Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report

Oct 08, 2009
This chart shows carbon dioxide levels for different times in Earth’s history. This chart shows carbon dioxide levels for different times in Earth’s history, in parts-per-million by volume, with projections for the next 100 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A new study in Science by Aradhna Tripati and colleagues suggests that the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as today was between 15-20 million years ago.

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent , and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.

Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England's University of Oxford that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine . Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.

"We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice," Tripati said. "This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.

"We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago," she said. "We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said.

"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.

"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history," Tripati said.

In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.

"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity."

Today, the Arctic Ocean is covered with frozen ice all year long, an ice cap that has been there for about 14 million years.

"Prior to that, there was no permanent cap in the Arctic," Tripati said.

Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide, Tripati said. Such levels may have been reached on Earth 50 million years ago or earlier, said Tripati, who is working to push her data back much farther than 20 million years and to study the last 20 million years in detail.

More than 50 million years ago, there were no ice sheets on Earth, and there were expanded deserts in the subtropics, Tripati noted. The planet was radically different.

Co-authors on the Science paper are Christopher Roberts, a Ph.D. student in the department of Earth sciences at the University of Cambridge, and Robert Eagle, a postdoctoral scholar in the division of geological and planetary sciences at the California Institute of Technology.

The research was funded by UCLA's Division of Physical Sciences and the United Kingdom's National Environmental Research Council.

Tripati's research focuses on the development and application of chemical tools to study climate change throughout history. She studies the evolution of climate and seawater chemistry through time.

"I'm interested in understanding how the carbon cycle and climate have been coupled, and why they have been coupled, over a range of time-scales, from hundreds of years to tens of millions of years," Tripati said.

Source: University of California - Los Angeles

Explore further: Earthquakes occur in 4 parts of Alaska

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Ice core studies confirm accuracy of climate models

Sep 11, 2008

An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in ...

Why is Greenland covered in ice?

Aug 27, 2008

There have been many reports in the media about the effects of global warming on the Greenland ice-sheet, but there is still great uncertainty as to why there is an ice-sheet there at all.

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Genevieve forms in Eastern Pacific

22 hours ago

The seventh tropical depression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean formed and quickly ramped up to a tropical storm named "Genevieve." NOAA's GOES-West satellite captured an infrared image of the newborn storm ...

NASA maps Typhoon Matmo's Taiwan deluge

Jul 25, 2014

When Typhoon Matmo crossed over the island nation of Taiwan it left tremendous amounts of rainfall in its wake. NASA used data from the TRMM satellite to calculate just how much rain fell over the nation.

User comments : 137

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
2.6 / 5 (25) Oct 08, 2009
Who was burning fossil fuels then to cause the rise?
No one of course. The high CO2 was from degassing of the oceans FOLLOWING the warming.
Chicken Licken and Henny Penny continue their quest!
Aliensarethere
2.5 / 5 (26) Oct 08, 2009
The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"

So this means CO2 levels could be irrelevant.
defunctdiety
3.3 / 5 (25) Oct 08, 2009
- and were sustained at those levels -

What are their criteria for "sustained levels"? And explain how our current levels can be described as being "sustained" in the same geological time frame as is used for disclaiming past levels. i.e. What is the "resolution" for their core samples for the past 15 million years? I'm betting it's larger than the 100 years or so that we have been observing our CO2 levels. It becomes very important how many times we see a spike to these levels, the worse the resolution is.

Nice choice of timescales along the x-axis as well, by these poor excuse for scientists. They make a claim about the last 15-20 MM years but only show the last 1000? Disgraceful. Are even lay people fooled by this anymore?
kasen
2.8 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2009
Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.


That's not calculated relative to the ice core results, is it? Those can't be dead accurate, either. In fact, what other methods are there to track CO2 evolution, to this sort of accuracy, over such large periods of time?

Too many factors, too big of a time scale, too many assumptions and far too big implications. I mean, come on, just how well preserved can those algae be?
Shootist
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2009
"Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report"

I guess the mega-fauna of the era had some really big coal fired power plants.
brianweymes
2.6 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2009
The ignorance in this community is just boggling. It's all well and good to be critical, but when you are that way to EVERY single study that comes out in support of anthropogenic global warming (meanwhile there are virtually none that come out against it), you need to recognize you have a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

I will admit that the graph is somewhat confusing, although it probably wasn't designed to be easily understood by laypeople.
Mavin
3.3 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2009
CO2 caused Global Warming science?

Would someone please ask the global warming scientists who say the earth
will warm by 8 degrees if the CO2 levels double, why the earth cooled by 10
degrees during the Late Ordovician Period when CO2 levels were twelve times
what we have today?

