NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't watch any of those clowns.

We need to cull CO2 because of the 40%+ increase we have experienced since the industrial revolution and human population explosion.

In another decade or two, we will be at a 50% increase.....using 280ppm is a starting point. There are plenty of sources and thousands upon thousands of experts who agree 280ppm was the starting point pre 1800's....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't watch any of those clowns.

We need to cull CO2 because of the 40%+ increase we have experienced since the industrial revolution and human population explosion.

In another decade or two, we will be at a 50% increase.....using 280ppm is a starting point. There are plenty of sources and thousands upon thousands of experts who agree 280ppm was the starting point pre 1800's....

Sources please.

~Namaste

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't watch any of those clowns.

We need to cull CO2 because of the 40%+ increase we have experienced since the industrial revolution and human population explosion.

In another decade or two, we will be at a 50% increase.....using 280ppm is a starting point. There are plenty of sources and thousands upon thousands of experts who agree 280ppm was the starting point pre 1800's....

That is not a good reason, not to mention that your argument is THE SAME ARGUMENT used by the AGW scientists such as Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Hansen et al...

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The 280ppm pre industrial CO2 count has been cited many times on this thread.

@ ElectricUniverse,

This is not a debate. I present no arguments. Only facts.

Science is about facts, not who can come up with better arguments.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The 280ppm pre industrial CO2 count has been cited many times on this thread.

@ ElectricUniverse,

This is not a debate. I present no arguments. Only facts.

Science is about facts, not who can come up with better arguments.

I've read the entire thread.

Point to a source, not where you cited it in the thread or a quote from you.

Whether you are correct or not is not as important as providing a source of information (preferably an unbiased one) so that others can go consume the information and arrive at their own conclusions.

~Namaste

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The 280ppm pre industrial CO2 count has been cited many times on this thread.

@ ElectricUniverse,

This is not a debate. I present no arguments. Only facts.

Science is about facts, not who can come up with better arguments.

Riiight, so CO2 has never been above 280ppm and life did not continue as usual?... There have been several instances throughout Earth's geological record when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were HIGHER than now and temperatures did not increase "catastrophically"...

In fact, for millions of years has atmospheric CO2 been higher than it is now and life continued as normal for the animal kingdom, and the flora of Earth. In fact during periods where atmospheric CO2 were higher than now the Earth became greener and sustained more life.

Not to mention that like I've said multiple times right now there are "millions" of people and pets inside air conditioned buildings, apartments, and houses with atmospheric CO2 levels being at 1,000ppm + yet no one has died or suffered as long as there is proper air/oxygen ventilation...

Where are the mass extinctions of millions of people and pets which includes birds, mice, dogs, cats and other mammals that live inside A/C buildings with CO2 levels at 1,000+ppm?... Levels of atmospheric CO2 inside buildings at less than 5,000ppm are considered safe for people as long as there is proper air/oxygen ventilation.

...
How much carbon dioxide is too much?
The concentrations of CO2 found in most schools and offices are well below the 5,000
ppm occupational safety standard (time weighted average for an eight-hour workday
within a 40-hour work week) for an industrial workplace. While levels below 5,000 ppm
are considered to pose no serious health threat, experience indicates that individuals in
schools and offices with elevated CO2 concentrations tend to report drowsiness, lethargy
and a general sense that the air is stale. Researchers are looking for links between
elevated CO2 concentrations and reduced productivity and achievement.
...

www.energy.wsu.edu...

BTW, in case you didn't know or in case you forgot this fact which I have mentioned already, "there has to be good ventilation and recycling of air in buildings". Otherwise that's when people begin to get drowsy and other health problems occur. Of course if CO2 levels saturate a building, and O2 lowers it does become a problem... That's why you need good air ventilation.

Another thing I wanted to mention. The only facts you have shown jrod is that you can contradict yourself several times throughout a thread. You post your opinions and you claim they are facts and then proclaim "these are facts I don't need to debate"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Never have CO2 counts been so high in human history. The spike started during the industrial revolution and CO2 continues to accumulate.

The fact is, we as a species are making life on this planet less habitable. Spiking the atmosphere with CO2 is one of many ways humans are changing this planet and her climate.

