Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7301 - 7320 of total 27278 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 13, 2013 - 02:04am PT
and we know what the consequences of the is going to be.

We do huh? Pretty cocky aren't we. Now claiming we know what the future holds.

Fact is, if your claim is true, and per the history of this planet as science knows it, regardless what we humans do in order to attempt to reverse this all, our efforts are indeed fruitless. History dictates that it has and will occur again. The 10-20 time increase in atmospheric C02 content. Regardless how much C02 we pump into the atmosphere.

what was different was the concentration of CO2

Precisely. It was 10-20 times higher than it is today. It all happened without human efforts. Many times in the past. Many times.

as for original state, we can take the state we found it in when we got here and work from there.

AH. So, the rest of the 4. something billion years prior to that do not count. Kinda like the "record" breaking heat wave etc ONLY go back 180 years at best.

This is seriously getting better as you all post. ED. All verifying your across the board utopian ideology and agenda.
raymond phule

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 02:17am PT

Tonights contributions to the discussions. How much is the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 and where is it coming from? See below, then pick it apart like a bunch of buzzards.

Why should anyone do this when you just ignore their comments when they actually do it?

I thought that you could help my understanding of what Murry said when he talked about the integral of the temperature?
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jun 13, 2013 - 02:27am PT
That about covers it Ed.

Nice to condense 1000's of posts down to the simplest pertinent detail.

The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 13, 2013 - 08:47am PT
it's not "rocket science" The Chief... you increase the concentration of CO2 and the temps will go up

Please ED. Not according the Vostok Ice Core Samples and many scientist that DO NOT agree with the consensus.







That theory is not certain and still under serious scrutiny and research.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature and 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Abstract

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Highlights

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Ole Humlum a, b

Kjell Stordahl c

Jan-Erik Solheim d

a) Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway

b) Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway

c) Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway

d) Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-carbon-dioxide-lags-global-temperature/



And this.

There is, however, still a degree of uncertainty about which came first—a spike in temperature or CO2. Until now, the most comprehensive records to date on a major change in Earth’s climate came from the EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau. The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years. “The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’”


Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve

These two very recent studies show that C02 Increase lags behind the Temp Increase. Regardless the time frame or how the verbiage looks. C02 in fact lagged temperature.

SO, that part of the science is not anywhere near "settled" and is still up in the air.


the fact that things change on the planet, for the last 3.5 billion years of life, at least, sounds like a terrific excuse to do what ever we please... irregardless of the consequences. You are advocating that we can go ahead and wreck whatever we want because things get wrecked all the time, naturally.

No I am not ED.

I am advocating that your AGW "We Can Save the Planet" club insists that you white coats have the science and technology to alter the climate and attempt to control it. Just like you can control the climate in your home. That man can and should maintain the climate to the "perfect" or as you posted "original" state in order to exist in an utopian manner. When in fact no such thing exists.

We aren't wrecking anything. We are doing just what we are suppose to do. The planet will continue with or without us. As it did for 4. something Billion years before as you say " we showed up". You fatalist can not comprehend nor conceive that. Evolution will prevail. We humans are NO different than the rest of the species that came and went. We will go away just as they did.

You Scientist and Evolutionist insist on and tell the Creationist that they are full of shet. Yet when the aspect of evolution applies to the human species, we are taken outta the equation. You insist that we can prevail and achieve immortality. That your superior Scientific Intelligence will allow this to occur. You can not see past your noses to the reality that lies before us as a species.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:11am PT
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many(like The Chief). Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:14am PT
^^^^^ Another substantiation that increase in Temps promote C02 increase. And the opposite. Thus this theory is still not settled by any means.

the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit.... CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990). Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:20am PT
ED^^^^^^

it's not "rocket science" The Chief... you increase the concentration of CO2 and the temps will go up.. they knew that in 1896... they predicted it in 1896 and by 1996 the temps were up... fancy that, they were right.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:34am PT
Not according the Vostok Ice Core Samples and many scientist that DO NOT agree with the consensus.

Chief has posted versions of that Vostok ice core temp/CO2 graphic dozens of times, and I expect he will post dozens more. In his head this graph is a killer argument against ACC.

Strangely, the real scientists who go out on the ice to drill, then bring back and carefully analyze the cores -- who understand where those numbers come from, and what they tell -- have reached just the opposite conclusion.

There's no point in explaining science to Chief, he has proven that many times. But this is a durable denier meme. If anyone else here wonders why the ice scientists aren't reaching the same conclusion Chief does, I'd be happy to write a post later today with links to recent papers.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:58am PT
Denier science about CO2 lags:

Chickens do not lay eggs because they have been observed hatching from them.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:07am PT
Rick Poedtke wrote:
Fact is, if your claim is true, and per the history of this planet as science knows it, regardless what we humans do in order to attempt to reverse this all, our efforts are indeed fruitless. History dictates that it has and will occur again. The 10-20 time increase in atmospheric C02 content. Regardless how much C02 we pump into the atmosphere.

Please, The Chief, answer this simple question, in light of what you wrote above:
If human activity is causing an unnatural increase in CO2, can human activity decrease the amount of CO2 that humans create?
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:20am PT
Gary, it is yet to be clearly ascertained as the % of C02 that humans are adding to the atmosphere. It is yet be clearly ascertained whether or not C02 is causing the temps to rise. That science is far from being settled.



You White Coats and the sheep that follow em, you all are a dancing.




It aint happening as you GCC PhDers say it is. Nor is it gonna happen the way you predict it is gonna happen. Never. Ya'll are a flip flopn away.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:24am PT
YUP. Totally contradicting the premise that C02 causes temps to rise.^^^^^^ Thanks for validating that.

