Permafrost warming in parts of Alaska is 'unbelievable'

a reply to: Greven

Question: What evidence does mbkennel provide upon which to base his statements?

quetion: As mbkennel points out and any thinking person would, there are thousands of interactions and forcing that affect climate change, ie more water vapor means more clouds, more clouds means less radiation getting thru and that means cooling.

In the face of these facts, how can anyone predict what the end overall result be even in as short a time as 1 year, never mind 100 years?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And what evidence have you provided that go against what essentially all the climate scientists say?

The burden of proof is on you for those one bro. Why do you think the people who study this got it wrong, and an armchair expert like yourself got it right?

Dont worry about this, we all be dead by that time happen,its not in our life time. Anyway mother nature wll heal if something bad happen to its surrounding.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Question: What evidence does mbkennel provide upon which to base his statements?

quetion: As mbkennel points out and any thinking person would, there are thousands of interactions and forcing that affect climate change, ie more water vapor means more clouds, more clouds means less radiation getting thru and that means cooling.

In the face of these facts, how can anyone predict what the end overall result be even in as short a time as 1 year, never mind 100 years?

Tired of Control Freaks

mbkennel...? What?

No -- me. I proved quite thoroughly in that thread that that article supposing 'massive' cooling was B.S. Read my posts.

Fact: the article supposes the additional isoprene annual emissions will be 'massive' cooling.
Fact: the estimate for abiotic isoprene emissions (from the actual paper) is a range from 0.3 to 3.5 megatons annually.
Fact: annual isoprene emissions are already estimated at 450-676 megatons.
Fact: this 'massive' additional source is a rounding error compared to estimated emissions.

The end. It's a media hoax --- firmly on the side of those against climate change being real.

a reply to: jrod

because they don't ACT like global warming is real. The ACT like scam artists.

They could have simply taxed carbon. Instead they came up with a complicated cap and trade system with every trade going thru the Chicago stock exchange with Al Gore taking a little from every transaction.

Is that a scam or what?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

because they don't ACT like global warming is real. The ACT like scam artists.

They could have simply taxed carbon. Instead they came up with a complicated cap and trade system with every trade going thru the Chicago stock exchange with Al Gore taking a little from every transaction.

Is that a scam or what?

No. A Cap & Trade system was implemented in the USA successfully decades ago from a law passed in 1990 by GHWB administration. It was and still is an economically efficient and successful system for reducing sulfur dioxide pollution in a way which incurs the smallest economic impact while preserving fairness and lowering emissions substantially. It remains in effect today.

That's back when people were rational about the thing, I guess.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Question: What evidence does mbkennel provide upon which to base his statements?

quetion: As mbkennel points out and any thinking person would, there are thousands of interactions and forcing that affect climate change, ie more water vapor means more clouds, more clouds means less radiation getting thru and that means cooling.

No, it's much much more complicated than that and we should turn to the professional scientists who work on this and many other related issues for their life's work.

The amount of water vapor and clouds are a response to the longer time-scale changes driving climate, the biggest of which are solar and astronomical orbital forcing (not significant now), ice albedo (during ice ages), and the one presently changing the most, greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is clear and is a certain warming influence. Clouds can go both ways in various cases I believe, but its' quite complicated as clouds are varied and complicated.

a reply to: mbkennel

Can you explain why historically there has been a time lag between temperature and increased/decrease in CO2? The current global warming hypothesis is now based on there being no time lag.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I think 'they' must consider time lag.

If the temperature rises, ice doesnt immediately disappear.

It takes an enormous amount of latent heat to change the state of something. All the while the temperature remains constant.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

Can you explain why historically there has been a time lag between temperature and increased/decrease in CO2? The current global warming hypothesis is now based on there being no time lag.

Historically (i.e. recorded by man), there is no time lag.

Prehistorically (from ice core records), there is a bit of a time lag. Experts who critiqued climate research into ice cores a decade ago talked about a quite legitimate complaint - that CO2 probably isn't going to be in the right spot.

When we measure CO2 in an ice core... CO2 does not freeze on Earth naturally. Since it remains a gas, it moves - it can float up in an ice core above where it was trapped.

Now, people who critique climate science turn this legitimate complaint on its head and use it as a critique of CO2 causing warming. Sorry, it ain't.

a reply to: Greven

Historically (recorded by man) does not mean #e. That is at best about 100 years worth of records, which is no time at all in terms of climate change.

