Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: jrod

There 380 ppmv was from memory. It was not intended as an exact amount during an exact time. That's why I asked the question.

I will agree with your statement: we are apparently experiencing an increase in carbon dioxide levels, although I would classify it as 'appreciable' instead of 'sharp.'

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society(BAMS)

BAMS State of the Climate
International report confirms 2015 was Earth’s warmest year on record
Greenhouse gases highest on record. Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide, rose to new record high values during 2015. The annual average atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the location of the world’s longest direct measurements of CO2, was 400.8 parts per million (ppm), which surpassed 400 ppm for the first time. This was 3.1 ppm more than 2014, and was the largest annual increase observed in the 58-year record. The 2015 average global CO2 concentration was not far below, at 399.4 ppm, an increase of 2.2 ppm compared with 2014.

Also in report:

Global surface temperature highest on record.

Sea surface temperatures highest on record

Global upper ocean heat content highest on record.

Global sea level highest on record

Extremes were observed in the water cycle and precipitation
The full report can be downloaded as pdf State of the Climate in 2015

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

Wow...cute one liner.

I read a lot..much more than the average person, and I don't watch tv.

What is your purpose of posting many times on this thread?

Are you in denial that we are observing as increase of CO2 levels? Are you trying to deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is the major contributor to the CO2 spike? Are you trying to deny the concept of radiative forcing?

LOL, proved the point rather well. There are quite a few folks responding in this thread, and an overwhelming majority of them fully grasp that warming is happening, they seem to question the absolute position the militant AGW crowd has taken, given that we really don't have all the answers. Is man a little responsible, about half way responsible, or over 100% as one graph seems to indicate?

It was also mentioned how irritating it is to have some internet dweeb talk down to you thinking he is morally superior due to the fact that he sucks up all the talking points of the militant AGW crowd. Know anyone like that?

www.scientificamerican.com...

This is the kind of nonsensical argument that I have come to expect from climate change alarmists...

They basically contrived data to suggest that the amount of time that CO2 increases has trailed temperature increases is less than previously thought and then argue that this should put a damper on those that claim that if CO2 increases trail temperature increases, because then causality must be reversed...

This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning that flabbergasts me...

So basically they said, well, we were able to determine through our methods of contriving how the air bubbles were off in their positioning in the ice that the CO2 increases actually only trail the temp increases by 200 years rather than 1400 years...

HELLO MCFLY, is anybody home??? Think McFly, Think... if CO2 increases STILL TRAIL temp increases, they STILL can't be the CAUSE of said Temp increases...

JEEZ, and you morons want me to listen to these freaks??? GTF out of here...

Jaden

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's just frustrating to see the studies linked being ignored at best, while this thread alone is guilty of creating frustration on it's own.

Everybody is obviously frustrated for their own reasons, which offers some sort of comical relief as well. That's the humorous part if you will.

YMMV, thanks for the kind reply anyway. That wasn't frustrating at all.

a reply to: network dude

Nice catch phrase 'militant AGW crowd'. Did you make that up yourself?

We are making a major contribution to the CO2 levels....again no reasonable person can deny this.

Instead of firing back with good talking points, you pretend that I claim i am somehow morally superior....whatever dude. Keep in mind I actually studied meteorology in college....this included classes like Atmospheric Chemistry that required calc, physics, and chem as pre reqs.

I am not mindlessly parroting talking points, though a lot of that crap is going on in this thread.

a reply to: network dude

sucks up all the talking points of the militant AGW crowd.

Can you direct me to where I may find these talking points? Are they open source? Can I quote them without attribution?

Also, I could not find a definition for "militant AGW crowd". Are sweat bands or bandoliers or other cool accessories available?

ETA I think I found it:

Donald Trump was Against Climate change until he was for it
By its final year, it was obvious that the 2000s were going to be the warmest decade in history. 2005, after all, set records as the hottest year ever recorded. And 2007 was the second-hottest year—until 2009 stole that record. 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006 also all landed in the top-ten.