Wait...what? It's been fairly well established co2 has been far higher in the past...

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

At one point in this planet's history there was more CO2 than O2. The plant kingdom changed the atmosphere and enabled life as we know it to evolve.

At no point in human history has CO2 been at 400ppm. In order to evolve into a type 1 civilization we need to be able to maintain a healthy atmosphere and environment on our home planet.

Luck plays a factor, such is life....

More co2 than o2? I'm not talking about a newly formed earth. Co2 was higher for the last 300 million years and life thrived...it wasn't until the last 7 million years that co2 dropped this low. I already linked those papers earlier in the thread...

a reply to: jrod

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko

At one point in this planet's history there was more CO2 than O2. The plant kingdom changed the atmosphere and enabled life as we know it to evolve.

At no point in human history has CO2 been at 400ppm. In order to evolve into a type 1 civilization we need to be able to maintain a healthy atmosphere and environment on our home planet.

Luck plays a factor, such is life....

How do you think that happened Jrod?

BECAUSE OF CO2!!!!!!

Oxygen levels would not have been able to increase if there weren't enough plants.

There wouldn't be enough plants unless there is enough CO2. CO2 was at various points, several THOUSAND ppm greater than today, and nothing happened to the planet.

When was it that humans began to thrive?

WHEN TEMPERATURES INCREASED, NOT WHEN THERE WAS AN ICE AGE OR WHEN IT WAS COLDER!

There is absolutely no proof anywhere in the historical records that indicate that higher CO2 resulted in ANYTHING negative for the planet. All of the data we have suggests that CO2 is an effect.

I'm certain you and a few other AGW proponents will refuse to consider the following...

Even more data is in support of a stronger correlation to the SUN and our magnetic field (as indicated by Beryllium-10):

SOLAR GLOBAL WARMING - THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH'S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD, CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW
(NOTE TO OTHERS: This paper has yet to be refuted by any of the most prominent climate scientists and still leaves a 10% margin to account for other sources of warming such as methane and CO2.)

Variations in solar magnetic activity during the last 200 000 years: is there a Sun–climate connection?

In defense of Milankovitch

Jrod, your responses are almost cult like...

"Cult - a charismatic leader of a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society"

I would consider your beliefs and answers to be bizarre, and you don't follow the practice of any scientific rigor since you never provide any source references for your claims (which helps with discussion and education of others), yet you are very enthusiastic about your beliefs.

Like I said, almost cult-like.

I personally cannot (and will not) debate people (such as yourself) that are stuck to an agenda. They will never, ever listen, and you have proven this unequivocally. Since the current "science" that you repeatedly fail to reference is based on irrationality, a rational debate is useless, would you disagree?

The impact that the sun has on temperature has yet to be disproven. The 200-800 year lag of CO2 BEHIND temperature has yet to be disproven. All of the empirical data we have right now, today, is in support of these two things disproving the human impact on planetary temperature and climate.

Go read the papers. Please do not reply unless you have references. Please provide something empirical to support what you claim.

It is out of respect for the craft and the people who come here seeking information amongst the opinionated BS, so show some damn respect for the rigor of science and other ATS members and stop filling up the thread with your ridiculous nonsense.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Never has been CO2 been this high during human history. It continues to rise. We as a species need to clean up our act.

It's pretty simple. This planet is less habitable due to human activity.

Keep trying dilute the facts and stop trying to accuse me of the exact same thing you and your friends are doing with filling this thread with utter nonsense in an attempt to make the actual facts much tougher for the lay reader to find. Reading this thread it is obvious who is guilty of topic dilution and forum sliding. Those overly wordy posts that present little in the way of facts, but a lot of insults and attempts to break down my credibility and the others who present facts to this thread. The PHDs I referenced are real, the facts I present are accepted in the scientific community.

The 40% rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution needs to addressed, as do many other man made problems.

Science is not a cult following!

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The impact of Anthropogenic CO2 is negligible... IF it wasn't then your idols wouldn't have a need to lie, to delete raw temperature data, they wouldn't need to try to stop researchers and scientists from investigating. Yet they do the contrary. Can you not understand it? If anthropogenic CO2 caused the massive warming claimed by the AGW camp, they wouldn't have a need to the devious tactics that they have been caught doing on many occasions...

