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

originally posted by: Greven
Or, you could just look up what he actually wrote instead of speculating - Svante Arrhenius (1906):
...
That was over a hundred years ago. The IPCC last estimated doubling the CO2 concentration to cause a 1.5C to 4.5C increase in temperature. NASA says the Earth's temperature rose between 0.6C and 0.9C from 1906 to the present. The CO2 concentration has risen by about 1/4th, from ~300ppm to ~400ppm. How wrong was he, precisely?

He was VERY wrong about a lot of things. First the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 does not double with a doubling of CO2 levels... This increase is not linear with increase in CO2 levels as there is saturation in CO2. Think of CO2 like a sponge. If you dip a dry sponge into a bucket of water it absorbs a lot of water. But if you dip an already wet sponge the sponge absorbs LESS water as it is already saturated with water. CO2 functions in the same principle as the sponge analogy.

However, there was one thing Arrhenius was right about. He stated that the increase in CO2 would BENEFIT all the green biomass of Earth as they would have more food to feed with. CO2 is food for plants, not to mention AGAIN that an increase of CO2 levels to 1,000ppm ( we now have 400ppm) will increase the yield/harvest of all green biomass.

originally posted by: Greven
It's an illustration of the simple scientific fact that even a minute quantity of a substance can have an effect on an environment, which you mocked with your gigantic images. Botox is not simply a cosmetic treatment - it's an extremely potent toxin.

Wrong analogy... CO2 is not a toxic substance at the levels it exists on Earth's atmosphere. Botox in itself is a very toxic substance...

At the levels that CO2 exists on Earth's atmosphere, and as I have already demonstrated many times before, even in this thread. CO2 even at levels MUCH HIGHER than at present is BENEFITIAL to all life on the planet...

There is NOTHING similar between CO2 and "botox".

originally posted by: Greven
I think I've gone over this before. Why don't you define "now" and "much higher" for us, so that we can have a clearer understanding of your argument? Since skeptic websites frequently cite this, I'm sure it won't be much trouble.

You haven't done such a thing... You just keep going around in circles and claiming things you haven't done.

The Medieval Warming Period had global temperatures up to 1-3C the levels of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Not even today on 2014 are temperatures higher than they were in the Medieval Warm Period. A period in which CO2 levels were LOWER than now...

SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service


Title:
A 5,000 year alkenone-based temperature record from Lower Murray Lake reveals a distinct Medieval Warm Period in the Canadian High Arctic
Authors:
D'Andrea, W. J.; Bradley, R. S.
Affiliation:
AA(Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA [email protected]), AB(Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA [email protected])
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #PP43C-10
Publication Date:
12/2010
Origin:
AGU
Keywords:
[0424] BIOGEOSCIENCES / Biosignatures and proxies, [0458] BIOGEOSCIENCES / Limnology, [1605] GLOBAL CHANGE / Abrupt/rapid climate change, [1616] GLOBAL CHANGE / Climate variability
Bibliographic Code:
2010AGUFMPP43C..10D

Abstract
Lake-based paleotemperature reconstructions are of particular importance in the Arctic, where other useful archives (e.g., tree rings, speleothems) for developing dense networks of quantitative climate records are absent or limited.
...
The previously published mass accumulation rate from Lower Murray Lake has been interpreted as a paleotemperature record and provides complimentary information to the new alkenone record. Melt percentage measurements from the nearby Agassiz Ice Cap provide another independent summer temperature reconstruction for comparison. Most strikingly, the alkenone record reveals warm lake water temperatures beginning ~800 AD and persisting until ~1200 AD, with temperatures up to 2-3 deg C warmer than the mean temperature for the past 100 years. This dramatic medieval warm period on Ellesmere Island interrupted a distinct (neoglacial) cooling trend that had begun approximately 2000 years earlier. Furthermore, the three warmest intervals seen in the alkenone record during the past 5,000 years correspond to the periods during which the area was occupied by Paleo-Eskimo groups, providing evidence that local climate conditions played a significant role in determining migration patterns of people of the Arctic Small Tools tradition.
...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Yes, I am aware the paper on that research covers a small region of the northern hemisphere. But the fact is other research papers from all over the world shows the same trend that temperatures during the Medieval Warm period were GLOBAL and much higher than at present in North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, etc.

For the sake of brevity I will not repost all the other research work I posted in this same thread.

The Roman Warming Period had even higher temperature levels from 2C -4C.

Again, who is to forget the graph and research that showed a COOLING trend in overall temperatures from 2000 to the present in the northern hemisphere.



The yellow line shows a base line of 0 throughout the graph, while the red line shows the cooling trend from 2000 years ago to the present.

Has the Earth been warming DURING the CWP of the 20th and 21st century? Yes, it was warming as the Earth has been recuperating from the LIA (Little Ice Age) but the warming has not exceeded the warming from past warming periods such as the Medieval, the Roman and Minoan Warm Periods which were WARMER than the Current Warm Period.

originally posted by: Greven
Now that you recognize this, you can abandon the talking point that an increase in CO2 has no effect because the concentration is so low, which is what you were implying with the pictures before.

Again... a doubling of next to zero atmospheric CO2 at 0.04% (present level of atmospheric CO2) to almost zero double CO2 at 0.08% (which we haven't ever reached and would not reach for over 100+ years) doesn't equal "massive warming"... The increase in atmospheric CO2 is NEGLEGIBLE to global temperatures...

Again, that's IF mankind continues to release anthropogenic CO2 as it had been doing during the 20th and beginning of the 21st century.

In 100 years, or less mankind should find cleaner power sources.

BTW, why is it that the media is not publishing the fact that many so called "green energy" sources such as wind turbine farms are killing a multitude of species which for the most part are not being reported?

For example.

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

Oops, not enough space. But don't worry I will show an excerpt below.

(continued)

...
I can only speculate as to why there hasn’t been a prosecution. But it’s worth noting that the Pine Tree project is owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Prosecuting such a high-profile governmental entity for repeatedly violating some of America’s oldest wildlife-protection laws would be politically embarrassing. On its website, the LADWP claims that the Pine Tree facility is the “largest municipally owned wind farm in the US.” The agency also says the Pine Tree project “displaces at least 200,000 tons of greenhouse gases” per year.xv

In March 2013, a peer-reviewed study published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, estimated that in 2012 alone, US wind turbines killed 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds. Those bird kills included 83,000 raptors.xvi In September 2013, some of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s top raptor biologists reported that the number of eagles being killed by wind turbines has increased dramatically over the last few years, going from two in 2007 to 24 in 2011. In all, the biologists found that wind turbines have killed some 85 eagles since 1997. And Joel Pagel, the lead author of the report, told me that that the eagle-kill figures they used are “an absolute minimum.” Among the carcasses: six bald eagles.

Pagel’s study was published just five months after the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a report which said flatly “there are no conservation measures that have been scientifically shown to reduce eagle disturbance and blade-strike mortality at wind projects.” xvii

The Pagel study is key because it shows that as more wind projects have been built, more birds have been killed. In 2007, the US had about 17,000 megawatts of installed capacity. By 2011, that figure had nearly tripled to about 47,000 megawatts.xviii Over that time period, the number of documented eagle kills increased by a factor of 12.
...

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that even so called "green power" sources are not as environmentally friendly as people are led to believe.

BTW, anyone remembers the increased "unexplained" deaths in bird species and other animals, including insects like bees, and mammals like whales, dolphins etc, all which use the magnetic field of the Earth to navigate? Hint: Wind turbine farms, solar farms, ect create anthropogenic magnetic fields that messes with the magnetic navigation of many species including birds, insects like bees, and mammals like whales, dolphins etc.

Ooops. The statement where I wrote "Again, who is to forget the graph and research that showed a COOLING trend in overall temperatures from 2000 to the present in the northern hemisphere. "

Should read "the research showed a trend in overall temperatures from 2000 years ago to the present..."

That's what happens when you are in a hurry.

Anyways, keep trying to fight against "the evil CO2" and claiming you are doing it for the environment, when the environment LOVES higher levels of atmospheric CO2... Not to mention, again, the fact that with higher atmospheric CO2 levels than now, even at 1,000ppm all green biomass makes better use of water, leaving more water for humans and animals to use.

Everyone knows we need water right?... We also need CO2. STOP trying to claim CO2 is a pollutant when it is not... Stop trying to claim CO2 is not needed when it is an essential building block for life to exist on this planet...

BTW Greven, and the rest of the AGW religious followers out there. Do tell me how much you, your pets and plants are suffering inside all those buildings you live in and work in with A/C (air conditioning) or heaters which increase indoor atmospheric levels of CO2 to 1,000ppm +... It should be a "disaster for all life" according to them...

a reply to: Phage

Hi Phage,

I think you misunderstand what the PDO index represents. The cool/warm phase only refers to the spatial patterns of sea surface temperature and sea level pressure anomalies in the extra-tropical North Pacific. The index is an abstract form to describe natural mean state changes in the North Pacific over multiple decades and it's not a representation of any particular process.

