K
kimmielittle
Guest
Let’s make this simple
Can you rule these natural occurring cycles out for the 0.8C temperature rise over the last 150 years?
Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?
- Thread starter The_Reginator
- Start date
- Status
Can you rule these natural occurring cycles out for the 0.8C temperature rise over the last 150 years?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Please read the thread.
LynnV made the claim " CO2 stays in the Atmosphere 100,000 years".
Please read the thread. Once again I said there are many peer-reviewed papers showing 10 years or less - INCLUDING the NEW peer-reviewed paper, you and I, linked to that says 4-5 years.
Unlike you, yes I read links - remember I showed you that you didn’t read your link… I read his book reviews and promotional links.
Why do you insist that anyone who says the claims aren’t substantiated - have something against them. I have beef only with his unsubstantiated claim. I can see NO reason to repeat such a claim, as fact - when unsupported.
Without support it is hysterical journalism IMO
K
kimmielittle
Guest
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
They do, as does AGW.
The theory says that increased CO2 have an upward effect on temperature; it does not say that it is the only thing that affects temperate. Your summary presents a rather naïve view of global warming. “AGWers,” at least not the ones I’ve been reading, never claim that CO2 levels are the sole determinant of climate. Never. You are making that claim for them, and thereby setting up a strawman.
It says n such thing. It says all other variables being equal, temperature should rise. As I said above, other factors (open a climate science textbook if you don’t believe me that this is what they say), many other factors, influence the climate; if these other factors, like variance in solar radiation, changes in the salinity of the ocean, whatever, change in such a way as to have as to have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, then they will counter act the warming caused by CO2 increases and perhaps even cause net cooling. Imagine two equal forces acting on an object in opposite directions, one pushing, the other pulling. The net effect is that the object stands still. Suppose the forces acting on the object vary over time. Just looking at the object and seeing how it moves wouldn’t tell you anything about either of the two forces. In order to find out how much force there is in either direction, you need to control for one of the forces and then evaluate how the object reacts to the other force while the on is held constant. The way to determine the validity of the effect of CO2 global warming is not simply to compare CO2 levels to temperature, as CO2 is not the sole determinant; it is to compare CO2 levels to temperature at all points at which other variables are equal; to control for those variables. Doing so reveals that there is in fact a positive effect on temperature by CO2 levels.
No assumption at all; I wouldn’t know whether you used the tactic; I know for a fact that many renowned skeptics have used it, an d I see their red herrings cited quite frequently on these boards.
I never claimed that they did. I was responding to your ad hominems.
And I note that you still cannot produce any statistics about what percentage actually oppose AGW. It is minute, and shrinking. See for yourself:
coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ijpor.edr033.short
More than that it has confirmed it.
Have you read many scientific articles on climate change? Would you, you would see that virtually none of them mention the scientific community or consensus; refer to other particular scientists’ papers to give them credit, but it is genuinely about science. One has to have little actual experience looking at the data and findings of the actual climate scientists to believe the “AGW is a hoax” conspiracy theory. My mentioning of consensus, by the way, was entirely a response to your claims that it was some sort of politicized sect or that more and more scientists were turning against AGW, etc. I did not start that discussion; I am merely trying to put it to rest. Also theother point I was making was that you, and most everyone else, will yield to scientific consensus without thoroughly investigating every detail of it in other areas. Have you ever been prescribed medication? If so, did you ask the doctor to prove to you all the biochemical mechanisms that the medication would indice that would fix the hypothetical problem? Probably not. You probably had a certain degree of trust that, being a doctor, he probably knew what he was talking about. I’m not saying that you should give climate scientists unwavering faith; I am saying that ‘skeptics’ apply their skepticism with a very suspicious selectiveness. This talk of “post-normal science” seems to be merely a another way of trying to discredit the myriad of scientists who support AGW; ‘everyone who disagrees with us is an unscientific political fanatic’ or whatever the explanation of the day happens to be.
.
You might find it if you bothered to read the papers. Where else do you think the scientists publish their work? Are you waiting for the latest Nobel laureate in Chemistry to come to your house with test tubes, microscopes, and everything, conduct his experiments in front of you and make a report just for you and make his case until you are content? Sorry, but reading the academic journals is about as good as you can do, in any field.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Au contraire, my men are made of steel, and only then thrown into the fire.You have presented so many strawmen…
Try to get some rest!
I’m curious, do you know what timezone I’m in, or are you just guessing that it’s late where I am? I go to bed late, at any rate. I can’t go to sleep I’m exhausted. Sometimes I play pool till I’m tired. Tonight I’ll see if arguing over the internet has the same effect.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
As he should, as a gov scientist. I expect them to connect with the public they serve and explain the science. Not only is there nothing wrong in that, I’m thinking it’s about time the gov is responsive to the people. We are paying their salaries. They should deliver!