SKI

We are raising CO2 first. Which according to your first chart is a historically unique way to raise the temperature. The implication seems to be that with this rise in temperature due to fossil fuel burning we will get hit with a second dose of CO2 due the temperature increase. Furthermore the problem may last 100s to 1000s of years once that occurs.


Fancy that. Now you all add a new mix to the hysteria.



SKI

ED nor Chiloe have answered my question. Maybe you will. What was the forcing that caused the C02 to reach levels of over 7000ppm's (almost 20 times the current level) back 500 or so million years ago?
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:27am PT
meh ..sorry for the post delete the cheif. I was feeling stupid for getting into an argument with you. but by the time I deleted it was too late. you posted during the deletion.

Anyway I usually stay away from this thread. The thread and argument is pointless no matter how strongly I feel about it.

---

edit again..

My simple guess (hypothesis) without supporting data or research.

increased temps lead to more forest-fires. Forest fire idea might be somewhat verifiable by vostok cores if they show increased burned particulate matter.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:09am PT
Ed thank you for the replys to my questions.

As far as eco groups and causes go, the spotted owl debacle was responsible for the decimation of an entire industry. All due to BAD and obviously one sided science. All designed to kill the timber industry which it accomplished to a large degree. Roll forward to now, and those clear cuts that were the BANE of all eco groups and the decimation of owls has turned out to be preferred habitat for those hooters.

You say that CO2 wasnt the driver for previous arctic melts but NOW it is. This from 1+1= 2, and i understand that. If we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere then it MUST be CO2.. Yet many graph presented here show ups and downs throughout time of CO2 levels for many reasons. Is it possible the CO2 would be climbing now regardless of mans intrusions? Since fluctuations of the past cant be blamed on man or CO2?
dirtbag

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:40am PT
No Ron, the northwest timber industry was on the way out long before owl populations tanked.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:51am PT
As far as eco groups and causes go, the spotted owl debacle was responsible for the decimation of an entire industry.

That's idiotic. Sorry its as stupid as bell ringing the 'indicator species' bullsh#t. Sh#t, yall conservatives wanted free trade and low 3rd world wages for manual labor, YOU GOT THAT AND NOW YOU WHINE WHINE WHINE.

Think of the NW timber industry as an indicator species for the dangers of globalization.

DMT
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:54am PT
Ed are you saying without mans intrusion the CO2 would be stable? History doesnt agree, at all with that.. You say natural occurrences were to blame, but not what occurrences those were. And then you say natural occurrences ARENT to blame now, even though you dont know what those are/were.??

Seems to leave some wiggle room no?


edit: Dingus,, this conservative did not want any of that.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:58am PT
Your statement about CO2/temps 1896-1996 is complete simplified b.s. Ed.If that was simply true and the positive feedbacks the models depend on to amplify were all simplistically true then we would have had a runaway greenhouse eons ago with the first moderately sized basaltic volcanic eruption. CO2 release from the natural sinks follow solar and extra solar induced temp rise. Their is a whole host of negative feedbacks that moderate the CO2 increase long before temps get out of control.

If we followed the path that some of you advocate and abandon fossil fuels tomorrow complete economic collapse would ensue. The problem is that the people would remain and they would all desperately continue to exist with the resulting enviromental degradation on a scale never before witnessed. Just look at orbital pictures of the island of Hispaniola to see what would result. On one half of the island is the Dominican Republic, lush with tropical greenery, which has a vibrant economy. On the other half is Haiti which is stripped bare and brown because they have no functioning economy and the large population live as if they are in the 18th century. A lot of you rabid enviros might have a death wish to return to the 18th century and live as you call it "sustainably off the land" but not a majority of modern civilization. It might surprise you but i believe in abortion for you, post partum that is, so if you have a death wish by all means self abort.

Your stated dream of massive CO2 reduction could be started tomorrow and accomplished fairly quickly by embracing usage of the vast stores of natural gas beneath a majority of the populations feet and building many more nuclear plants. Unfortunately that is not in the cards because all sensibility has been hijacked through the courts by the rabid enviro movement.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 13, 2013 - 12:09pm PT
Dirt, yes your right about the timber industry coming under attack before the spotted owl was used as a false flagship. But it was much the same eco groups and lobbyists that entangled the FEDERAL lands. Even here in the east side zones, back as far as 1979 were under the thumbs of those organizations. All designed to kill an industry. The mill here in Garnderville closed when they couldnt get enough stems to continue. At that same time, units of timber sales in the area were being contested in court over SPOTTED owl issues, where spotted owls never had/will exist. I was there so this is first hand.



edit: Bruce,, just go look at some of the bug kills in our natl forests here. Miles upon miles of dead standing timber that wasnt logged, or treated, and wasnt allowed to burn periodically throughout the years, but left to die of the third option, insects and disease.


Much of this was due to eco groups and their influences in Washington. Just like they now do with those "mustangs" of kneevader, which by any account are invasive destructive and damage all other fuana out there. But youll not find that info in the "studies" .. The lobbyists for feral horses even got the Nevada quarter stamped with those four legged range maggots. Wanna talk about eco-hype!
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 13, 2013 - 12:11pm PT
I don't know where The Chief gets his info, but he could ask Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Happer, et al, they would agree that human activity leading to atmospheric CO2 increases are causing warming.

HUH?

Please cite any of their individual quotes that state this.

Here, I will assist you,

Spencer:
"Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Christy:
"there is a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they’ve happened in the past before CO2 levels rose."
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/EP/20120920/HHRG-112-IF03-WState-ChristyJ-20120920.pdf

Linzen:
“Climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said, according to a press release from Sandia Labs.

Real-world observations do not support Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models, he said: “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”

http://newmexico.watchdog.org/15128/mit-scientist-disputes-man-made-global-warming-in-sandia-labs-presentation/


Messages 7301 - 7320 of total 27278 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews