More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

If you're confused as to why CO2 levels have jumped, go look at China's pollution numbers.

Whoah! This could be a previously undiscovered Denier position: "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but blame the yellow people."

This seems to be an intermediate step between the previously identified species of "There is global warming but it has nothing to do with humanity" and "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but it's a good thing."

Why aren't we allowed to mention the "GW stopped in 1998" position, but discussing the DOW is OK in this thread?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Bong hits for breakfast?

You're full of snipes and repetitive face icons this morning. Think you'll go for substantive replies later in the day? Or maybe you're still too busy laughing at injured children.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Bong hits for breakfast?

You're full of snipes and repetitive face icons this morning. Think you'll go for substantive replies later in the day?

Sorry about that. Your post was so far out there I didn't think a substantive reply was warranted.

Quote

Or maybe you're still too busy laughing at injured children.

Just one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Yes, the US National Academy of Sciences is just plain incompetent. Along with NOAA. Your guy is correct.

What, can't find a reason to trash the author or his data?

LOFL

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Thanks

You poor man...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Thanks

You poor man...

You either huh?
Hard to refute the article posted. 650000 years of data show CO2 changes lag temp changes. In 6 independant studies. And I quote

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

You, quade and others were on a role about ignoring mountains of non-debatable data.

Your, right I am a stubborn ass now aint I !
I don't have shit to base my opinions on.
My position is political.

Well, I know this is not the final word or research on the subject but, well, I leave you to finish the sentence........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

This guy thinks you are wrong

A quote from my earlier post

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

This guy thinks you are wrong

A quote from my earlier post

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

So . . . wait a minute . . .

I'm trying to digest what you're actually trying to say and not really certain if you even understand the implications of it.

Are you saying that you now, finally, believe the planet, as a whole IS, in fact, getting warmer, but believe that the rising CO2 levels are an indicator and not the cause?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

This guy thinks you are wrong

A quote from my earlier post

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

So . . . wait a minute . . .

I'm trying to digest what you're actually trying to say and not really certain if you even understand the implications of it.

Are you saying that you now, finally, believe the planet, as a whole IS, in fact, getting warmer, but believe that the rising CO2 levels are an indicator and not the cause?

I have been saying that for quite some time. My position, ON MORE TIME is that man is not the cause.

I also believe that CO2 follows temp changes (AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE) and CO2 is not as big an effect as you and the rest of the GW alarmist proclaim. I also say that there is no consensus that man is cause GWing is pure BS.

The article or opinion you, billvon and others like to quote as my title was an article tittle to show one more time THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.

Can I change my mind? Yes, but it will take better info and data than any of you can offer up as of today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Can I change my mind? Yes, but it will take better info and data than any of you can offer up as of today

I have a question. You have a strong opinion that "man is not the cause". Do you think your evidence that is STRONGER than the evidence for the other side?

If so, please explain in what way it's stronger.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[quade 3]

So, lemme get this straight . . . because you've quoted several different articles and passages that say a couple of different things . . . I just wanna understand all of them at the same time.

1) The planet is warming. (I assume we all agree on that point now?)

2) CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans because when they get warmer they hold more CO2.

3) When the earth is in a natural warming cycle, atmospheric CO2 level rise as a result.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

So, lemme get this straight . . . because you've quoted several different articles and passages that say a couple of different things . . . I just wanna understand all of them at the same time.

1) The planet is warming. (I assume we all agree on that point now?)

2) CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans because when they get warmer they hold more CO2.No,Cooler water holds more CO2 than warmer water. Simple physics

3) When the earth is in a natural warming cycle, atmospheric CO2 level rise as a result.

yes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

yes

Having a little trouble with that "quality of evidence" question of mine, eh?

Edited to add a close tag missing from rushmc's quoted bit.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,478]

>but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

Right. Perhaps there were fewer SUV's and coal fired power plants 140,000 years ago, and CO2 was not the initial impetus that began the upward trend in temperature?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

Right. Perhaps there were fewer SUV's and coal fired power plants 140,000 years ago, and CO2 was not the initial impetus that began the upward trend in temperature?

Looking at the CO2 levels going back 100s of thousands of years, what is the explanation for the peak and subsequent decline of both CO2 and global temperatures? How could CO2 levels continue to rise, even as temps fell?

[billvon 2,478]

>Looking at the CO2 levels going back 100s of thousands of years, what
>is the explanation for the peak and subsequent decline of both CO2 and
>global temperatures? How could CO2 levels continue to rise, even as
>temps fell?