Climate change was real, its effects were felt planet-wide. But the United States, the world’s largest economy and its second-largest polluter, seemed to be doing little about it.
...
a full-page ad appeared in The New York Times. The ad, an open letter, called on President Obama and Congress to finally pass legislation restricting greenhouse-gas emissions.

“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” it read. “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

Below that text were 55 names. They included squishily liberal executives and various other famous people, like the CEOs of Patagonia, Timberland, Blue Man Group, and Chipotle; and Deepak Chopra, Martha Stewart, Kenneth Cole, and Ben and Jerry.

Someone else was on that list, too: Donald J. Trump, and his three children. That’s right: The Republican nominee for president supported urgent climate action before he opposed it.
...
Trump flipped on climate change long before his presidential run. Less than two months after that letter ran in the Times, he had implied to a crowd that global warming couldn’t exist if snowfall was setting records.
...
Trump endorsed urgent climate action when the liberal CEOs came calling; now he rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change because, you know, he’s running as a Republican

a reply to: Masterjaden

From your link:

...
Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.

They found correlations between nitrogen 15 isotope concentrations and the density of said snowpacks, which does sound pretty clever to me at first glance...

Parrenin et al. (p. 1060; see the Perspective by Brook) present a revised age scale for the atmospheric component of Antarctic ice cores, based on the isotopic composition of the N2 that they contain, and suggest that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously over four intervals of rapid warming during the last deglaciation.

science.sciencemag.org...

Point being, given this new method it does change synchronously over four intervals of rapid warming. No trails, less discrepancies with no more than 200 years margin of error max if you will.

But Four intervals, did you guys read that?
This stuff always tends to blow my mind, let's talk about PlanetX again!

Anyway, here's another article explaining the issue you've brought up:

...
But the bubbles are actually younger than the ice that traps them. That’s because the bubbles start out as air spaces between snowflakes on the surface, and gradually become entombed as new layers of snow compress the old, eventually turning it to ice. That doesn’t happen, however, until the snow is between 200 and 300 feet deep, and until it does happen, air circulates within the snow. “We have an ice archive,” said Parrenin in an interview, “and we have a gas archive, and they don’t have the same age.”

Ice Bubbles May Solve Carbon-Temperature Paradox

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Oh, I didn't ignore it. It was simply long-buried by the time I got here. I'll even give my take on it, since you brought it up again.

But first I'd like to say that there was no reason for me to be rude. You made a statement which made me question the data used, I asked for a clarification, and you complied. That's a simple exchange of information.

Now to the graph:

The problem I have is the one I earlier mentioned... just looking at the graph, I have absolutely no idea what unity (100%) symbolizes, what methodology was used, or how the distinction between natural and human carbon dioxide production was made. All I can really see is somewhat of a disagreement between studies and yet a similar general conclusion. Further confusing the issue is the fact that several studies put human production at over unity... meaning what? Global Cooling is being prevented by human carbon dioxide production?

If that is so, perhaps we should look at whether Global Warming us really an issue compared with Global Cooling. History indicates population decline during cooling cycles and vice-versa.

Graphs are simply visual aids used to show comparisons and trends. To be informative, they need to be accompanied by a thorough description of methodologies used, so the viewer can properly analyze the data presented. In this case, the description seems to assume the viewer is intricately familiar with all studies; I, unfortunately, am not. I seriously doubt anyone on this site actually is familiar with them all.

In summary, I can't understand the graph as posted; it isn't clear. Therefore I can't accept it as good data.

TheRedneck

a reply to: pthena

That's a 300-page abstract. Reading and understanding it thoroughly will require a few days.

The post you replied to was concerning baseline levels. Can you simply tell me what this report says about baselines and allow me to verify, instead of expecting me to digest the whole 300 pages and report back?