The meaning of "warm/cool" or "positive/negative" is counter-intuitive in this context, because SST anomalies are on average warmer in most of the North Pacific during the cool/negative phase, and vice versa.

When SSTs are anomalously cool in the interior North Pacific and warm along the Pacific Coast, and when sea level pressures are below average over the North Pacific, the PDO has a positive value. When the climate anomaly patterns are reversed, with warm SST anomalies in the interior and cool SST anomalies along the North American coast, or above average sea level pressures over the North Pacific, the PDO has a negative value.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu...

jisao.washington.edu...

The index only contains SST and SLP data from the North Pacific region and can not reflect patterns/changes anywhere else. It could not be used to attribute sea ice changes to climate drivers in the Pacific.

There is in fact a strong link between leading climate modes in the Arctic Ocean and the tropical and extra-tropical Pacific, via atmospheric bridges and poleward moving currents.


happy summertime!

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Northland has though thought this scam through quite well. They've learned from the AMO, ECLEI, UN and IPCC based sustainability scams promoted by the government and the corporate/town entitlement grants that they use as a weapon to force Agenda 21 based change from the "bottom-up."

I still fail to see how this derail has anything to do with climate change.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The only ones with a straw man argument and who keep dismissing facts are people like you, aka the AGW crowd.
...
Already have...several times...
....
False, a TINY amount of energy cannot contribute LOTS of energy.
...
That's what was thought, but in fact we know now that heat has been escaping the Earth's atmosphere at much higher levels than were previously thought possible.

You claim that I claim massive warming. I did not, and you cannot show where I wrote such. Thus, you have constructed a strawman that you handily destroyed. If you do not understand what these words mean, I suggest you go study. I am not 'the AGW crowd' and I do not necessarily accept everything everyone associated with AGW claims. I wouldn't claim that you believe that the Earth is cooling, simply because some of the people who agree with you claim that.

You either do not understand the question or are refusing to actually answer it. Again, as your assertion is that CO2 doesn't cause warming, the question was:

show us where CO2 didn't cause warming while other factors were not involved

Please answer this. I and everyone else who is worried about our planet's future

No - you are missing every point. Given enough insulation (like a closed system) and enough fuel, even something as small as a candle can heat a stadium, given enough time. If you do not understand how this can occur, you need a refresher on the law of conservation of energy. An analogy, though not a perfect one, is our Earth itself. The insulation in this case is the Earth's atmosphere - mostly water vapor, as you note (and no, science does not ignore it). Since we can't turn down the Sun, we can't stop the heat from warming us up. Fortunately for us, the Earth's atmosphere is a bit drafty, and leaks a good amount of radiation back into space. CO2 is that little patch in the drafty atmosphere, which is ever so slightly increasing the insulation of our atmosphere. Additionally, since water vapor can increase as more heat is trapped and evaporates water, this can make the insulation even thicker.

Yes, and Spencer/Braswell's paper is kinda crummy and published in a journal that is not exactly climate-related. The editor-in-chief of the journal resigned and apologized for that publication! A fatal error in the paper is that they used a simplistic model - too simplistic:

The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave.

Forgive me if I don't take the erroneous research of a habitually error-prone researcher seemingly bent on proving AGW wrong (but failing) too seriously.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
He was VERY wrong about a lot of things. First the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 does not double with a doubling of CO2 levels...
...
Wrong analogy... CO2 is not a toxic substance at the levels it exists on Earth's atmosphere. Botox in itself is a very toxic substance...
...
The Medieval Warming Period had global temperatures up to 1-3C the levels of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Not even today on 2014 are temperatures higher than they were in the Medieval Warm Period. A period in which CO2 levels were LOWER than now...
...
Again, who is to forget the graph and research that showed a COOLING trend in overall temperatures from 2000 to the present in the northern hemisphere.
...

You claimed that he claimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to an increase of 5-6C. On the other hand, he wrote that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase temperatures by 4C. You were wrong. You'll probably gloss over it, just like SonOfTheLawOfOne did earlier when shown how wrong he was. Maybe with a series of random quotes and charts again, even! As I mentioned, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by about 25% (300 -> 400 ppm) and the global temperature has risen by an estimated 15% to 23% of his estimation (4C at 200% of 1906 CO2 ppm). But do go on about the numerous ways he was wrong - with citations, please.

It's only wrong if you don't understand the point. You keep pooh-poohing the impact of CO2 because it's oh so very small in the atmosphere. You would be laughed out of a chemistry lab with such an attitude. The clear counterpoint is that even small concentrations can have an effect..

