to those that have occurred during the past 400,000 years (one needs only to look at the above graph to notice the sharp and unprecedented climb in CO2 concentrations during the last century to verify this).

In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.
Reply
#8
(02-21-2010, 07:36 PM)jason_85 Wrote: Hi Guys,

I'm new to the forum, and love a good debate. Basically I'm here because I want to test an article I wrote, on why i believe AGW is a reality. I've started a discussion on it here:

discussion: http://www.warmdebate.com/forum/facts-ab...discussion
article: http://www.warmdebate.com/blog/facts-abo...al-warming

Looking forward to your feedback Smile

I also like to mention how cool of you it is to invite skeptics in on the discussion. That's a rare thing that you deserve praise for. If you were the figurehead of this movement (replacing Al Gore), this would be a very different debate methinks.

More points:

1-Did you note the lack of correlation between CO2 and temps in the 600 million year chart? That's not a problem for the theory? You appear to require correlation with other forcings (i.e. sunspots).

2-As mentioned, you seem very willing to dismiss sunspots as a driver due to the divergence after the 1970s. That's fair (though there is more to the sun than that). But the very next graph contains similar divergences between temps and CO2 (i.e. 1945-1975) Isn't it also fair to dismiss CO2 as the driver? You'll note a similar temperature climb to 1975-2000 prior to 1950...predating our CO2 emission jump. Temperatures again rose prior to CO2 rises....just as we have mentioned from earlier climate periods.
(02-22-2010, 08:34 AM)jason_85 Wrote: In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.

Given the claims and demands for lifestyle changes, we need more than that. The theory appears to be based on what you said there. "We can't explain it, so CO2 must be the answer". That's not compelling proof.

Phil Jones summed it up the same way in his recent interview:

Quote:BBC: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

Jones: The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

What we have here is fodder for an interesting theory...not a major lifestyle change for the human race.
Reply
#9
(02-22-2010, 08:48 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote:
Quote:BBC: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

Jones: The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

What we have here is fodder for an interesting theory...not a major lifestyle change for the human race.

Agreed.

Also, Jones is making an assumption - that solar and volcanic forcing are the only other things that could possible cause warming (or cooling). What about: it's not these two, so it must be methane, or the PDO, or cosmic rays, or the Thermohaline Circulation, or ...?
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#10
jason_85 -

When I look at this graphic:

[Image: image277.gif]

I see that it is an extremely general depiction of atmospheric temps and atmospheric CO2 levels extending back 600 million years. Since it shows such a long term, it should only be used to make very general statements.

One, is that it shows that historically we are at a very low temperature level now. One that has only been seen twice before in the 600 million years.

The current level of atmospheric CO2 has only happened one time over that period, too.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that it is very possible that both levels could rise to a level closer to what might be termed the "average" or "normal" level for the planet, although that might not be true. In any case, if either or both rise significantly, it will not be anything out of the historical norm.

I agree that this graphic should not be used in an attempt to disprove the AGW by CO2 concept, however it certainly should be used to show exactly what it shows - that we are currently in a time of very low levels of both atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

You might find the information at this site helpful:

brief introduction to the history of climate

There you will see more recent levels of global atmospheric temperatures. You'll also get an idea of how important the start time of a graphic is when attempting to show a trend. Only going back to 1880 makes it look like we are having an unusual warming, but go back further to 400 BC, and what is happening now is not only not unusual, it appears to fall into a very acceptable range. Keep going back further and you'll see that we should be thankful we are living in the warm age we are because most of the time the planet has been much colder.

The "warmist" scientists (Mann/Briffa) have worked hard to create "hockey stick" looking graphics to convince people that neither the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) nor the Little Ice Age (LIA) ever happened, or if warming and cooling during those periods happened at all, it was very minor.

Your use of the graphic from Wikipedia is an attempt to support that conclusion. First, though, the graphic is only covering the Northern Hemisphere. This is misleading, especially when folks are screaming "Global Warming!" You are allowing this trickery to fool you. Exactly what the Warmists want. Do some research and you'll discover two very important things that will serve you well if you are really searching for the truth: first, do not trust the information in Wikipedia regarding the AGW debate. It is biased toward support of AGW. Second, do not trust AGW sources that have "flattened out" either or both of the MWP or LIAs. All of them have been discredited, but AGW supporting sites, articles, documents, etc. refuse to purge them. If you really search for a reasonable consensus, you'll find that the majority of honest Climate Scientists say that both happened and the MWP was warmer than we are today.