Also please ask what would happen to life on the earth if we totally got rid of all that evil pollutant CO2? How green would that leave the earth?
Birthmark
2.8 / 5 (16) Oct 08, 2009
Very interesting, we need to stop arguing about whether or not humans are the cause and actually deal with the problem at hand.
goldengod
2.6 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2009
The point is that the last time we had C02 levels the worlds climate and physical topology was completely different to what we have at the moment. Hence we are in for dramatic changes if we don't sort out the mess we have created.

Of course it also works in favour of the great explorers if there are whole new continents to explore once the ice is melted.

It will take a lot longer to refreeze the ice than it will to melt it. Just look into your freezer to see an example of how long it takes to freeze a small block of ice and compare that with how long it takes to thaw when you drop it in your drink...
MatthiasF
3.5 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2009
Why are they using measurements from Hawaii? It's a region with an active volcano, won't the CO2 measurements be a tad skewed?
omatumr
2.9 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2009
Who was burning fossil fuels then to cause the rise?
No one of course. The high CO2 was from degassing of the oceans FOLLOWING the warming.


Enormous amounts of CO2 are trapped in the Earth's upper mantle. They are sometimes released explosively.

The observations are excess Xe-129 from the decay of extinct I-129 and excess Xe-136 from the spontaneous fission of extinct Pu-244 in the early history of the solar system:

1. In 99.9% pure CO2 from gas wells of New Mexico that are used to make "Dry Ice" ["The xenon record of extinct radioactivities in the Earth," Science 174 (1971) 1334-1336; ”Extinct radioactive nuclides and production of xenon isotopes in natural gas,” Nature 235 (1972) 150-152], and

2. In fluid inclusions of CO2 trapped in a massive piece of olivine xenolith that was ejected by a volcano in Hawaii [Noble gases in CO2 well gas, Harding County, New Mexico", Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 27 (1975) 346-355].

Oliver K. Manuel
GrayMouser
3.5 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2009
Very interesting, we need to stop arguing about whether or not humans are the cause and actually deal with the problem at hand.

True, but what IS the problem?
- Politicians looking for wealth and power?
- News agencies trying to sell papers and magazines?
- Cash strapped researchers looking for money to buy the next generation supercomputer?
- Eco-movements trying to make everybody else's life miserable?
- Something else entirely?
GrayMouser
3.9 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2009
The ignorance in this community is just boggling. It's all well and good to be critical, but when you are that way to EVERY single study that comes out in support of anthropogenic global warming (meanwhile there are virtually none that come out against it), you need to recognize you have a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

I will admit that the graph is somewhat confusing, although it probably wasn't designed to be easily understood by laypeople.

You mean like this one which physorg, as well as the US press, ignored?
http://english.fa...07151416
XopherMV
Oct 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nartoon
Oct 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
russcelt
4.1 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2009
Why is there no indication of the Little Ice Age, approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century?
Fakeer
2.3 / 5 (14) Oct 09, 2009
Several comments above illustrate why GEDs make such excellent armchair researchers . . . while the rest find solace in the fact that scientists still do the real work.
kasen
2.5 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2009
meanwhile there are virtually none that come out against it


The only reason this particular study is in support of AGW is because the researcher assumed so. The data just shows that some 15-20 million years ago, CO2 levels were as high as they are today. They correlated this with increased average temperatures in that 5 million years time period and inferred that CO2 must've been the cause.

Well, I doubt that's what the paper says, but it definitely hints it, strongly. The head researcher is "interested in understanding how the carbon cycle and climate have been coupled". How do you think she'd feel if her research showed little, or no coupling?

Even if AGW is right on target, I doubt CO2 is the only problem. But it's easy to regulate and to make graphs with it. Have car companies stopped making combustion engines? No, they're just making them emit less CO2, probably introducing more environmentally damaging chemicals in the process.
mongander
Oct 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SincerelyTwo
Oct 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
wiyosaya
2.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2009
"Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report"

I guess the mega-fauna of the era had some really big coal fired power plants.

Probably more like a really bad case of indigestion.

Oopps. That gas is methane.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Oct 09, 2009
This proves my theory that dinasuars drove cars.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Oct 09, 2009
[quote Kasen] "The only reason this particular study is in support of AGW is because the researcher assumed so"

Kasen you are exactly right. The conclusions already exists (believed), it's just a matter of custum fitting the data. In science proper, research should attempt to disprove theories as much as prove, but the AGW fanatics can do neither.
Shaffer
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2009
Who cares, the CO2 will all be absorbed in the new ice that will be formed over the next 100 years now that the sun is taking a nap....no worries here...
defunctdiety
3.8 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2009
It's all well and good to be critical, but when you are that way to EVERY single study that comes out in support of anthropogenic global warming (meanwhile there are virtually none that come out against it), you need to recognize you have a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

When they all use the same incomplete/faulty science as their base, then every study has the same problem leaving them open to criticism.

