Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core
The Vostok Revelation by Me. https://www.amazon.com/Vostok-Revelat...
General web searching my novel titles as I do fairly regularly I came across this bit of factual info about Lake Vostok in Antarctica. Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the CO2 reading from tens of thousands of years ago are for the most part consistent with CO2 levels today.
If I'm reading this correctly, this deflates man made global warming entirely.
Please read and either confirm or correct.what I'm thinking.
General web searching my novel titles as I do fairly regularly I came across this bit of factual info about Lake Vostok in Antarctica. Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the CO2 reading from tens of thousands of years ago are for the most part consistent with CO2 levels today.
If I'm reading this correctly, this deflates man made global warming entirely.
Please read and either confirm or correct.what I'm thinking.
SOURCE URL: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
Also, my dad worked for NASA (two masters degrees in engineering - nuclear physics) and really slammed the global warming religion. He pointed out a ton of flaws in the quasi science behind the hypothesis and even the tools used for data collection.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/mag...
The underlying driving force of the "climate change" crowd is the political agenda of redistribution of wealth via carbon taxes and credits. Look at Al Gores latest agenda and tell me its not about the money.
The link I posted here is not about the article, which knowing the publication is probably exaggerated and designed to scare readers anyway. The link was a reply to the question about the maximum potential sea level if we had no ice left at all. They have a good map of the theoretical coastline. I'm not suggesting it will happen, as I said that before.
No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?
I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.
Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.
There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).
About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.
So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.
Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...
I conclude the lag does not exist in reality. It is just wishful thinking by those who want to think fossil fuels don't contribute.
This argues for a heating mechanism other than CO2 that increases the temperature of the biosphere and leads to increased CO2 after a number of years.
There is some interesting work by Svensmark that indicates that cosmic ray interaction with cloud cover is a climate driver driven by variations in the 11 year solar cycle.
The has been recent analysis of the 11 year solar cycle to find a pattern that accurately predicts the variations. Climate does seem to follow this cycle. If this is the case,we should see a Maunder Minimum in the next cycle about 2030. The Maunder Minimum is associated with the little ice age. The previous cycle is associated with the rise of the black death at the end of a cold period.
He has even speculated that the orbit of the solar system in the galactic plane causes periodic increase in cosmic rays which may account for the regular appearances of ice ages. I'm not sure I buy all this but it's interesting.
The climate is far more complex than simply measuring CO2. It would be nice to have real science done rather than political science.
Yes, of course the solar cycles have an effect, but we cannot influence them. We do however influence the CO2 levels.
Never heard that one before :)
Like measuring the depth on the ocean 3000 years ago or the temperature on August 16, 2105 BC.
http://principia-scientific.org/svens...
This is possibly of interest to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTJCY...
'In all reports of CO2 lagging temperature, .. '
CO2 lags as it is comes out of solution as water warms. (Henry's Law).
The earth and its oceans warmed in the medieval warm period, then cooled in the
little ice age.
These changes are linked to changes in solar activity, evidenced by sun spots, -
radiation that influences Earth's cloud formation. Changes in atmospheric CO2
follow. Thus CO2 does not control temperature, it is the other way round.
These points also elaborate salta's next post.
If you "feel" that your knowledge is better than the science papers from where you get that knowledge, you should probably think it through a bit more.
You are of course correct, the lag could be a hundred or a few thousand years. The evidence for exactly 800 is weak. A firm conclusion however, is that AlGore's proposition, that CO2 causes (leads) global temperature, is wrong.
“[V]ariations in solar energy output have far more effect on Earth’s climate than soccer moms driving SUVs,” Southwestern Law School professor Joerg Knipprath, writes in his ‘Token Conservative’ blog. “A rational thinker would understand that, especially if he or she has some understanding of the limits of human influence. But the global warming boosters have this unbounded hubris that it is humans who control nature, and that human activity can terminally despoil the planet as well as cause its salvation.”
If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?
Does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite.
The affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled.
CO2 only sinks in very calm local conditions (like your drain example). In the lower atmosphere (biosphere levels) it is well mixed with the other gases. But mixing is irrelevant to the IR absorption anyway.
If any control of CO2 is done it should increased per volume since it is quite low for plants which evolved when CO2 was more than ten times more abundant. They are the most abundant plant species. As atmospheric CO2 percentage decreased some other photosynthesis processes evolved which can better use CO2 at present levels but if one wishes to feed increasing human populations in the future, more atmospheric CO2 will be greatly needed.
Yes, it is true that plants will have faster growth with higher CO2 but it is slight, and yield increase from other technologies will far outweight that slight advantage. The drawbacks are far more serious.
H2O is a much stronger GHG and is several percent of the atmosphere compared to a lesser GHG, CO2, at 0.04%. Besides, H2O's latent heat of evaporation is a major means of removing heat from the land and water and then out of the lower atmosphere through radiation from condensation.
Or the record crop yields that have occurred in the previous 4 years. When global warming predictors started in the late eighties Miami was to be 5 feet under water by 2010.
No higher crop yield would not be a drawback, but it is unlikely that is really due to CO2. Other technologies will always dwarf any small CO2 yield benefit.
Obama Ludicrously Links California Drought to Climate Change
You claim Drawbacks I'm sure you are worried about rising sea levels . it has been a scare tactic used for 30 years.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
I was saying any single opinion has no value, no matter whose.
At the same time, any majority opinion has no value... Just because most people agree that fossil carbon is effecting climate does not mean that they are correct. The logic and simplicity of the concept makes it correct in my mind, because it has not yet been refuted.
Source: http://www.environmentguru.com/pages/...
© EnvironmentGuru.com
Then unfortunately the comments on heat flow between atmosphere and surface misses the whole idea. The surface is not being heated by the atmosphere at all, but by the sun. The surface cools at a certain rate, and the rate is effected by the properties of the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, the whole premise of the article was to show that we cannot model the climate very well. That's not really a surprise. Long term models are a waste of time, which is why politicians love them. Of course, the fact we cannot model it does not mean the concept is incorrect. Anything complex, like the economy, cannot be modelled long term, which does not mean all ideas about the economy are incorrect.
Correct.
The scare relies on the supposed back radiation by which the
surface is warmed by heat from this CO2 layer - there is no such effect.
https://www.amazon.com/Scientists-Dis...
do you think if we gane gore the 15 trillion he wants that he would we have enough to end what is not happening? or would he further put jet exhaust in the air proclaiming victory? he as should 0 take a page out of the bush book and just shut up and go away.
https://sputniknews.com/environment/2...
I have a theory, just prior to the onset of colder climate the CO2 rises to combat the anticipated influx of cosmic radiation. Carbon is an electrical dispersent. This is due to less hardy plant life dying off and not using the carbon to produce Ox. When the ice age is full blown, the carbon gets locked up and then released gradually as the ice and snow thaws.
I therefore predict that the carbon level will stay close to where it is until we have more sustained ice and snow on the ground for longer periods of time; hastening colder and colder temperatures.
The confounding issues we face this Grand Solar Minimum is the rapid movements of the magnetic poles and a 25% and weakening magnetic shielding; making us more and more vulnerable to cosmic radiation, increased cloud cover and, which as many are now predicting, a much worse and elongated cold spell.
In short...The future doesn't look all that bright on any front.
https://soundcloud.com/adapt-2030/19-...
The end of the second para says-
* . . at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in
phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature,
whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. *
In my simpler words and with my interpretation in brackets:
* When there was warming, either
-CO2 increased along with temperature increases, (maybe the cause of both
increases was the same)
or
was a thousand years behind temperature changes (temperature maybe was the
cause of CO2 change, not CO2 change led to temperature change)
When there was cooling CO2 lagged, (first cooling, then CO2 dropped,
again maybe temperature increase was the driver of CO2 increase) *
This is evidence that CO2 is not a global temperature driver but rather if anything it is the other way round.
Any disagreement with my simple words, or with the CDIAC paper,
need not tell me to get out and fight socialism.
AJAshinoff says- " this deflates man made global warming entirely."
Agreed.
1. There are now something like 7 Billion humans on the planet, each one respirates Co2.
2. There is unprecedented deforestation, especially in the main carbon sink of the world, the Amazon basin.
3. In between glaciations, there is a rise in Co2 which would seem counter intuitive in respect to the fact plant growth should be a maximum, so it should eat all that up.