An over riding question that has bothered me from when I first began trying to understand what is really happening in the AGW by CO2 debate is: "Why do the AGW supporters continuously use misleading arguments, false information, sometimes direct lies, and other poor science concepts to support their concept?" Heck, if it is real and based on solid "settled" science, why do they need to do any of this? Why, for example, isn't Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" straightforward and truthful? If it is really happening, the science should be unassailable, and it is not. Worse, in some cases, it would be laughable if the main stream media (especially here in the US) wasn't so complacent.

It's admirable that you have become involved and wish to write about what you believe in, in an effort to share it. Here's hoping we can help you write something that reflects the honesty regarding what is really happening.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#11
Jason,

Quote:most graphs show that Co2 concentrations lag temperature, this isn't heavily disputed. Whether or not it's a fact is uncertain, but it seems like it would be true. The reason I didn't dwell on it is because it's not central to my argument. The mechanisms by which CO2 has been released into the atmosphere are unprecedented, and i've indicated this with the following changes to my document:

The fact that ALL published science papers state that CO2 lags temperature changes by centuries is significant,because it clearly shows that it is NOT driving the temperatures up.

How would you know that a 115 ppmv increase in 125 years is "unprecedented"?

After all we have over 600 million years to base it on.

The real reason why they push the idea that it is "unprecedented" is because their AGW hypothesis is in big trouble,otherwise it would never be brought up.

The chart YOU showed has levels over 1500 ppmv for most of the last 250 million years.Life goes on in all that CO2.

We can live with such levels and more easily because the food crops grows better and on less water and fertilizers.

Quote:In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.

This is about as scientific as eating a pancake since it is based on pure guesswork.

Why chose a trace gas with 3 minimal IR absorption bands anyway?

You will have to do better than that.

Rolleyes

Here you referred to a "document" that you stated was changed:

Quote:the actual time lag is subject to dispute since the air trapped inside the vostock ice records is younger than the ice itself (New Scientist (2007)). Even if temperature did in fact lag behind CO2 variations in the past, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that CO2 concentrations are not the driving force for temperature variations today, since the mechanisms are distinctly different to those that have occurred during the past 400,000 years (one needs only to look at the above graph to notice the sharp and unprecedented climb in CO2 concentrations during the last century to verify this).

The point being?

Again New Scientist was stating something that has NEVER happened, according to ALL of the science papers that have been published on the undisputed fact,that CO2 are always lagging temperature changes.

They make a big deal about the sharp rise,but never provided any evidence that it should be of any concern.It is a game such shabby publications play and does not even make sense anyway because there NEVER has been any demonstrated evidence that CO2 drives temperatures up.

Notice that New Scientist does NOT say that? They instead try to convince you be worried about a rapid rise of a trace gas that is still a trace gas and will still be a trace gas 100 years from now.

This is scaremongering and YOU fell for it!
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#12
The following is taken from HERE.

let's have a real close look at the last spike in the Antarctic ice cores some 20,000 years ago.

[Image: EPICA2.GIF]

Now we see two problems. The first problem has been beaten to death as it seems. CO2 reacts several hunderd years later than the temperature (red arrows following the blue arrows). Yes ...yawn...what else is new, we explained that a hunderd times. First the Milankovitch cycles trigger a bit of warming, that warms the oceans which causes CO2 to release from the oceans, which takes over the warming function to create more warming which releases more CO2 from the ocean. Strong positive feedback. Go and have somebody else bored...yawn.. (sorry imitating the real climate team).

But something is very wrong with that explanation for this given sequence, if you know what positive feedback really does.

system feedback is a complicated matter on which 100s of engineers earn their living. Every system had embedded feedbacks, also natural systems with predictable to weird reactions.

Let's go to wikipedia:
Quote:The end result of a positive feedback is often amplifying and "explosive." That is, a small perturbation will result in big changes. This feedback, in turn, will drive the system even further away from its own original setpoint, thus amplifying the original perturbation signal, and eventually become explosive because the amplification often grows exponentially (with the first order positive feedback), or even hyperbolically (with the second order positive feedback)

So we see the temps go up first, followed a few hundred years later by the CO2 due to system lag, giving another heating input as positive feedback. That lag is crucial because lag works two ways, it delays going up and going down like inertia. A car needs time to accelerate and time to stop. However this ice core "car" stops instantenously halfway without any delay, while the CO2 is still continuing upwards, pulling the temps up, or not?