A) You're wrong again. Temperatures are only potentially that much higher if you think the present is 1850. I direct you to this chart from this immense and extensive study. If anything, we're at or above MWP temperatures today (as in 2014).
B) You are missing that there were other factors beyond just CO2 and temperature. Again. Shocking, I know.

Ah yes, who can forget that chart and research that I responded to back on page 21 of this very thread. Who's talking in circles, again?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
BTW Greven, and the rest of the AGW religious followers out there....

You claim I and others are religious followers. Clearly you must not be religious, if you think such a thing is an insult. Nor are you correct in your continued slander. I base my opinion on AGW on scientific findings. Not models, not theories, but what's been recorded as happening and known mechanisms.

You frequently insult anyone who disagrees with you with thinly disguised attacks. You go off on tangents and attempt to drown out discourse with unnecessarily long posts that are mostly made up of quotations that are recycled content from earlier, entirely irrelevant, or not pruned of irrelevant content. It is annoying.

I tire of your childish behavior.

a reply to: Greven

I tire of the excrement that you keep filling this thread with. You claim you base your opinion on scientific findings?

How about out of 26 sources that you provided in ALL of your posts, 11 of them are well-known, biased, AGW proponent sources? You exclude sources that are dissenting because they fit your world-view and mental model, so you refuse to see the scientific findings that are still true and valid, because it would dismantle your arguments and opinions.

Look Greven… if you’re going to call someone out, you better be ready to lay all of your cards on the table. You already tried this once before in this thread, by falsely accusing me of something I didn’t say, because you didn’t read the rest of the posts in the thread. You were flat out, WRONG, for doing so. You were convinced that I was lying until I shoved the proof in your face by pointing you to Raymunduko’s prior post, and you hardly admitted you were wrong.

You also did something similar with bobs_uruncle by first insulting him, when he CLEARLY has a far superior background to yours in that area:

You're quite ignorant of how electrical grids work and greatly misunderstand what's being done in this situation.

And then turned around after you got owned by his response and said:

I certainly could be wrong in this instance, since I don't know the full situation.

I think the same applies to the rest of the thread. And even after that, you continue to try to cover up your arrogance in a follow-up post with this:

I still fail to see how this derail has anything to do with climate change.

That was your only way to deal with your grossly arrogant reply based on an assumption that your understanding of a subject was superior to theirs, because as bobs_uruncle pointed out:

In addition, I know quite well how the grids work and generating stations, because I am an engineer and I designed critical systems in both nuclear and thermal generating stations.

I doubt that you’ve done the same, but you took a position of immediate superiority and called someone “quite ignorant”, who would otherwise be considered an expert in a field that you are obviously not.

You seem so certain that others in this thread like myself, raymunduko or ElectricUniverse should be treated the same, even though you’ve demonstrated your own willful arrogance and ignorance. You have no idea what kind of backgrounds any of us have in this subject, but are completely willing to dismiss anything that shows the disagreement in climate science.

You presented a graph that was an inaccurate representation of the data. I showed you where you were wrong because you were using the wrong data from GISS. You have the cajones to say something like this:

You'll probably gloss over it, just like SonOfTheLawOfOne did earlier when shown how wrong he was. Maybe with a series of random quotes and charts again, even!

Even though when you were shown that your own graph was incorrect because of a simple mistake in your source data, you admitted that I was correct:

The reason they look much different is because I was plotting average annual temperatures, rather than monthly temperatures.

And then you tried to cover it by pointing out stupid axis shift tricks in the graph that anyone could do, to try and show how the data can be manipulated, which ironically illustrated most of my arguments about bad data.

I don’t gloss over anything, and I actually listen clearly to both sides of the argument because there are valid points on both sides. I draw my own conclusions, and with my background, the AGW and CO2 theory is riddled with holes, just like a crime scene with tons of missing evidence.

Let's go into more detail about just how you

base my opinion on AGW on scientific findings. Not models, not theories, but what's been recorded as happening and known mechanics.

Almost ALL of the AGW findings are based on models and theories, even the IPCC has admitted that much. That alone, shows how ridiculous your statement is since your sources from SkepticalScience LOVE to use the IPCC and all of those wonderful models and theories that you pretend not to use. In my next post, I'll make sure to highlight how little you use the models and theories.

~Namaste

a reply to: Greven

Let’s take a closer look at the “meat” of the argument between the two sides on this thread and the 5 main people that have been arguing and see how our arguments and sources stack up. You should know by now that Wattsupwiththat and SkepticalScience are both hard to include because they are knowingly biased in a lot of ways. For the sake of brevity, let’s include them anyway but separate them.

