Climate change denial

a reply to: pteridine

Look at the plot of time temperature

Seems to lack a vertical scale, I don't suppose you have access to the dataset used? Any idea what that 58.69º is supposed to represent?

Warm and cold periods were present long before the industrial revolution.

So that means that the huge increase in CO2 concentrations due to the combustion of fossil fuels has no effect? Physics would seem to indicate otherwise.

CO2 seems to trail warm periods.

Yes. It has done so. Probably mostly because warmer seas release dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere. Two problems with trying to apply that notion to the current situation; CO2 levels are higher than any natural fluctuations over more than a million years, and instead of releasing carbon the oceans are absorbing it because the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased so much.

The good news is that the earth is "greening" according to NASA satellite data

And yet, CO2 levels rise, the global average temperature continues to rise, sea level rises, and ocean pH falls. But never mind any of that.


So what do you reckon has been causing the current warming trend? Is the Sun getting warmer?

Its all china's fault. I saw that pollution in Beijing. Get rid of china.. save the world.

Then again living in a tropical rain forest in the MidWest and having super size insects and dinosaurs and more o2 due to the crazy co2 driven forestation of every continent would be cool too.


Its a combination of cyclic change and temp and people and geological changes. Its a mix of things. Plus the ozone repaired itself.. suckas!

a reply to: Phage

I agree with all of that except the assertion that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for more than a million years.

Unless of course you can provide the data set which shows measured CO2 levels for that time-frame. Sure you could look at ice cores however personally i don't trust the chronology. Once you get passed annual layers you have to depend on radiometric dating which to my understanding really depends on the isotopes half-life.

The first accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 are around the 1950's and although i don't doubt levels are higher than anytime in recorded human history i become dubious when science starts pronouncing accuracy going back millions of years. The error variance when you consider all the variables just becomes too high at those time scales and at best should be used as a loose guide.

You are however very thorough with your research and i don't have the time to look into it more, so i eagerly await my education. I'm playing Devil's advocate before you get too upset!

Keep up the good work!

a reply to: Grenade

Sure you could look at ice cores however personally i don't trust the chronology.

Yes, confirmation bias can be problematic. There are those who "don't trust" historical temperature records as well.

Once you get passed annual layers you have to depend on radiometric dating which to my understanding really depends on the isotopes half-life.

And what's wrong with that, exactly?

Absolute certainty cannot be claimed, but every effort is made to validate the results. Matching results from different samples and different labs, as well as validation with recent samples and current conditions. It is not likely that they are off by significant factors. Any such anomalies would be apparent in the data. These guys know their chemistry and the results have been reproduced repeatedly.

The simplest, most compelling evidence demonstrating that Scholander accurately foresaw the utility of ice as a bottle for old air is provided empirically. For the key atmospheric trace gases, such as CO 2 ,CH 4 and N 2 O, and for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years we now have multiple records generated by different laboratories on different continents using cores from sites with different accumulation rates, temperatures and impurity loadings, often stored, handled and analyzed in different ways, yet yielding the same history within the combined analytical and dating uncertainties (e.g. see Jansen and others 2007, especially figure 6.4; Ahn and Brook, 2008). Furthermore, this record overlaps with the instrumental measurements of the free atmosphere, again with beautiful agreement (Neftel and others, 1985; Pearman and others, 1986). There is no plausible way that this agreement could be produced if there are significant problems with the entrapment, storage, recovery or reading of the atmospheric signal in the ice.

www.igsoc.org...

a reply to: Phage

I wouldn't say bias, i'm objective about radiometric dating, just until i have time to look at the studies i wouldn't know which isotopes or decay were present in the samples.

a reply to: Grenade

I know they've used uranium in some Antarctic cores.

But don't you agree that the consistency of results is indicative of a fairly high level of accuracy?

a reply to: Phage

I do yes, which is why i asked your opinion. At work so can't really delve too deeply into it.

I knew if i questioned your science i would get the answer i was looking for.

You're starting to become my ATS science search tool.

Best stop falling for my ruse, as it will make me lazy. You could play me at my own game and start feeding believable dis-information, that wouldn't be new for a respected ATS member.

a reply to: Grenade

You're starting to become my ATS science search tool.

Don't do that. But If I should ask you a question, you might want to pay attention.

a reply to: Phage

Sure, i'll keep my eyes peeled. Although i don't think i've ever seen you ask a question on here that wasn't rhetorical. You strike me as the self-reliant type.

a reply to: Grenade

Although i don't think i've ever seen you ask a question on here that wasn't rhetorical.

Rhetorical? Or Socratic?
I suppose it can be hard to tell the difference.

a reply to: Phage

I'll stick with rhetorical. Socratic would imply you expect rational thinking from the other party, which i'm sure you've learned is wishful.

a reply to: Grenade

Hope springs eternal.

a reply to: Phage

You're clearly on the wrong forum. This is no place for such optimism.

a reply to: Grenade

It can be fun seeing people miss the point, too.

a reply to: Phage

CO2 levels are higher than any natural fluctuations over more than a million years

So why not look at CO2 levels over the last billion years.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Phage

CO2 levels are higher than any natural fluctuations over more than a million years

So why not look at CO2 levels over the last billion years.

Why would that be relevant?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Phage

CO2 levels are higher than any natural fluctuations over more than a million years

So why not look at CO2 levels over the last billion years.

Why would that be relevant?

Why should a million year period be any more relevant than a billion year period?

Its arrogant of humans to think they were even around long enough to get a accurate study to determine climate change.

The earth is how many years old?

And how many years has man recorded weather?

There are think tanks that come up with this stuff.
How can we get a good portion of the population to belive something and give money to.

And climate change was the winner....

Keep people busy working and contributing to an impossible goal.

But they were flawed, when they came up.with this...it was called global warming.

But that was easy to deny since measuring temperatures each year was too slow and did not send an urgent message.

So these think tanks came back together and said ditch the global warming saying and now use climate change.

And it was that change that showed their true colors

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Denial nothing. All your solutions are bull# meant to fleece the populace rather than actually fix the problem. At best all the solutions presented by the alarmist can do is, slow the process while taxing everyone into destitution.

We have solutions that can not only fix, but reverse and control the problem. We have technologies that if improved and refined can give us the ability to literally control how much or how little carbon is in the air, and in many cases even turn this carbon into objects of use.

Instead they just want to tax, tax, tax everything, ignore the tech that could actually fix things if supported, and instead only focus on options that will treat the symptoms to drag things out as long as possible to milk the populace through taxes for as long as possible.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Good post! We will always have deniers, no matter what! We have people who believe HIV does not cause AIDS. We have people think the earth is flat, no matter how much evidence you throw at them, and we have man made climate change deniers. Why do they deny man climate change? You brought up some of the reasons why, and there are patterns. As an example on this site, a lot of man made climate deniers I have come across are trump supporters, so of course, they will be man climate change deniers too.

It's sad, but just the way it is! We will always have deniers in afraid