Plethora of Links on Global Warming

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Standard denial argument. Ignore the scientific argument and talk about Al Gore (a politician) instead...

Prove me wrong then and take Al Gore's place.

The world needs a truth sayer hero like you now. So please, go ahead. For starters, get China to clean up all of its power stations in the next 24 hours. Mother Gaia needs a hero like you.

Bashing keys like a powerful keyboard warrior is going to change nothing.

originally posted by: Rapha

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Standard denial argument. Ignore the scientific argument and talk about Al Gore (a politician) instead...

Prove me wrong then and take Al Gore's place.

Fat chance of me doing that if you can't even bother to read and refute the evidence presented by the OP.

The world needs a truth sayer hero like you now. So please, go ahead. For starters, get China to clean up all of its power stations in the next 24 hours. Mother Gaia needs a hero like you.

China's actions or inactions on climate change have all of zero to do with the theory being true or not.

Bashing keys like a powerful keyboard warrior is going to change nothing.

I'm actually indifferent at this point. I've accepted that you want to keep your mind closed. I wasn't even yelling at you. I was using your "rebuttal" as an example for what I was saying to the OP.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Fat chance of me doing that if you can't even bother to read and refute the evidence presented by the OP.

Exactly the pre-programmed response that i expected to read.

This is why many humans are already the Mark of the Beast/Base. In spiritual terms, Thought = 4, Emotion = 2 and Action = 1.

When a man is perfect like Jesus Christ, He puts thoughts and emotions into action hence 7 (4+2+1).

When a mighty keyboard warrior bashes keys all day long getting highly emotional with their thoughts and does sweet FA about it, it equals Thought+Emotion (4+2) = 6. This is where the mind, heart and body becomes 666 because the man doesn't have the balls to put his thoughts into Action.

Take a good long look at 50 degrees 31' 49.16" North, 12 degrees 19' 4.97" West on Google Earth

What do you see at a depth of 700m

Ooooo, its the top of a ancient river tributary heading from West to East. But hold on a minute, the old river system is roughly 1 km under water.

Oooo, unless sea-levels rose millenniums ago and the current continental shelves were originally natural coastlines.

This is why geologists laugh at environmentalists. Sea levels rise and drop all the time even without dirty coal powered power stations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Rapha

Standard denial argument. Ignore the scientific argument and talk about Al Gore (a politician) instead...

How can you still believe these scientists when it was proven they faked the data? Oh wait that was a conspiracy... or was it global warming, damn you media.

Why are they so obsessed with co2? There is no proof that co2 drives global temperatures, in fact there is more proof it doesn't drive the climate at all.
It is clearly shown that the carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle, temperature variation precedes co2 level variation, rise or decline.
Temperature has been rising from the end of the little ice age, well before co2 has gone up or we had any part in.

Don't get me wrong i'm all for clean energy and less pollution and not saying humans don't contribute to climate change, i'm just questioning to what extend and why this fixation on co2 while it only makes up a tiny portion of the atmosphere.
It's a lot more complicated than that and we only just start to understand that.
There is still a lot of research to be done and it's way to early to blame humanity or tax the people.

It's also not understood if this rise in co2 is a bad thing, it might as well be a good thing for the plants as they love co2(well i know of one particular plant that loves it)

a reply to: buddah6

Look at the studies that I posted, specifically these three:

Climate models are unable to replicate warming trend unless man-made CO2 is taken into account

The lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling

Solar activity and temperature show opposite trends in recent decades

These three studies can provide a basis that will show that climate change is heavily effected by humans. There is nothing that I have posted that is based on any studies by Michael Mann so please stop bringing him up as a way to try and defuse this.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

How can you still believe these scientists when it was proven they faked the data?

What data was faked? Who proved it, when?

Why are they so obsessed with co2?

Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation. Because the more CO2 there is, the less heat escapes to space. Because humans are dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Because CO2 levels are higher than they have been for at least 700,000 years. Because that has happened over the past 100 years.

Temperature has been rising from the end of the little ice age, well before co2 has gone up or we had any part in.

Not really. Temperatures rose after the LIA, yes, but they leveled off for a couple of hundred years. In any case, saying that climate changes naturally does not refute human influences.

There is still a lot of research to be done and it's way to early to blame humanity or tax the people.

I'm not being taxed, but when do you think the time would be right to do something? Last minute? After the global average temperature has increased by 2º?

originally posted by: openeyeswideshut
a reply to: buddah6

Look at the studies that I posted, specifically these three:

Climate models are unable to replicate warming trend unless man-made CO2 is taken into account

The lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling

Solar activity and temperature show opposite trends in recent decades

These three studies can provide a basis that will show that climate change is heavily effected by humans. There is nothing that I have posted that is based on any studies by Michael Mann so please stop bringing him up as a way to try and defuse this.

My question is if the CO2 levels around ten thousand years ago was in the same 400 ppb range why is it a problem today?

a reply to: buddah6

My question is if the CO2 levels around ten thousand years ago was in the same 400 ppb range why is it a problem today?

The answer is, they weren't.
eatingjellyfish.com...

a reply to: Phage

Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation. Because the more CO2 there is, the less heat escapes to space. Because humans are dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Because CO2 levels are higher than they have been for at least 700,000 years. Because that has happened over the past 100 years.

to be more correct somewhere near 6 GT a year, yes. Compare that to 2000 GT from biomass from organic life or +35000 GT from the oceans. Where is the significance in that?