Here is a list of every link for every source that was posted between the 5 of us, and doesn’t include the DOZENS of graphs and images that ElectricUniverse posted.

It is to show two things:

1) The science and the argument is clearly, NOT settled.
2) The difference in biased versus unbiased sources.

(Unbiased sources considered to be raw data sources, published papers or sources with references to published papers.)


My Sources:

Unbiased (13):

aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov...

ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

dx.doi.org...

www.ipcc.ch...

ftp.ssmi.com...

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

data.giss.nasa.gov...

www.pmel.noaa.gov...

www.rocketscientistsjournal.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

sciencespeak.com...

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...




Raymunduko’s Sources:

Known Bias (11):


wattsupwiththat.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...


wattsupwiththat.com...< br />
wattsupwiththat.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...


wattsupwiththat.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...

www.forbes.com...

theinconvenientskeptic.com...



Unbiased or Unknown Bias (21):

www.nasa.gov...

science.house.gov...

www.britannica.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.grida.no...

phys.org...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

sei-us.org...

www.ipcc.ch...

depts.washington.edu...

www.longrangeweather.com...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

www.nature.com...

www.nature.com...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.ipcc.ch...

www.ipcc.ch...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.egu.eu...

phys.org...

(continued)

a reply to: Greven




ElectricUniverse's Sources:

Known Bias (4):

www.climatedepot.com...


www.theage.com.au...

endthelie.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Unbiased or Unknown Bias (52):

www.uni-mainz.de...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.sciencedirect.com... 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0cd5fe98deb558901327c2fe0377ae8e

ricochet.com...

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

www.diva-portal.org...

www-user.uni-bremen.de...

www.sciencedaily.com...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

www.sciencemag.org...

www.planetnatural.com...

www.homeharvest.com...

www.johnsongas.com...

www.spaceref.com...

www.inspectapedia.com...

www.itia.ntua.gr...

plasmaresources.com...

www.springerlink.com...

www.uah.edu...

visibleearth.nasa.gov...

www.nasa.gov...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

www.ipgp.fr...

www.phys.ens.fr...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

www.spaceref.com...

www.newscientist.com...

www.iop.org...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

arxiv.org...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www-news.uchicago.edu...

www.co2science.org...

www-naweb.iaea.org...

www.energy.wsu.edu...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.publications.parliament.uk...

mclean.ch...

www.climatedepot.com...

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... iant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

adsabs.harvard.edu...

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...


JRod's Sources:

Unbiased (1):

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Completely Unrelated (3):

cryptome.org...

my.fit.edu...

www.coursera.org...


Greven's Sources:

Known Bias (11):


(uses models) www.skepticalscience.com...

(uses models) www.skepticalscience.com...

(uses models) www.skepticalscience.com...

(uses models) www.skepticalscience.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

(uses models) www.skepticalscience.com...

(theories) agwobserver.wordpress.com...

thinkprogress.org...

reason.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...-1671460

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...


Unbiased or Unknown Bias (12):

www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be...

www.theguardian.com...

(uses models) www.manicore.com...

scienceblogs.com...

www.sciencemag.org...

(uses models and shows COOLING!) www.sciencedaily.com...

data.giss.nasa.gov...

lasp.colorado.edu...

(uses models) www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

(uses models) www.nature.com...

(uses models) www.nature.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Completely Unrelated (3):

gizmodo.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

(continued)

a reply to: Greven

Now, I'm done in this thread. People deserve to see BOTH sides of the argument, so hopefully the previous posts help illustrate that for anyone who wants to fact-find and seek their own version of the truth... NOT MINE, and certainly, NOT YOURS.

I’m not going to keep going back and forth with you or anyone else anymore, because there is no reason to. If all you are going to do is try to play this tit-for-tat game, I've got much better things to do with my time.

Clearly, by looking above, the science is not settled. There is still far too much dispute over just the role the sun plays, and too much that is not understood about our climate and natural CO2 sinks, of which we have no way to accurately measure their capacity or their rate of emission. To say otherwise, is foolish and asinine, and I would laugh at any “proof” claiming to be accurate. So would any climate scientist. Few would argue that CO2 sinks are poorly measured.

The AGW theory is not sound, and it has been shown unequivocally that CO2 rises as a RESULT of temperature - ie. Cause and Effect, which governs the entire universe. For AGW to be true, either the theory is wrong and there are only rare cases of CO2 preceding temperature for some other reason besides man (because we weren't around when it happened), or cause and effect are wrong and all of science will be turned upside down by AGW.