I think I made my position(s) clear in my first two posts in this thread. Do you have anything to say yourself on that position?

TheRedneck

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I was reading a 2006 paper on the "lag", before Parrenin. The page you link to does say what the older explanation was.

Whenever I see the words "Climate Change" I just keep scrolling by.

Given the BS we're shoveled by the media and the government everyday, how can you honestly expect us to roll over and play dead every time they announce something?

Isn't skepticism healthy in this crazy, dysfunctional and corrupt environment?

I mean, history is wrought with earth changes.

So, throw me in jail for questioning your unwavering commitment to the idea that "man is bad."

I know! Let's force everyone into more regulations! That'll solve everything!

dp

a reply to: TheRedneck

The post you replied to was concerning baseline levels.

I may have been off by one post I thought I was posting to answer highest level.

Can you simply tell me what this report says about baselines and allow me to verify, instead of expecting me to digest the whole 300 pages and report back?

I haven't read the report myself, just the page it was linked from.
but 7,000-10,000 years ago, starting agriculture was 300ppm. 1958 when measurement started on volcano was 325ppm.

I think I made my position(s) clear in my first two posts in this thread. Do you have anything to say yourself on that position?

You live on a mountain. You know animals. You distrust people. They want to take your money to fix something you think makes no sense. This isn't a classroom. You're open for discussion.

Cool. I've pretty much stated my position too. I've really got no more to say than what I've already said. I'm not the guy asking for your money.



ETA No, I thought of something else. I'll post it lower down so it isn't so lost.

a reply to: jrod

"Starting point of CO2 was 280ppm, now we are over 400ppm and rising. "

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, natural climate variations caused atmospheric CO2 to vary between about 200 ppm during ice ages and 300 ppm during the warmer periods between ice ages. At the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, around the year 1780, the CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm, so CO2 had already risen by around 40 ppm before Keeling began his measurements. Anyone who has breathed air with less than 300 ppm CO2 is now over 100 years old! An even longer but much less accurate record of atmospheric CO2 can be obtained using other geochemical methods. These suggest that the last time atmospheric CO2 was over 400 ppm was at least as far back as the Pliocene, three to five million years ago, before humans roamed the earth and when the climate was considerably warmer than today.

a reply to: TheRedneck

My basic theory is here:

Back in the old days of dinosaurs there was a certain amount of gross carbon and hydrogen on the surface of the planet and in the atmosphere. It was unlikely that humans would have evolved or lived long in that environment. Some cataclysm caused a vast amount of the gross carbon and hydrogen to be buried under the earth, removing them from the net above ground quantity. Humans evolved in that environment.

By pulling the hydrocarbons from the earth and burning them, humans are effectively returning the Earth's surface and atmosphere to pre-human conditions. Perhaps those pre-human conditions will not be conducive to human existence.

The roll of Hydrogen is as a regulator or governor for amount of possible biomass(plants and animals).

If augustusmasonic(spelling) is correct that atmospheric hydrogen is steady at about 1%, then the rest of the hydrogen must go somewhere. I theorize that the hydrogen is incorporated into organic organisms, all of which contain hydrogen.

The more hydrogen available the more life, either bigger or more numerous. If trees are cut down and burned, the hydrogen will end up in things like algae blooms or other noxious growth. Nitrogen is the basic building block but availability of hydrogen is the governor.

Back in dinosaur ages, animals were huge, plants were ridiculously plentiful. Massive amount of hydrogen in the biomass. After cataclysm vast amounts of hydrogen and carbon buried in the earth. Burning that raises the max allowed of the hydrogen governor, resulting in new life, probably not desirable, bacteria, mold, algae, (the things that can quickly suck up the hydrogen)

I would recommend not burning coal, oil, natural gas, and planting trees and other plants to use the available carbon and hydrogen more productively than bacteria, mold, and algae.




ETA IS THERE A MACROBIOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE TO RUN THIS BY?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So, everyone - can you answer the question "Why?" from the title in one word?
Six words or less?