Instead the CO2 just follows the temperature with the same delay, a follower is not a feedbacker. On the contrary, the enhanced steering away form the stable centre position makes strong positive feedback systems having a strong affiliation with the system extreem values, either low or high with very low sensitivity for natural disturbances halfway.

That's the ugly fact, which slays a beautiful hypothesis, the great tragedy of science (Thomas Huxley)

No strong enough positive feedback here

[Image: epica5.GIF]
====================================================
See why CO2 that always lags temperature changes can not promote positive feedbacks (never observed),when it is always lagging the changes?

The charts are based on actual EPICA DOME data and the links to all the data is in the link.

CO2 does NOT drive temperature changes.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#13
Oh, and the Medieval Warming Period that Jason's third graphic attempts to minimize -

Here is is: Midieval Warm Period.

and here if you have Java: Midieval Warm Period Project
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#14
Hi guys, sorry I haven't been posting lately. In the middle of exams. Will definitely get back to you and read up on all your comments soon. cheers Smile
Reply
#15
(02-22-2010, 08:38 PM)JohnWho Wrote: Here is is: Midieval Warm Period.

That's pretty awesome there.
Reply
#16
I'm certain I've seen another site showing even more tree ring proxy sites that show the MWP, but can't seem to locate it.

Also, haven't all of the trees at the sites used by Mann and Briffa been plotted and also show the MWP? Didn't both of them select out only trees that flattened the MWP out?
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#17
JohnWho didn't Lord Monckton compile a list of 600 (ish) studies showing the MWP.
Is his site, or SPPI worth checking. ?
Apologies, if they have already been mentioned, just dropping in to the thread as such,
as I pass by..

BTW -
I included a Russian study in my Hockey Stick slideshow.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-137.html
{middle of part 2 roughly}
It is not often quoted / referenced as such, but it does show the differences.
It was a Europe / Asia study.
ie,
[Image: Slide196.jpg]

Depicted in this slide is
1) Mann's Hockey Stick ("green" naturally enough..), and
2) The studies findings (blue).
[Image: Slide198.jpg]

[Image: Slide199.jpg]
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#18
(02-22-2010, 08:25 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: 1: It's important to remember what the claims are here and what is being proposed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We are being asked to believe that humans have suddenly taken control of the earth's climate with only circumstantial evidence to back that up. (and compelling evidence against it) And we are being asked to make major lifestyle changes with very weak arguments to back that up.

Hi Harposmoke, and thanks for the welcome Smile
I think this point underlines another issue on its own. Personally, I don't think it's the onus is only on the believers of global warming, but lies quite evenly on both sides, maybe even more on the table of deniers. One could argue that to state that global warming is not going to happen with the significant addition of a gas known to increase radiative forcing is in itself a strong allegation. I personally do not view the belief of global warming as an idea that must be proven for it to be taken seriously, simply because it makes the most sense given the data. It's by no means the only explanation, nor do I think we should stop asking questions, but to dismiss it based on the lack of absolute proof (whatever that might look like) would, in my view, be quite arrogant given then substantially higher "pile of evidence" compared to other theories. That said, I think this is itself a complex discussion which could warrant another blog article...

(02-22-2010, 08:25 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: 2: While past behavior is no guarantee, it is certainly a large strike against AGW theory. No one can argue that isn't a very noteworthy point. There is a reason why your side never mentions it. Smile

Yes it's a shame we don't have an example from the past, and that's simply because current events are unprecedented in earth history. Therefore in this case, past history is quite a poor tool in terms predicting the greenhouse effect. It does however tell us that solar activity was far more important in the past than it has been since the onset of the industrial revolution, which tells us we should look for "something else" which might be forcing global temperature.

(02-22-2010, 08:25 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: And let's also note that much of this is based on predictions which assume a continued path (i.e. humans won't adapt in any way to potential climate changes). So this exact argument can be used against many of the claims of AGW supporters.

can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand what you mean.
(02-22-2010, 08:48 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: 1-Did you note the lack of correlation between CO2 and temps in the 600 million year chart? That's not a problem for the theory? You appear to require correlation with other forcings (i.e. sunspots).

Here's the image again:

[Image: co2-global-warming-history.gif]

In answer to the question: not really, as far as I can tell CO2 has not been a significant driver for temperature in the past (it could be the case that increases in temperature have, in the past, causes releases of CO2 which have perpetuated further temperature increases, but that's another issue). CO2 increases radiative forcing, but can quickly become saturated (ie. it can only turn up the heat so much), this is reflected in the CO2 history quite well (you never have low temp without low CO2 in the past, other than at 450 million years ago, dunno what happened there, will look into that. any ideas? Ozone maybe?)