Trying to pick apart each other’s sources, and syntactically or semantically looking for places to make an argument, instead of agreeing that the science is not refined enough to prove that humans are or are not the cause, is absolutely pointless and a waste of my time.

I will NOT however, let you diminish my character any further in a post to myself, or to someone else by being dishonest about your own position and your own posts.

If you’re going to be biased, just admit it and move on instead of pretending that you’re an open-minded individual.

Good luck with that.

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Look Greven… if you’re going to call someone out, you better be ready to lay all of your cards on the table. You already tried this once before in this thread, by falsely accusing me of something I didn’t say, because you didn’t read the rest of the posts in the thread. You were flat out, WRONG, for doing so. You were convinced that I was lying until I shoved the proof in your face by pointing you to Raymunduko’s prior post, and you hardly admitted you were wrong.

You also did something similar with bobs_uruncle by first insulting him, when he CLEARLY has a far superior background to yours in that area:
...
And then turned around after you got owned by his response and said:
...
I think the same applies to the rest of the thread. And even after that, you continue to try to cover up your arrogance in a follow-up post with this:
...
You presented a graph that was an inaccurate representation of the data. I showed you where you were wrong because you were using the wrong data from GISS. You have the cajones to say something like this:
...
Even though when you were shown that your own graph was incorrect because of a simple mistake in your source data, you admitted that I was correct:
...
And then you tried to cover it by pointing out stupid axis shift tricks in the graph that anyone could do, to try and show how the data can be manipulated, which ironically illustrated most of my arguments about bad data.
...
That alone, shows how ridiculous your statement is since your sources from SkepticalScience LOVE to use the IPCC and all of those wonderful models and theories that you pretend not to use. In my next post, I'll make sure to highlight how little you use the models and theories.

On a very minor point, I was certainly wrong. I said as much before, unlike you. I most certainly did not start this little quarrel, though.

You accused me of not answering even a single question, and you were wrong. You doubled down. I pointed out that I had, again. Mysteriously, you haven't responded to that post as of yet. You even went so far as to A) question whether I had written a journal (presumably so that you could claim I couldn't comment) and B) immediately attack me over multiple posts for being utterly truthful that I both had and that there were issues in publication of it, and yet you complain about my behavior? I certainly won't complain that you're "done" with this thread.

My reply to bobs_uruncle's post was a mistake. It's not even on the topic of this thread, and I shouldn't have responded to it at all other than that. Go back and read my post and how it follows from there. There's no "got owned" about it, unless you don't read what I wrote and what I was replying to. He claimed that a company claimed they were going to "create energy" out of nothing. Saying he was ignorant of how the grid and the system worked was in retrospect a mistake, but one written based on his previous post. I went from there and explained (not that he needed it, apparently) how such a system works. He has not yet provided proof that the company in question did claim that, but I give him the benefit of the doubt (and it's a bit off-topic anyways).

Also, I was not being insulting or arrogant. Saying someone is ignorant of how something works is not an insult. The word means that someone is lacking knowledge/information/awareness about something in particular, though it was not accurate in this case.

You still continue to claim I my graph was wrong. It was not. It was exactly what I said it was. There is no correction to it. I even went so far as to make another graph using your own data source. You never did get back to addressing why that chart you posted disagrees with the same source you claim it uses, instead just ignoring it. Pity, that. Oh well, not answering questions and all...

It was perhaps an over-broad proclamation. Many of the links I've provided do use a model or theory somewhere within the page. That doesn't mean I always used that link for that model or theory, though. Nor are they the only material that ascribe why I've arrived at my opinion on the subject. This "shows cooling" link was something I had to track down to figure out where a graph being used came from - it wasn't my source. Listing NASA's Earth Observatory as biased is amusing.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Clearly, by looking above, the science is not settled. There is still far too much dispute over just the role the sun plays, and too much that is not understood about our climate and natural CO2 sinks, of which we have no way to accurately measure their capacity or their rate of emission. To say otherwise, is foolish and asinine, and I would laugh at any “proof” claiming to be accurate. So would any climate scientist. Few would argue that CO2 sinks are poorly measured.

The AGW theory is not sound, and it has been shown unequivocally that CO2 rises as a RESULT of temperature
...
I will NOT however, let you diminish my character any further in a post to myself

The science is pretty well settled. Posting a bunch of links does not dispute that, it merely clouds the issue. I've addressed a great many of them, already.

CO2 is leading temperature increase and has historically, so figure that one out. Note that 'historically' is not the same as 'prehistoric' - the records you and others tend to cite where temperature leads CO2. That article is a bit out of date, though since the lag time is narrowing with more work on it. Oh, and also we're talking about Antarctica. What about the Northern Hemisphere? Well, CO2 doesn't lag temperature increase, even skeptics agree there.