+-50ppm higher than the norm, yes, is that a big deal? Who knows, that's at least what the ice core data tells us but if we look at the data derived from plant stomata we get a whole different picture.
Yet there is still a lot of discussion whether this data is accurate but that also counts for the ice cores, the determination of the age of the gas in the bubbles, the time when the pores close to the time the snow was deposited, loss or displacement of molecules during it's entrapment,...but as i said that also counts for the measurements of the stomata in plants.

CO2 increase has gone up since 1860, that's roughly 250 years after the temperature-rise at the last little ice age.
Leveled off, where, between 1750 and 1900? You could call that leveled off i guess.

If co2 is at it's highest value for over 700.000 years, why do we see a small decline in temperature since the last ice age?
And what about the lag? What does that say to you? It clearly shows temperature isn't carbon driven.

I'm not being taxed, but when do you think the time would be right to do something? Last minute?

We aren't doing anything, that's the problem! Last minute of what exactly? Before we get devoured by the oceans?or before we suffocate from pollution?

We know too little to say we know how our climate works.
Maybe we should learn more from the past and trying to figure out why ice ages happen or what causes these abrupt changes in earths past climate.

a reply to: Phage

are you sure?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Compare that to 2000 GT from biomass from organic life or +35000 GT from the oceans. Where is the significance in that?

The significance is that the CO2 produced from biological activity is part of the carbon cycle, it comes directly from the atmosphere and returns to it. The CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels comes from carbon which had been sequestered over millions upon millions of years.

+-50ppm higher than the norm

What "norm" are you referring to?

If co2 is at it's highest value for over 700.000 years, why do we see a small decline in temperature since the last ice age?

You mean a decline until about 100 years ago? That would be because of orbital and axial effects on insolation.

And what about the lag? What does that say to you? It clearly shows temperature isn't carbon driven.

You mean in the past? That does not show that CO2 levels do not affect temperatures.

We aren't doing anything, that's the problem!

Actually, you are wrong. We are learning a lot. A lot is being invested in alternative energy sources. Trouble is, in the US, there is a lot of political pressure (money) against that sort of thing.

Maybe we should learn more from the past and trying to figure out why ice ages happen or what causes these abrupt changes in earths past climate.

A lot of research is going into exactly that. But there is no indication that we are not the primary cause of what is happening now. The Sun is not getting hotter. Our location in our orbit and the tilt of the Earth do not account for it. What has changed is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

a reply to: Phage
By norm i meant average
Referring to data reconstruction from Moberg
www.realclimate.org...

The significance is that the CO2 produced from biological activity is part of the carbon cycle, it comes directly from the atmosphere and returns to it. The CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels comes from carbon which had been sequestered over millions upon millions of years.

It's still co2, same molecules.

You mean a decline until about 100 years ago? That would be because of orbital and axial effects on insolation.

So precession has a big influence?

You mean in the past? That does not show that CO2 levels do not affect temperatures.

so what does it shows than?

A lot of research is going into exactly that. But there is no indication that we are not the primary cause of what is happening now. The Sun is not getting hotter. Our location in our orbit and the tilt of the Earth do not account for it. What has changed is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is still a lot to learn from that perspective, not just solar activity but also the effect of cosmic rays.

damn ats eating up my post

a reply to: intergalactic fire

By norm i meant average

Over what time span?

It's still co2, same molecules.

Yes, but when there are more of them it changes things.

So precession has a big influence?

Not so much. Precession does not change the tilt of the axis.

so what does it shows than?

It shows that global temperatures can affect a variety of things.

There is still a lot to learn from that perspective, not just solar activity but also the effect of cosmic rays.

Yeah. Well. Cosmic rays tend to be the fall back position for AGW skeptics. The trouble is, that theory tends to conflict with current data.

a reply to: Phage

Over what time span?

The Moberg data goes back 2000 years i believe.

Yes, but when there are more of them it changes things.

More? What is the significance of 50 dollar when you have a million?
I showed you a graph with the geocarb data where co2 levels went up to 7000ppm and yet there was no temperature rise.

It shows that global temperatures can affect a variety of things.

so we agree on something alright.

Yeah. Well. Cosmic rays tend to be the fall back position for AGW skeptics. The trouble is, that theory tends to conflict with current data.

Yes i read the report and they themselves state their is no direct correlation and doesn't explain global warming, the effects are only modest, still it's a variable that should not be left out.
That's what i'm trying to say as the article, we shouldn't just focus on one variable like they do for co2.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

The Moberg data goes back 2000 years i believe.

And what's the average CO2 concentration over that period?

I showed you a graph with the geocarb data where co2 levels went up to 7000ppm and yet there was no temperature rise.

What was the level of insolation at that time? Was the Sun putting out the same amount of energy then as it is now?

a reply to: Phage

solar output at that time was 4% less than it is today

And what's the average CO2 concentration over that period?

350

a reply to: intergalactic fire

solar output at that time was 4% less than it is today

Ok.

Now, when you say "there was no temperature rise", what do you mean? Doesn't rise imply a change?

a reply to: Phage

there is always change, that's not the issue but is co2 the cause for temperature change? co2 levels were a lot higher back then and it wasn't causing global warming. Matter of fact the earth was in a glaciation cycle during the Ordovician period.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

co2 levels were a lot higher back then and it wasn't causing global warming. Matter of fact the earth was in a glaciation cycle during the Ordovician period.

Let's back up a bit. When you said:

I showed you a graph with the geocarb data where co2 levels went up to 7000ppm and yet there was no temperature rise.

Were you talking about the Ordovician?

a reply to: Phage

no