That would expedite and facilitate the thread's resolution.

Because it's utter BS.

Four words.

=========================================================================

Admittedly, there are a lot of assumptions in that answer, I'm assuming you are referring to the variety of "climate change" being hawked the loudest, which a single species is somehow responsible, or which that same single species can somehow thwart. Although the climate IS changing, and has been continually changing for 4.5 billion years now, that particular sort I mentioned above does not exist.

a reply to: pthena

That's actually an intriguing hypothesis. Before I reply, though, I want to take some time to think on it.

Thank you for sharing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If it is us (meaning this generation so to speak) that is causing the climate change epidemic we are suffering through, then would you care explain why there are records of temperature and weather patterns similar to current conditions before there was any real pollution capable means?

Yes there is climate change. But it is cyclic as it always has been, and the problem is the powers that be want to take the "history of now" as proof of humans ravaging the planet.

But this is akin to peeping through a keyhole at a candle flame, and then claiming that the world is on fire.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's fine and frankly, there's always reason to be at least a tad rude when I'm provoking people with pointed sticks again. I kept my last response short and sharp to avoid more confusion and I had some stuff to take care off, but it's nice talking to you!

Anyway... I linked that posting as an example to explain my frustration since you've asked what all that was about, not that I expected you to go for exactly those studies. Or anyone else for that matter, it's a pretty boring lecture in case you're not a complete geek, which I quite obviously am. Geez... but now, since you've looked into it (all hats off for that move), let me try to answer your questions. Only wondering we advance!

First, let's forget the graphic. It merely visualises the differences of various studies and refers to the human contribution to temperature changes (in percentage), not to the CO2 levels alone.

Skip all that, hit the link to the first study or go to this site full of colourful pics instead, which offers the non-shortened version. Just glance over the last part of their abstract and read the following:

...Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half of the century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximately one third of the warming. Warming in the troposphere, since the 1960s, is probably mainly due to anthropogenic forcings, with a negligible contribution from natural forcings.

Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change

Maybe that helps to clear the multiple issues you've brought up. Human/ natural forcings go both ways, cooling and warming. Imagine massive fires on a broad scale - the global warming effect of all that CO2 brought into the atmosphere with those fires is negated due to all the ash, which is dimming down the sunlight. There you'd have a cooling offsetting the warming, just to make an example in order to explain the point.
Which is precisely what happened. It wasn't fires, but probably volcanic aerosols (ash) offsetting appr. one third of the warming in the second half of the last century. And after that time, they were able to attribute the warming to the human footprint again. The change in greenhouse gases for example is a clear indicator for human activities, at least that's the way I would see it.

Given this study and the others I've learned about, there's simply no global cooling at all, but rather the opposite on the table. And their methods are not that far fetched either, 'just' a coupled atmosphere/ocean general circulation model called HadCM3 and buckets full of data.
And then I looked further into the study to find this:

During 1907– 1957 we found that there was negligible net anthropogenic warming, with the effect of greenhouse gases largely being balanced by other anthropogenic forcings. Therefore, in this period, the warming was largely naturally caused. Reconstructions of temperature changes, using proxy indicators, of the last 500 – 1000 years [Crowley, 2000; Mann et al., 1998] suggest that the observed warming in this period is unusually rapid. If our analyses are correct, in attributing it largely to natural causes, this was an unusual natural event. We believe that further investigation of this period is needed.

6. Summary and Conclusions [94] - Page 21 in the PDF

Faszinating, innit? Where's my Spock tinfoil hat with pointed ears? Just when you finally think you've managed to understand science, a scientist comes forward to baffle his audience with his believe that further research is needed. Now that's a bummer, funny story though! I love science when it comes across like this, a really honest effort to narrow down our margin of error.

But throw in some other studies or whatnot if you have better ideas, I just thought I should share all that.

Have a great global warming, guys!