In this case of ACC, especially, since there is no magic bullit some scientist can come up with in a lab to solve the problem, but the solution lies mainly in each person’s efforts to reduce his/her own GHGs, it is even more important that the gov scientists connect with the public.
The pitty is they should have been doing that since 1995 or 1990.
Furthermore, since he also does long hours of climate science, I’d say he’s putting in a double shift for the price of one shift. So he’s actually saving us taxpayers money.
Good job, Gavin! Take some rest some time.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Okay, here’s David Archer’s response (which came later); hope this helps you:
It is true however that the rate of hydrate “decomposition” (melting) is limited by how quickly heat can diffuse down there. So it takes time for hydrates to melt just like it takes time for peat to decompose. Perhaps that was what was meant. In which case it would be like the old trick of “revealing” the band band saturation effect of greenhouse gases as though this wasn’t already in the textbook on the subject. David
K
kama3
Guest
Natural cycles do not just happen. Natural cycles follow laws of physics. Earth’s temperature is a product of several variables (forcings). If the temperature changes in a natural cycle, that means at least one of the forcings has a corresponding natural cycle.Let’s make this simple
There are several non-CO2 forcings which could be responsible for the present warming:
- Solar activity: Ruled out. The solar activity has been decreasing since 1980. In fact, some astronomers believe that the Sun may be heading for another Maunder Minimum (look it up). But the temperature keeps going up: skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
- Volcanoes: ruled out. There is no correlation between large volcanic eruptions and CO2 levels or warming. If anything, volcanoes have a short term cooling effect: blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/21/volcanoes/
- Cosmic rays influencing cloud generation: The effect has not been completely ruled out, but cosmic rays levels do not correlate with temperature in recent years. skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm Anyway, CERN’s CLOUD experiment should provide a definitive answer on this in 1-2 years.
- Some unspecified kind of natural variation in carbon cycle: ruled out.
2nd reason: statistics for production of fossil fuels are easily available, so the amount of carbon humans put into atmosphere each year can be trivially calculated. It roughly corresponds to observed increase in atmospheric CO2 content.(Actually, the observed CO2 increase is lower than the amount of carbon in burned fossil fuels at the moment, because the oceans currently sink CO2 from the air. The ocean also becomes more acidic in the process, which has also been observed. However IIRC there is a limit how much CO2 oceans can accept, so once that mechanism saturates, both atmospheric CO2 content and warming will accelerate.)
TL;DR (1) The only forcing which increases together with temperature is GHG levels, particularly CO2; (2) The CO2 increase is in line with human emissions.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Except that the last decade has had cooler average temps.
I always found this claim funny. So all the CO2 that volcanoes spew into the air causes cooling, bit the CO2 we put into the air causes warming…
Really, so every natural cycle, or event that could causing warming has been identified studied and ruled out as a cause? Somehow I find that claim to be slightly exaggerated.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
What is your point? Just because a person claims to be against killing people with poison, doesn’t mean they ipso facto are fine with killing people with guns or knives.
I’ve always been against killing and genocide and land grabbing (like what we did to the Native Americans), and constantly speak out against this type of evil. I used to show a video in a class I used to teach on social inequalities about how multinational corps were responsible for forcing people off their subsistence lands in Brazil, where they grew rice and beans, pushing them into destitution and starvation, so multinationals could grow soy to feed to chickens for the rich in Brazil and in rich countries.
There is no end to the social injustices around the world, and it is a terrible tragedy when the people who are suffering the most from climate change are doubly victimized in the name of mitigating climate change. An outrage, as you say. I don’t disagree in any way at all – what makes you think I would disagree or not be outraged ((I also feel bad about the birds killed by wind generators (and hope they can find solutions to that problem), and also that climate change is slated to cause some 50% of bird species to go extinct within a couple hundred years.))
I, like many other environmentalists, have never bought “carbon offsets,” and don’t think “cap & trade” will work, plus it seems sort of immoral – like man A paying man B to be faithful to his wife, so the man A can cheat on his own wife with impunity (I heard that one from some other environmentalists). And now you have raised issues about how cap & trade is being implemented in a way that harms people, which is totally evil, making it all the more not a solution to climate change (which it never was in the first place).
I am mostly in favor of educating and helping people to voluntarily reduce their GHGs in sensible ways, esp those that benefit them and others in other ways.
As for gov action, I’m for 1st taking away subsidies & tax-breaks from oil and coal, and distributing those funds saved to the poor, so that they can either pay for their higher energy bills, or use that money to become energy/resource efficient/conservative, and really be on the road to economic prosperity. After that, I’d be in favor of putting some modest fee on oil and coal, and dividing that up among all the people, so they can use it to offset the higher costs due to those fees, or to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative. The closest legislation to that is the Canwell, CLEAR Act – which is good, but not perfect (see cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm ).