Bit of a time lag - you mean about 800 years of a lag between temperature and CO2 (or CO2 and temperature as there is no way of determining what comes first)

Your response does not in any way explain why CO2 and Temperature a now rising at the same time.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Because historically is based on naturally occuring data. Today is based on human intervention data. The latter is our first time in that sandbox.

a reply to: smirkley

I don't understand your reply!

If scientists can purport to rely on naturally occuring data (ie CO2 in ice cores) to determine that there has always been a lag between temperature and CO2, they cannot then say that the data is unreliable and the only reliable data is data gathered by human instrumentation.

Does anyone have an explanation?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Think about it. The last hundred years represent nothing that has ever existed in any ice core samples. The samples cannot fathom anything that has happened since man decided to burn wood or coal or trash.

We are in new territory bud.
And old data dont tell our current lies truths.

Change your above sig sig.

a reply to: smirkley

Nope ! This is another one of Micheal Mann's "tricks" to "hide the decline"

CO2 ice samples are supposed to be rock solid. You can count on them. Until you reach record history?

ush - now you have lost me totally

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I havent studied Mr. MM. So yes. On that I have no clue. But I do know what is read into cores. And it isnt mass industrialization.

a reply to: smirkley

ok so what was red into the cores.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

Can you explain why historically there has been a time lag between temperature and increased/decrease in CO2? The current global warming hypothesis is now based on there being no time lag.

Sure. Firstly, there are complexities of the paleological proxy measurements that may make high precision difficult. Next....

In the Ice Age/interglacial cycle prior to civilization, there was warming influences from changes in astronomical orbital forcing which changed climate on its own---which then lead to release of carbon from geological (not fossil fuel deep), chemical, and biological sources, which then lead to greenhouse emissions which increased the temperature which then lead to more changes. A feedback loop---because the changes from the orbital astronomical forcing themselves on solar patterns is insufficient to result in the size of climate fluctuations seen. Things were interconnected.

This time, things are different.

Today, people are mining and burning fossil fuels. During the time of the previous ice-age paleogeological cycles, that carbon was locked up deep in rocks, having been deposited far, far earlier and was totally inert and did not participate.

This time, because of human activity, we had greenhouse emissions first from a new source and temperature rise later and we are very sure about the ordering.

The paleological observations might imply that the heating, created this time by human emissions and not astronomy, will, in the future few hundred/thousand years, start resulting in increased carbon emission from natural sources. So it will be even worse.

At the present, a very large amount of the carbon we release and burn is not making into the atmosphere and is being taken up by oceans and maybe other things. If that rate of take-up slows (which it could, it could be saturated) we will start to see an acceleration of CO2 concentration and an even more rapid acceleration of heating.

Fossil fuel carbon is a very large proportion of pre-existing natural carbon---it's quantitatively very significant, and not something insignificant.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: smirkley

Nope ! This is another one of Micheal Mann's "tricks" to "hide the decline"

CO2 ice samples are supposed to be rock solid. You can count on them. Until you reach record history?

ush - now you have lost me totally

There are physical complexities in the analysis of ice cores that do not apply to direct measurement of current condtions of atmospheric concentrations and temperatures.

Obviously it's harder to figure out what happened 25,000 years ago than what is happening now.

a reply to: mbkennel

ok so this what you are telling me...

When we are talking about the climate prior to the time of instrument recordings....the ice core samples are completely accurate and can be relied on. Of course there is absolutely no way to test that hypothesis but you know, the scientists say so.

And this completely accurate record, which just happens to show cooling just prior to the industrial age, reliably time and again, shows a significant time lag of 800 to more than 1000 years between the rise of temperature and CO2.

But this completely reliable raw data is completely unreliable for any time period where the accuracy of the result can be tested against instrumentation, complete fails. Amazing! Gosh darn it.

So if temperature and CO2 rise at the same time whenever massive amounts of CO2 is emitted to the environment, why doesn't the raw data from the ice cores confirm that hypothesis for the time period when earth had plenty of massive active volcanos?

And if there is something about higher then normal CO2 in the atmosphere that screws up the temperature and CO2 cycle so that temperature now rises with CO2, what caused it to stop for the last almost 19 years?


Please take the time to read the thread entitled "Indonesia’s fire crisis ..... again !" for an exmplanation why I consider this all to be a scam and the weird behavior of the PTB and the true believers.

Tired of Control Freaks