Massive volcanic activity increases CO2 and simultaneously causes upper-atmosphere haze, cooling temps both through cloud nucleation and direct blocking of sunlight.

Ice ages kill off forests and shade the oceans (reducing CO2 absorption) while increasing the earth's albedo. More light reflected = less light absorbed = cooler temps. This is a strong positive feedback cycle, and can result in a large area of ice (an ice age, basically.)

Just two possibilities.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

So, lemme get this straight . . . because you've quoted several different articles and passages that say a couple of different things . . . I just wanna understand all of them at the same time.

1) The planet is warming. (I assume we all agree on that point now?)

2) CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans because when they get warmer they hold more CO2.No,Cooler water holds more CO2 than warmer water. Simple physics

3) When the earth is in a natural warming cycle, atmospheric CO2 level rise as a result.

yes

Ok, just wanted to ensure you weren't contracting yourself because I could have sworn that you had a bit earlier.

Anyway . . . now that we have your position straight . . . are you suggesting that the CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans are somehow tied together via temperature and that -all- we're seeing from the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a result of -just- that balance?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Can I change my mind? Yes, but it will take better info and data than any of you can offer up as of today

I have a question. You have a strong opinion that "man is not the cause". Do you think your evidence that is STRONGER than the evidence for the other side?

If so, please explain in what way it's stronger.

I don't know that I believe the evidence is stronger but it is compelling. To ignore or po po what many good researchers from NASA, NOAA and other orgs is nuts.

I also do not believe the GWing side has the stronger case but they do have the message organization and they are trying to silence desent.


So let me ask you. What do you think of the info and opinion from my post up above?. 650000 years is a lot data (to which I have refered before)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

Right. Perhaps there were fewer SUV's and coal fired power plants 140,000 years ago, and CO2 was not the initial impetus that began the upward trend in temperature?

This has been a major point of your argument!! And I think you are wrong about CO2 and temp relations

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, lemme get this straight . . . because you've quoted several different articles and passages that say a couple of different things . . . I just wanna understand all of them at the same time.

1) The planet is warming. (I assume we all agree on that point now?)

2) CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans because when they get warmer they hold more CO2.No,Cooler water holds more CO2 than warmer water. Simple physics

3) When the earth is in a natural warming cycle, atmospheric CO2 level rise as a result.

yes

Ok, just wanted to ensure you weren't contracting yourself because I could have sworn that you had a bit earlier.

Anyway . . . now that we have your position straight . . . are you suggesting that the CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans are somehow tied together via temperature and that -all- we're seeing from the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a result of -just- that balance?

Yes they are tied and no, the increases are not from that relationship alone.

In either case CO2 levels do not have the temp impacts that pro GWing crows says. Looks at what is said by the researcher above. That is something I had heard of but not to the detail given by him

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Bill -

I see a lot of argumentation linking CO2 to global warming due to the coupling between temperature and CO2 levels.

Would you then say that the solar activity shown in the other graph is a valid cause, seeing as it shows the same rough coupling between activity and tempurature?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,478]

>Would you then say that the solar activity shown in the other graph is a valid cause . . .

Change in solar activity is likely part of the change we are seeing, but it's causing approximately 6% of the warming. To put it another way, if we hadn't been releasing that CO2 (but everything else had been the same) then the planet would still be warmer overall but the temperature increase would have happened more than 10x slower.

[billvon 2,478]

>This has been a major point of your argument!

What has been a major point of my argument? That there WERE coal fired power plants 140,000 years ago? Or that CO2 always "starts" any warming trend?

>And I think you are wrong about CO2 and temp relations

You believe CO2 IS the initial impetus that began the upward trend in temperatures?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I don't know that I believe the evidence is stronger

Then how do you justify being dogmatic about your "side"?

Quote

So let me ask you. What do you think of the info and opinion from my post up above?

You want MY dogmatic opinion? I don't have one. Like you, I'm largely ignorant. I'm not a scientist focussing on this problem. All I have are popular accounts of the science (just like you do.) I know I'm not qualified to have a dogmatic opinion.

Why don't you know that?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

Thanks, Bill.

Something I'm still having some problems with, though - you've said several times that we really don't know all that much about how the climate works. Regardless of that, you still have plenty of comments talking about how much warming was due to this, that or the other effect.

How do you reconcile the two viewpoints?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706