You've more than well enough done that on your own.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Northland has though thought this scam through quite well. They've learned from the AMO, ECLEI, UN and IPCC based sustainability scams promoted by the government and the corporate/town entitlement grants that they use as a weapon to force Agenda 21 based change from the "bottom-up."

I still fail to see how this derail has anything to do with climate change.

It is not a derail, it is an aside to simply show the stupidity and hypocrisy. The point is that this sustainability crap along with alleged "anthropogenic climate change" being whored out by the UN to our governments is BS. It's all linked together in one big pile of stinking BS actually, they've taken both a top down and bottom up approach through the formulation of nonsensical treaties and then enlisted NGO's like ECLIE and others to manipulate and propagandize municipalities/towns/counties.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
The AGW theory is not sound, and it has been shown unequivocally that CO2 rises as a RESULT of temperature - ie. Cause and Effect, which governs the entire universe. For AGW to be true, either the theory is wrong and there are only rare cases of CO2 preceding temperature for some other reason besides man (because we weren't around when it happened), or cause and effect are wrong and all of science will be turned upside down by AGW.

Cause and effect works best using laws of physics, not statistical correlations.

Prior to man, increased CO2 caused higher temperatures which could cause increased CO2 after some geologically significant time.

Post man, human digging and burning caused increased CO2 which caused higher temperatures. Right now natural phenomena are sinks, not sources of CO2, and the temperature is going up along with atmospheric CO2 because of human digging and burning.

a reply to: mbkennel

I think your response was well thought out and written but you fail to take into consideration the technology of the time.

People hypothesize based off the current data and the instruments available at the time to interpret that data. That has been the history of science ever since the church got out of the way.

My point is very simple and not overly complex. New instruments are constantly developed, and those instruments allow us to interpret data differently. The fact hat so many are working on new instruments right now to prove global warming correct makes be believe they will eventually prove it wrong. Climate Change is an undeniable fact, but human induced Climate Change ultimately is a theory, and most theories are proven wrong. Those theories are constantly adjusted until one day something completely breaks everything we understand.

Those anomalies make be believe that no matter how much science believes it understands, we are still at minimum 200 or more years from even understanding physics. If we don't even have a full grasp of physics, then it is safe to say we don't understand the workings of our planet, and the entire climate model.

So how about the Theory of Blank Slate that was proven wrong?
Or phrenology
How about Einstein's Static Universe?
Cold Fusion?

Or this entire list of superseded scientific theories that were once accepted by science?
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Phage
Please learn what the term temperature anomaly means and how it is calculated. (Hint, it is not the same as absolute temperatures). After having done so, revisit that idiotic blog. 2012 was the hottest year in North America on record.

You see, understanding the terms helps go a long way in understanding the science. The same applies to what the term heat wave index actually means. Yes, the heat waves of the 1930's have not been matched. But that's weather, not climate.

Just to clear things up and make sure everyone is on the same page here, Phage, when you said "2012 was the hottest year in North America on record", was that weather or climate?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are citing prehistoric CO2 levels, way before man walked the Earth. That is misleading, it is as if you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Also you are wrong about the CO2 is plant food, therefore the excess CO2 is good. CO2 is plant food therefore good falacy debunked:

The myth:
CO2 is plant food
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow.

The reality:
An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: mbkennel

I think your response was well thought out and written but you fail to take into consideration the technology of the time.

People hypothesize based off the current data and the instruments available at the time to interpret that data. That has been the history of science ever since the church got out of the way.

My point is very simple and not overly complex. New instruments are constantly developed, and those instruments allow us to interpret data differently. The fact hat so many are working on new instruments right now to prove global warming correct makes be believe they will eventually prove it wrong.

That's an unjustified belief.

Climate Change is an undeniable fact, but human induced Climate Change ultimately is a theory, and most theories are proven wrong. Those theories are constantly adjusted until one day something completely breaks everything we understand.

Or they don't. The instruments in the LHC are much better than the instruments for nuclear physics in 1930.
Nevertheless, conservation of relativistic momentum is 100% exactly the same now as it was then.

Those anomalies make be believe that no matter how much science believes it understands, we are still at minimum 200 or more years from even understanding physics. If we don't even have a full grasp of physics, then it is safe to say we don't understand the workings of our planet, and the entire climate model.

This is simply untrue. Since 1850 to 1950 we have gone from understanding maybe 25% of basic physics relevant to our typical space and energy scales, to understanding 98% of it. Certainly all fundamental physics necessary for physical climate.