(02-22-2010, 08:48 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: 2-As mentioned, you seem very willing to dismiss sunspots as a driver due to the divergence after the 1970s. That's fair (though there is more to the sun than that). But the very next graph contains similar divergences between temps and CO2 (i.e. 1945-1975) Isn't it also fair to dismiss CO2 as the driver? You'll note a similar temperature climb to 1975-2000 prior to 1950...predating our CO2 emission jump. Temperatures again rose prior to CO2 rises....just as we have mentioned from earlier climate periods.

ok so here's the graph on sunspots and temp:

[Image: global-temperature-solar-activity-improved.gif]

and here is the one on CO2 and temp:

[Image: co2-globa-temperature.gif]

What I find interesting about the events between 1950-1970 is that, to me (and this is ofcourse pretty loose considering the lack of past evidence), it seems like we are seeing a global shift between sunspot forcing and CO2 forcing. I'm no climate expert so this may or may not be a valid theory, but it seems like it to me. Before 1970 we can see a strong correlation between sunspots and temperature. It seems like temperature is "following" sunspot exposure by about a decade. CO2 is doing more or less nothing to affect the climate. Global temperature then responds to a downward shift in sunspot forcing during the 1950s, during which time CO2 is increasing strongly. Then it seems like, as CO2 forcing increases and sunspot forcing remains steady, global temperature seems to shift from a dependance on sunspots to CO2 in the 1970s.

This is why I don't consider the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature before the 1970s to be an issue, because I believe that the correlation didn't exist.

(02-22-2010, 08:48 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: Given the claims and demands for lifestyle changes, we need more than that. The theory appears to be based on what you said there. "We can't explain it, so CO2 must be the answer". That's not compelling proof.

Now combine the correlation I just proposed with the fact that we already know CO2 to be a greenhouse gas, and the fact that we are emitting levels of CO2 never seen in human history (or during the history of many other species on this planet), at speeds likely never to have been experienced in the history of our planet, and the question is: How can you imply or suggest that it would NOT increase CO2? Just a thought. Thanks for the questions I'll try to make my article more concise Smile

(02-22-2010, 08:48 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: What we have here is fodder for an interesting theory...not a major lifestyle change for the human race.

That's another can of worms. Even if what I am saying is true, the impact is whole other complex issue.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that it is very possible that both levels could rise to a level closer to what might be termed the "average" or "normal" level for the planet, although that might not be true. In any case, if either or both rise significantly, it will not be anything out of the historical norm.

(02-22-2010, 05:00 PM)JohnWho Wrote: I agree that this graphic should not be used in an attempt to disprove the AGW by CO2 concept, however it certainly should be used to show exactly what it shows - that we are currently in a time of very low levels of both atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

What you're saying is ofcourse true, we can see it just from the graph. But what you're implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that going back to the historic "norm" would not be a bad thing. The earth has no "norms", and taking CO2 levels and temperatures back to a time when life, the continents and the atmosphere were completely different would be nothing less than a global disaster.

In regards to the attempts of some scientists to create these hockeystick graphs, I think that's a big mistake. There is little evidence for warming that is out of the ordinary, and one would be bending figures if they would ever claim that. What is out of the ordinary, is CO2 levels. It is expected that temperature responses to CO2 levels should lag the emissions by some time, so what is it that makes you think the temperature won't increase? Neither side here has any historical evidence to back up their argument, that's the problem really, and given that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, wouldn't it make sense to argue that the increase of this gas way beyond historic levels would not influence the atmosphere?

(02-22-2010, 05:00 PM)JohnWho Wrote: "Why do the AGW supporters continuously use misleading arguments, false information, sometimes direct lies, and other poor science concepts to support their concept?" Heck, if it is real and based on solid "settled" science, why do they need to do any of this? Why, for example, isn't Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" straightforward and truthful? If it is really happening, the science should be unassailable, and it is not. Worse, in some cases, it would be laughable if the main stream media (especially here in the US) wasn't so complacent.

Yeah it's a shame. I suppose the fact is that the real figures just aren't that exciting, it was the same thing in "The great global warming swindle". There seems to be a shocking-graphs arms race between the two sides... The media knows very well that "a rumour gets half way around the world before then truth can get its pants on".
Reply
#19
(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: The fact that ALL published science papers state that CO2 lags temperature changes by centuries is significant,because it clearly shows that it is NOT driving the temperatures up.