There are many other factors occurring that anthropogenic CO2 would have no say on the matter. Such as the increase magmatic activity in underwater volcanoes which are heating many areas, including the Antarctic and the Arctic. Obviously the Earth's core is reacting to something new in the environment, and it's not CO2.

The only devious tactics are those in your own mind. Idols? Really, now - you can shove off with that sort of language. You are accusing hundreds or thousands of scientists of purposely manipulating data. Such a vast conspiracy requires proof, and it should be simple to provide. Scientists leap at the chance to prove others wrong; it's an easy paper and papers you've written are something you can cite for a job or grant.

More CO2 in at atmosphere causes warming, ceteris paribus. Yes, there are many other things going on - it's a complicated field. To just dismiss CO2 as not having any impact is flat-out stupid. There is no question that an increase in CO2 causes warming, except by people who refuse to accept that some people who have studied a subject their entire lives might know a thing or two about said subject. Are you one of these?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
My claims?... It is you who keeps making up claims that are wrong. How the hell do you figure that ocean levels should have been on a decline during WARMING periods such as the Roman and Medieval Warm periods?...

1) Cite my claims that are wrong
2) Learn to read English.
This is the post that you are responding to. Notice how I quoted your post in my reply. Notice what you wrote in that post:

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
As for the salinity of the oceans diminishing... Well, this has happened quite a few times in the past. The Little Ice Age event after the Medieval Warm period was a similar event

Your implication here is that the salinity of the oceans diminished during the Little Ice Age. This is what I referred to, not any warming period.

A cooling period such as the Little Ice Age should have lowered the sea levels, as cooling increases glaciation. Salinity increases when sea levels are lower, as the salt content in the ocean generally doesn't decline while the water content does. Thus, a higher ratio of salt to water and so more salinity.

Twisting my words as you have suggests that you either have a poor grasp of the English language or you are manipulative and deceitful.

I see you read all 3 papers in 30 or so minutes? You can tell me what they said? What the main arguments are? Are you prepared to discuss some of the facts and data contained within?

No way dude.

You are a joke. Your posts are a joke. They are insulting to the folks on this forum and you have made it almost impossible for anyone to find anything of value from the other contributors who actually took the time to cite papers and references that are legitimate.

Please, just stop posting here. Move on to another thread.

Like I said before... you are like a cultist in your fervent belief system of CO2 and climate.

I have provided scientific papers all throughout the thread. My wordy posts are to distill down the information in those papers and rebut false claims such as yours, and are chock full of facts. Where are yours? Where are your sources? Where are your references to any journals or scientific papers?

Your credibility is questioned without me having to say anything.

Please, just stop.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

You need to stop. I can speed read.

Again, science is not a cult following. My credibility has nothing to do with science and the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field of weather and climate. Anyone can claim to be an expert, most who claim to be anything are lying.

TO be blunt, I see a lot of manipulations of facts and what others have written in this thread. I like raw numbers, not some boring thesis that does NOT make any real conclusions.

Do you not agree that the human species is causing harm to planet Earth?

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
I see you read all 3 papers in 30 or so minutes? You can tell me what they said? What the main arguments are? Are you prepared to discuss some of the facts and data contained within?

No way dude.

You are a joke. Your posts are a joke. They are insulting to the folks on this forum and you have made it almost impossible for anyone to find anything of value from the other contributors who actually took the time to cite papers and references that are legitimate.

Please, just stop posting here. Move on to another thread.

Though I know this isn't directed at me...

Have you perhaps read my last response to your post? I've not seen a reply, and it's been a few days...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

You need to stop. I can speed read.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

I'm having doubts that you can read at all.

My credibility has nothing to do with science and the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field of weather and climate. Anyone can claim to be an expert, most who claim to be anything are lying.

YOU are claiming you have science to back you up, yet it has nothing to do with YOUR credibility?

Hypocritically Asinine.

TO be blunt, I see a lot of manipulations of facts and what others have written in this thread. I like raw numbers, not some boring thesis that does make any real conclusions.