The dynamics of meterology, that the physics depends on the physics of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics of gases and water has not changed since the beginning of the 20th century.

So how about the Theory of Blank Slate that was proven wrong?
Or phrenology
How about Einstein's Static Universe?
Cold Fusion?

Only two of the above were physics and in modern scientific disciplines.

Einstein changed his theory as soon as the first experimental data came. With global warming, the experimental data are conclusive.

Cold Fusion was never remotely accepted by decades of mainstream physics and chemistry, quite the contrary.

Or this entire list of superseded scientific theories that were once accepted by science?
en.wikipedia.org...

Again, this is the argument from false ignorance. That despite decades of solid theoretical, experimental and observational work, "we might be wrong". Well? It's pretty unlikely we'll be wrong about how earthquakes work, and if you want to stop upgrading building codes because earthquakes are really magic genie fart (or whatever undefined theory will somehow supersede geophysics as we understand it today) that's a titanically foolish idea.

Because Aristotle was wrong about how frogs reproduce, does that mean you should argue the diagnosis from your cardiologist from Mayo Clinic with a MRI and ultrasound?

All of this diversion is just emotional rationalizations: people make up extreme arguments about various unscientific things (conspiracies from "agenda 21" and UN) or illogic not used in any other field ("we were wrong about phrenology"), exclusively because they emotionally don't like the consequences.

Surely there were once people who disputed germ theory of disease because the city would fine them too much for not improving their sewage in their properties. Was it really science that motivated their scepticism?

a reply to: mbkennel

I've always held an opinion that science has almost always proven itself wrong when the vast majority of scientist supported a belief. You have a great argument when the majority of scientists support something, however there is always the one scientist who proves it all wrong.

Because science is a liar sometimes...

a reply to: jrod

Wow, talk about an extremely misleading article. Tell me jrod, how much co2 do you think that article is referring to? Did you read his references? He cherry picked so much it is laughable.

Plants grow best between 600 and 1.2k PPM, WITHOUT extra water. Plants don't start to have issues until around 1500 PPM when the plateau happens.

Do you even know who wrote that article? A guy who only graduated high school. He probably doesn't even fully understand the papers he used. The article he uses from science daily used a period in earth history where co2 levels were in the thousands of PPM and got there due to an extremely rapid increase. He argues with actual scientists in the comments section.

Plant co2 health levels

You might not be old enough to remember the start of the global warming fear mongering. Science published an article in the erly 90's that an increase in co2 to 600 PPM would destroy plant life, maybe, possibly, not really, but maybe... Science eventually recalled the paper. I can't find the paper anymore, but here is an old article from the NY Times on it to show it actually existed:

Co2 bad for plants???

Ultimately, 600-1.2k PPM seems to be a great equilibrium between plant and human life. The doctor who wrote the 1992 article wrote another paper in 2008 Forest ecosystems in a CO2-rich world verifying that plant life does well in a co2 rich (rich is between 600 and 1200 PPM in plant terminology) environments.

Even in your link he says:

plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2

What that article author should be focusing on is the rapid increase in co2, not that co2 is or is not plant food. His argument is awful.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are citing prehistoric CO2 levels, way before man walked the Earth. That is misleading, it is as if you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Q: When is CO2 not CO2?

A: Apparently when man generates it - it appears to be far, far deadlier when generated from human activity than when generated in the wild.

Can you seriously NOT see the selection bias at work in your own claim here? CO2 levels at up to 1800 PPM are apparently "irrelevant" because they happened before man came along, and are therefore somehow magically less effective as a "deadly greenhouse gas" than CO2 levels at 400 PPM that are the current and alarming norm now that man is here?

Q: What is it about the appearance of mankind on the scene that suddenly made CO2 so deadly to climate?

A: Selection Bias, where CO2 can only be selected as "deadly" if mankind is present.

Your contention of how bad CO2 is for plants has already been dealt with. All I can add is that when CO2 levels were 4 times higher than present, plant life flourished and tropical rainforest covered most of the Earth. Where do you think all that evil coal came from? It came from those rain forests growing exponentially and working overtime tying all that CO2 up in coal deposits to be released by Mean Old Man much later, after Mean Old Man figured out just how to make that same CO2 far more deadlier per molecule, apparently... at least 4 times deadlier, it appears.

When those CO2 levels dropped there was a world wide rain forest collapse (at the boundary between the Carboniferous and the Permian), because lower CO2 levels are so much better for plants, I guess. Either that, or because mankind had not come along so that evil could be selected for when talking about CO2 levels vs. climate.