4. There are a lot, lot of animals in the world today raised for food, all of whom respirate. This may, or may not equal the previous wild populations, but that is yet another variable.
5. There is some evidence for solar activity in a cyclical form to also cause warming and to change the whole "energy budget" of the planet.
6. There are oceanic changes to currents and life zones due to changes in climate that also have contributed to more or less absorption of C02.
I have never seen any "complete" model that takes all these issues into account, and then add in the human output of Co2 in industrial applications. All I see is people making vaugue statements about climate change and want to blame humans above all else, and never produce a complete package of ALL factors and how they fit. It may very well be that our "little" contribution is meaningless in the whole cycle, or may be huge, but my bone is that no one wants to really explain the full picture, when it seems all they are doing is providing political justification for rules, regulations and money. Seems like there are a lot of questions unanswered.
The fact, as I understand it, is that water vapor is the major contributor to this effect. Far more than the effect of CO2 levels, but nobody ever addresses that little issue.
Finally...few people are denying that the climate is changing. They're just having a hard time with the poor evidence that mankind is the major reason for it.
- Does the CO2 stay put? Or does it migrate? To where? How do we know?
- What are the sources of error in the calculations? (I don't mean "faulty addition", but instead "overlooked factors" and "faulty proxies".) How do we know?
- What are the protocols for handling the samples and how can we be certain they have not lost or gained CO2?
- What levels of CO2 are necessary in the atmosphere for plant life at the ages measured? C3 plants? C4 plants? That'll be the concentration for plants to reproduce, not just to survive.
-
We know how much CO2 we add from fossil fuels each year. We continually measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so we know that roughly 2/3 of the CO2 we add is absorbed by some process, and about 1/3 is retained each year in the atmosphere. In other words, there no reason to think that the CO2 would be increasing if not for human fossil fuel activity. I don't see any doubt.
As far as how high it can go before seeing expensive problems (sea level), that is debatable.
We pay politicians to have pointless debates, so we don't have to :)
In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?
The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.
The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.
Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!
In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!
The important (continental) ice is not melted by warming oceans, but by warming climate. More snow evaporating to leave less to accumulate each year feeding the heads of glaciers. Ocean temps are very stable, as you said, they would change very little. In any case they would only directly effect Arctic (sea) ice, not continental (antarctic) ice, and we don't need to care as much about sea ice.
As far as the evil socializing money transfer issue, I think you will find everyone in this forum in agreement with you. These are two different discussions. My concern is that the very people who could work out a constructive undamaging (free market) solution are simply denying there is even potentially a problem.
The "liars" have been very successful in diverting their opponents (including most of us).
The big problem is from the mush heads, the moral posturing sanctimonious
twerps who claim to want to save the earth with other people's money.
Climate change and associated green claptrap are tools of the political
class and socialists who find these emotional scares useful to expand the power
of the state.
from blackshirt nazis and their forerunners:
http://ecofascism.com/review11.html
Rand observed that Objectivism opposes both sides.
Red, international, and black, national, politics unite in shutting down free
speech as well as individual liberty and property rights. Climate change
alarmism gives them a tool, an excuse. No basis in fact is an advantage for reds
and blacks as fabrication and emotion have freer reign. Quotations from the
political class given in this thread show how climate alarmism is being used.
The deeper oceans then are constantly receiving that heat as it travels from the warmer ocean surface down to the cooler deep. This continuous massive transfer of heat may be why the predictions of rapidly rising average earth temperature have failed. Nice bit of info, Dobrien.
Yale Environmental studies:
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.
BY CHERYL KATZ • MARCH 30, 2015
For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence.
But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years.
Heat from the Earth (internal and absorbed from the sun) flows into (and through) the atmosphere and out into space. Massive amounts of energy are removed from the oceans every second by evaporation, and released by condensation in the atmosphere. Cheryl Katz seems to have a weak grasp of physics. Its not a good idea to read that nonsense and conclude the idea of fossil CO2 changing climate is incorrect. Anyway, she concludes with a prediction which makes little sense, so for me this goes into the predictive model (ie. valueless) category, and is probably more political than realistic.
"the close correlation" between temperature and atmospheric CO2."