This is stated misleadingly. CO2 increases have historically lagged temperature increases by several centuries (or more). These are completely different mechanisms to what is occurring today (the endings of ice ages), but is interesting to note is that while the lag is about 1000 years, the total temperature increase is somewhere around 5000 years. If you research the explanation for why these increases are so long, you'll inevitable arrive at predictions about CO2 driving these changes, not lagging. The lag was only initial, at least that's the theory.

(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: How would you know that a 115 ppmv increase in 125 years is "unprecedented"?

If this is about tripping me up on the fact that CO2 was once higher than today, it's not relevant. CO2 is higher now than it has been for the entire time the planet was in a state resembling the way it is today, and during that time such a high jump in CO2 concentrations has never been experienced.

(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: After all we have over 600 million years to base it.

The chart YOU showed has levels over 1500 ppmv for most of the last 250 million years.Life goes on in all that CO2.

This is not a strong argument. Life existed before there was any oxygen in the atmosphere as well; would you argue that oxygen is not important?

(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: We can live with such levels and more easily because the food crops grows better and on less water and fertilizers.

Again, not a serious argument. Why don't we just spray pesticides into the atmosphere, or put aspirin in our water supply, that way there'll be no pests and no headaches. Great, right?

(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: This is about as scientific as eating a pancake since it is based on pure guesswork.

More or less, yes. I wouldn't go as far as calling it guesswork though. It's an observation based on reasoning and the lack of a better explanation, and some limited scientific conjecture.

(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Why chose a trace gas with 3 minimal IR absorption bands anyway?

Those IR bands make a huge potential contribution. It's also the gas causing the most radiative forcing due to hour emissions (in terms of global warming potential * man made emissions).

(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: You will have to do better than that.

I could say the same to you. But the reason I started this discussion was to get ideas to improve my article, this isn't about right or wrong because neither of us can really know the truth.

(02-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Here you referred to a "document" that you stated was changed:

Again New Scientist was stating something that has NEVER happened, according to ALL of the science papers that have been published on the undisputed fact,that CO2 are always lagging temperature changes.

They make a big deal about the sharp rise,but never provided any evidence that it should be of any concern.It is a game such shabby publications play and does not even make sense anyway because there NEVER has been any demonstrated evidence that CO2 drives temperatures up.

Notice that New Scientist does NOT say that? They instead try to convince you be worried about a rapid rise of a trace gas that is still a trace gas and will still be a trace gas 100 years from now.

This is scaremongering and YOU fell for it!

Again, you're using misleading wording. If a gas being a trace component in our atmosphere means that it cannot contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, then there would be no greenhouse effect, because all greenhouse gases are in on average trace quantities in our atmosphere.

In regards to the other stuff, maybe you can be more specific about what New scientist is saying that "never happened", I didn't quite understand what you mean.
Reply
#20
jason_85, you say this with confidence I think:

Quote:Those IR bands make a huge potential contribution. It's also the gas causing the most radiative forcing due to hour emissions (in terms of global warming potential * man made emissions).

I am keen to learn how this increase in radiative forcing happens because of increasing man made emissions.

As far as I can make out those IR bands, specific to CO2, cannot penetrate very far into the atmosphere. It seems my belief, obviously misguided, is that increasing CO2 makes no difference to radiative forcing.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study Sunsettommy 0 5,416 05-27-2013, 08:17 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Occam’s Razor, the Null Hypothesis, and Anthropogenic Global Warming Sunsettommy 0 3,522 04-13-2013, 06:43 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite water vapor observations Sunsettommy 0 4,120 03-23-2013, 08:30 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 0 3,201 03-23-2013, 07:45 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 1 3,775 10-10-2012, 12:29 PM
Last Post: Earthling
  Turkish Scientists Confirm UHI Effect Is Overstating Global Warming - 4 Degree UHI Im Sunsettommy 0 4,981 09-13-2012, 06:02 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  NOAA Conducts Large-Scale Experiment And Proves Global Warming Skeptics Correct Sunsettommy 0 2,948 09-09-2012, 06:52 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Thermodynamice Of Global Warming ajmplanner 5 6,700 06-11-2012, 12:32 PM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate
  Why the theory of man-made global warming is incorrect Sunsettommy 2 4,675 05-19-2012, 09:03 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Global Warming - A Coolist's View Sunsettommy 0 3,314 01-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)