Raw numbers? What do you think the papers and theses are based on?

I don't think you've ever studied in any field of science. I will be happy to post my degree to the site owners and have it validated, along with my certified grades in a field of science as it relates to this conversation and my background having worked with data modeling and data anlytics.

Are you prepared to do the same? Please say yes.

Do you not agree that the human species is causing harm to planet Earth?

I don't agree with anything that you have posted. Whether or not I believe humans are causing harm to the planet through other destructive means or not, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the facts and the science disputing the relationship to CO2.

You've already derailed the thread enough times. I've asked you politely to stop multiple times. You know what comes next.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Trying to break down my character is not science and is certainly not contributing to this thread.

The 40%+ and counting increase of CO2 is real. This species is causing harm to this planet.

I'm done here. Game Over!

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
I see you read all 3 papers in 30 or so minutes? You can tell me what they said? What the main arguments are? Are you prepared to discuss some of the facts and data contained within?

No way dude.

You are a joke. Your posts are a joke. They are insulting to the folks on this forum and you have made it almost impossible for anyone to find anything of value from the other contributors who actually took the time to cite papers and references that are legitimate.

Please, just stop posting here. Move on to another thread.

Though I know this isn't directed at me...

Have you perhaps read my last response to your post? I've not seen a reply, and it's been a few days...

Nope, not at all directed at you.

I did read your reply and noticed that you corrected the data in your graph, so while I appreciate that, I didn't see anything else acknowledging that temperature rises before CO2, which nullifies most of the discussion. It is irrelevant to argue over something as a cause when evidence supports it being an effect.

The discussion should shift to the cause.

If CO2 rising is an effect of temperature increasing, there is nothing we can do to change the temperature since that would infer that we can control the sun. Trying to say that it's because of CO2 would also infer that CO2 has an impact on the sun, and there is no disputing the fact that the sun is the single largest contributor to temperature on the planet.

AGW is on its death bed as a valid theory. There is WAY too much evidence in contradiction. There isn't a dispute over how CO2 acts as a warming mechanism, but there is vehement disagreement and evidence against it being a cause of climate change. Even the models are diverging and disagreeing because of the latest evidence being added to the data set.

David Evans has released a new model which agrees with Leif Svalgaard's (keep in mind, this man has a solar theory named after him) TSI data and predictions, as well as is aligned with several other cycles such as the Bond Cycle and the barycentric cycle of the sun.

I would strongly recommend investing some time to read the material found here:

sciencespeak.com...

I'm not an expert on Fourier transformations (yet), so that's not an argument I'm prepared to have.

However, I have examined the sources of data used in the model that Evans uses here (direct download link):

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...

Which you can open, look at the source data, the calculations used, the graphs that are generated, etc.

Click the "draw" buttons to get the graphs to render.

The model is partially derived from the link I posted in a previous post on the link between the sun and the RECORDED (not proxied) 160-year temperature records. Everything you need to reference can be found between the two sources.

His model shows a direct causal relationship between solar activities and temperature, and leaves room for CO2 and other GHGs to play their part in the overall warming, but they are clearly not a cause.

Why should we fear warming when the historical records tell us that humans thrived in warmer periods? Colder periods ALWAYS result in more deaths, disease, crop failure, glaciation (can't live on a glacier) and famine. When it snows enough, schools and work get cancelled in most places, but not when it's hot out.

Common sense would tell us that we should fear a global cool-down more than warming, so maybe the discussion should stop around who is right or wrong and face the fact that either way, regardless of hotter or colder, we all would need to prepare to adapt to those changes, which we are not doing.

Instead, the suggestion (not necessarily by you) is to tax and spend our way to lower CO2, which is the most ridiculous thing most scientists have heard as a solution for the problems. That is a political solution, not a scientific one, and I whole-heartedly disagree with it based on the evidence I've personally seen.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Lucky plays a factor too. We are a rock orbiting around a nuclear furnace in a cold uncaring universe, space weather is still a great unknown most of the time.

One cosmic collision and the climate will most certainly change and currently there is little we can do to stop this, all though there is some squirrel talk about progress in the space wars and our ability to alter incoming objects.