The correlation is weak. It does suggest that temperature lags CO2 concentration
in the atmosphere. "at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase
either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the
Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the
onset of the glaciations." Evidence from several other studies show a lag of
about 800 years.
"In other words, there no reason to think that the CO2 would be increasing if
not for human fossil fuel activity. I don't see any doubt."
No reason! But human activity contributes only about 3% of the increase,
the rest is from natural sources primarity from the oceans, see Henry's Law.
Movements in sea levels have been observed, the rate of increase over the past
half century is about 1.6mm pa, but this figure varies on where and how
measurements are taken. Geological, plate tectonics, movements are the best
explanation. Climate 'scientists' regard geology as the enemy.
If somebody told you humans only contribute 3% of that increase, then you awere clearly being misled. Check the numbers yourself, then never trust that source again. Don't just believe propaganda, Lucky.
http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/...
(Mainstream climate alarmism). The figure comes from the last page,
note the amusing use of the word 'balance'.
(units are 10^9 tonne of CO2)
fossil fuel burning 23,
Other sources 776.
23 / (776+23) = 2.9%
The big fallacy is the word balance, that all flows are constant except that human caused. Actually the higher the inflow the higher the uptake by growing vegetation as well as calcification -the natural conversion of CO2 to calcite (limestone).
When you find that, ignore all natural flows of carbon (other sources), because they are not influence by humans, they are only put in docs like that to confuse you. The only data you need is the CO2 tonnage added to the atmosphere per year (peak to peak on the Hawaii chart) and the CO2 output from fossil fuels per year. You will find, I repeat again, the accumulation is about 30% - 40% of fossil output. In other words we are lucky it is being absorbed somewhere (for now) otherwise it would be increasing at almost 3 times the rate. That makes you earlier "3% contribution" out by a factor of about 100.
Think things through instead of just beieving headlines. Don't just believe me either, find the actual data for more than one source and check it.
No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?
I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.
Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.
There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).
About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.
So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.
Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...
This in itself does not tell me anything about about human-made global warming. It's not something someone outside the field (like me) is going to work out with one set of data. People study it for years just to understand the models. I am confident those models will change as scientists in this field make new discoveries.
Based on what we know now, CO2 released from burning things caused the doubling, and that increase is going to have huge net costs to people. There really isn't a good solution to prevent those costs. I question if cutting emissions could have enough impact to be worthwhile. So people look for an easy way out: maybe we'll discover one simple shocking piece of evidence upending the current understanding and showing there are no costs to to carbon emissions. This is an insane leap of wishful thinking IMHO.
At least with this, unlike things like homeopath not working and GMOs being, I do understand the motivation to deny reality when it comes comes to global warming.
In any case, I am fascinated by remote places like Antarctica. I like the idea of going to space, but there are remote places on earth humans can't go to personally.
Warming causes longer growing seasons. Milder winters prevent deaths from cold. Warm is good. Historically, people do well when the climate warms. There is increased food, trade, population. Warm times are the "golden days". When it gets cold, think famine, pestilence, the black plague.
So why does no one mention benefits? Perhaps its because they want to herd the sheep in a specific direction. Amazingly, the solution to "global warming" seems to be to give the people in charge trillions of dollars so that we can't afford energy. Seriously?
We all disagree with the damaging socialized political "fixes". We have no power to argue against them if we first deny that the problem exists. By denying we simply motivate the politicians who want to take charge.
My primary issue is that unless you are talking about both pro's and con's you are not doing rational analysis. There are pros. No one mentions them. And most discussions assume the most extreme warming projections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwcW...
Instead, all we see is vaguely worded unspecific explanations of "alternative concepts", trying to make it sound more complex than it is.
The CO2 levels are simple to measure. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 tonnage is currently about 1/3 of annual fossil fuel contribution. The other 2/3 is absorbed into one or all of the natural carbon cycles. If we continue at the same rate, we should expect the levels to continue to increase by about 1/3 of that rate. We should expect that higher level to have the unrefuted effect on average temperature and therefore sea levels.
It is so disappointing that so much effort is put into discrediting the cause and effect, by the very group of people who would be the best ones to work out a good free market solution to the problem. Instead we are left with the socialized solutions being forced on us by western governments.
Is know to be falsified by NOAA and the IPCC.