I just wish skeptics would not be working so hard and diligently to dissuade people from reducing their GHGs in sensible ways that save them money, don’t cost, and/or have other benefits.
K
kama3
Guest
Which dataset are you basing this on?Except that the last decade has had cooler average temps.
NOAA, HadCRU, GISS and Berkeley all show that 2000-2010 decade was between 0.6 and 0.9 deg. C above 1950 - 1980 mean and the previous decade was about 0.2C lower. See fig. 1in this paper: berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf
Volcanic CO2 causes warming, except the release is small against human emissions. But volcanoes also spew out dust (or, as professionals call them, aerosols) which causes cooling.
As I noted above, that natural cycle must be a cycle of something and scientists have pretty much checked all options of what that something must be.Really, so every natural cycle, or event that could causing warming has been identified studied and ruled out as a cause? Somehow I find that claim to be slightly exaggerated.
Plus, we know that it’s NOT a natural cycle, because when you look at e.g. GISP2 core data – you can see cycles there – and you can see that we are at what should be the end of the interglacial period – i.e. new ice age should be starting – it should be cooling – but it’s warming. Fast!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I don’t think I did. I think I said that a portion of CO2 can stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years. However, if I did make claim that “CO2 stays in the atmosphere 100,000 years,” then I did so by mistake without the proper qualifications. ((I had cataract surgery last week, was struggling to cope.))
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Why? So you can choose the highest values for the earlier years and lowest values for the later years?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
If it were honest, why did Gavin remove the time stamps at RealClimate AFTER FOI? :rolleyes
Could it be that RealClimate is identified in the Climategate emails as a lobbyist /activist /PR group?
Could it be that the Hatch Act Forbids activist / lobbyist on government time?
Could it be in violation of “NASA Rules of Behavior”?
Could it be NASA doesn’t endorse RealClimate YET, Gavin uses his position at NASA to promote his lobbying / PR / activism / books via RealClimate?
It speaks volumes…when people applaud shady ethics.
Processed Cheseseseses …
bukisa.com/articles/310636_code-of-ethical-conduct-for-federal-employees
A neat little tool - even-though RealClimate removed it’s time stamps:
wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.realclimate.org
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Other than Mr Archers unsupported claim…
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Are you agreeing with me …or Mr Cook?
It is clearly seen below:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11521
ENLARGE HERE
brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
Mr. Cook uses the usual counter-point, trying to say that the influence goes in both directions.
Qualitatively speaking, it’s right.
Quantitatively speaking, the influence of CO2 on the temperature during the ice age cycles has been so much weaker than the opposite influence that it is pretty much undetectable and remains a theoretical… justified by unsupported speculation.
It’s clear that the out-gassing etc. - the influence of temperature on the concentration of gases ] - explains the bulk of the correlation between the temperature and the concentrations as seen in the Vostok ice core [and others ].
It’s a very important to note that the Vostok charts provide us with no evidence of the greenhouse effect.
AND they should - according to the AGW hypothesis.
It’s ridiculous / unsupportable to pretend that the greenhouse effect is “on par” or “online” with the opposite effects. It’s at least one order of magnitude smaller and undetectable in practice.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The notion that solar activity is constant is false.
For example:
In a 2009 paper in EOS Transactions Livingston and Penn showed a direct correlation between the infrared strength and the size of sunspots and magnetic field strength of the sunspots. I’m not quite sure how the geomagnetic index relates to the magnetic strength of the sunspots.
Geomagnetic has dropped to a new low. I don’t know what the significance of that is.
I don’t have a link, unfortunately.
There was also another recent discovery that undersea volcanic eruptions are hugely significant. Much larger than previously guessed at. Of course, there are many more undersea volcanic “items” than above the surface … as well as “strip volcanic things” … No link for that one either.
I don’t memorize the links. But you could find them by some persistent googling.
For example:
In a 2009 paper in EOS Transactions Livingston and Penn showed a direct correlation between the infrared strength and the size of sunspots and magnetic field strength of the sunspots. I’m not quite sure how the geomagnetic index relates to the magnetic strength of the sunspots.
Geomagnetic has dropped to a new low. I don’t know what the significance of that is.
I don’t have a link, unfortunately.
There was also another recent discovery that undersea volcanic eruptions are hugely significant. Much larger than previously guessed at. Of course, there are many more undersea volcanic “items” than above the surface … as well as “strip volcanic things” … No link for that one either.
I don’t memorize the links. But you could find them by some persistent googling.
- Status