The real power is the electromagnetic interaction with the sun and the planets. The weather on this planet has fluctuated widely
In the past and will do so in the future and there is little we can do about it. After a period of heavy sunspot activity and several years of rising temps coinciding the sunspots are starting to be scarce. You think we are warming and I think we are cooling, that's the bottom line.
But for each equivalent position in the sun's cycle (equivalent energy input) the higher CO2 levels result in higher temp. Does anybody in the denier camp seriously think that the decline in temperature in the years before the sun's minimum "disproves" the concept of CO2 capturing heat? Thats like saying "the sky is getting darker these days" by monitoring only the evening light.
The falsified data is irrelevant. You can find that on both sides of the debate. False or exaggerated data does not disprove a concept it just destroys the reputation of its producer. Modern readings of temperature are not relevant anyway because we have no paleo satelite data to compare with. The paleo correlation of CO2 and sea level needs to be disproved to break the concept.
Denier is a typical leftist label meant to form an opinion with prejudice.
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
Sorry, there are too many villains in this story to trust any of them for the truth. Why trust any of those who were/are so eager to believe anything that supported their notion?
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
Yes! Because the denials become more and more absurd as the evidence becomes more overwhelming. We have Naomi Klein licking her lips in morbid excitement arguing global warming is actually a good thing because the answer is socialism. Instead of responding that socialism is not the answer to anything, people resort to absurd denials of reality, as if we must choose between fantasy and socialism.
So we should jump on-board anything the government says so as not to fuel its desire to expand its power? Disagreeing with its assessment, even if it is consensus "science", even if a chunk of the facts it built the hype over has been proven false/fraudulent (not empirical), even if anyone with science credibility who opposes their position is ridiculed publicly for speaking out, even if governments are paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to scientists and corporations who support the ambiguous/vaguely misleading "climate change" moniker?
Reminder to everyone: Government lies. Those things government champions are usually rife with schemes to amass personal wealth and retain/expand power.
Hell no. I can't see compliance for sake of compliance as a rational take, nor can I in any way see that stance as an objective stance.
If there were a fully free market solution to the problem (something based on well functioning property rights), then it would result in little damage to the economy or to the individual IF IT TURNS OUT there is not really a climate problem. The fact we are only given the socialized solution by the evil liars does NOT logically mean we do NOT have an actual climate problem. When we get rid of that blind spot, maybe we will have a chance of finding that free market solution.
There are two completely separate questions (a) will fossil fuels cause a damaging increase in sea level? (b) what is the best way to deal with that?
If we just insist the answer to (a) is "No", despite any evidence, then our answer to (b) cannot be taken seriously. I prefer to say Yes to (a), then I am justified protesting the socialized solutions being forced on us.
I'm not an advocate. I just accept reality as it is.
"you talk about costs but not offsetting benefits"
I said "net costs" specifically to acknowledge the benefits.
"people do well when the climate warms"
The claim that global warming actually has a net benefit is not correct.
"because they want to herd the sheep in a specific direction."
That's the sheep-herders' issue. Their wishes don't affect reality either.
"the solution to "global warming" seems to be to give the people in charge trillions of dollars so that we can't afford energy. Seriously?"
You are responding to someone else's claims. I said there is no "solution" to prevent those costs. I Preventing all costs to others is not even a reasonable goal. Rather, we have to make people whole when our activities damage their property.
I am amazed at people's capacity to deny reality when the truth is unpleasant.
The emotional distress, name-calling, and gov't wasteful spending are all irrelevant to the issue of damaging other people's property.
If it is 450 ppbv up from 280 ppmv then it has increased by about 60% and since its affects are logarithmic most of the temperature effects have already occurred in the less than one degree C in the last century plus. But the measurements of CO2 vary greatly with an average nearer 400 ppmv.
There is nothing to deny about something as unimportant as global warming except possibly the self caused mental distress from the inability of dealing multi-decades in the future with human inability to make changes in their lives such as not building in flood planes or trying to farm in arid areas.
It's trillions of dollars of loss to the people affect over the next 100 years. To people who don't mind trashing other people's stuff, it's unimportant.
Am I wrong? Have I misread? Comments welcome.
No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?
I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.
Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.
There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).
About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.
So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.
Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...