And when the media only saturates itself with one message it is very important to point out these flaws at every turn.

Especially when the incomplete science and media saturation is being used to support legislation that could be very damaging to not only the US and world economy, but indeed the US and world socio-political structures.

Anyone who supports AGW but can't successfully defend it without saying, 'but all these people say it's so', brianweymes, needs to recognize they have a bad case of brain washing.

Have you ever thought about it for yourself? Give it a try
John_balls
Oct 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
defunctdiety
Oct 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
defunctdiety
4.1 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2009
While you're trying to round up your wikipedia references, let me give you something to think on. And I hope you do think on it.

CO2 is indisputably the demon which the AGW movement has chosen to target, obviously. However, it is neither the most potent nor most abundant green house gas. Did you know that? I bet you did, but you've chosen to disregard it like the entirety of the AGW movement. This dubious honor, of course, goes to water.

More specifically, water vapor. Water vapor is several orders of magnitude more abundant than CO2. Indeed we measure water pressence in the air on % wet-volume basis. In parts per million measure, we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands of parts per million of our atmosphere is water vappor. CO2 is 300-400 ppm.

Water vapor is two or three times as effective at retaining heat than CO2. All of these things are indisputable fact.

Why then are we not trying to tax and control water vapor?
defunctdiety
3.7 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2009
Water vapor is extremely easy to remove from effluent gases resulting from the combustion of organics (fossil fuels). Stick a condenser on the end of a stack and you can't eliminate 99.9% of water vapor in combustion emissions, or as little as you'd like, by varying exhaust gas velocities and temperatures. You could even use this water taken out of stack gases however you liked, you could freaking bottle it and sell it to drink, use it to water trees, whatever.

CO2 is very very hard and expensive to remove from effluent emissions. You must use chemical scrubbers at the least, this introduces other chemicals into exhaust gases. And unless we can figure something out, the result product is waste material, bury or whatever your favorite sequestration method is.

So, here we have two gases, each as integral to life on earth as the other, but AGW has chosen the less effective GHG to control. Why? It's more expensive, it does less, why?
defunctdiety
3.6 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2009
Because you try and demonize water, and people will instantly see through your bull. CO2 is much more mysterious and less identifiable to people than water. They can be convinced that it's this horrible result of modern living, when really it's nothing of concern at all. Absolutely nothing.

But it does make a handy proxy of new economic oppression and socio-political manipulation. It's tremendously ingenious and evil.

But then again, I clearly haven't given this any thought, so please ignore me.
kasen
3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2009
On the really long run, I guess it's not bad to teach people to be self-sufficient. Environmentally friendly generally involves that, with a few exceptions.

The problem is with developing countries. By pushing environmental treaties and CO2 targets all over the globe, they're basically being forced to halt their industrialisation and urbanisation efforts. That might be OK with China, maybe even some parts of India, but Africa can't afford solar cells and hybrids.

In a perfect world, the less developed countries would be aided by the ones better off, in an effort to make the whole world sustainable. In our world, they get invaded, exploited and stripped of their resources and dignity.
defunctdiety
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2009
Because you try and demonize water, and people will instantly see through your bull.

Rather I should say, people will instantly question your bull. "Do we REALLY want to be taking out water from the air? Don't we need that? Is climate change (which is always occurring) really that big of a deal, that we need to filter out this vital compound, costing our economies untold amounts and creating a new socio-political control over the People?". The answer then, of course, is no.

People don't ask that same question of CO2, though it is no less vital.

Then consider the role of the sun in our global temperature (i.e. it's by far the biggest factor) and AGW evaporates like so much water. It's surprisingly uncomplicated.
Snowhare
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2009
It is amazing how people manage to spin basic physics (increased CO2 traps infrared radiation resulting in rising world temperatures - something known *from basic physic* for decades) into a bizarre conspiracy theory where thousands of climate scientists belong to some kind of cabal out to take over the world.

It also continually astounds me how AGW denialists appear to think that climate scientists are idiots who don't know anything about their own subject.

Here is some light reading for you so you can understand why water is a *feedback* and not a *forcing* on the climate:
http://www.realcl...forcing/
John_balls
Oct 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kasen
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2009
think that climate scientists are idiots who don't know anything about their own subject.


Truth is, they really don't know a lot about the subject. Not because they're idiots, but because the subject is fantastically complex.

Basic physics will set some principles and rules, but we're talking about a huge, chaotic system. Assuming you're working with the correct rules and with accurate data, you still need enormous computational resources to come up with reasonable predictions.

But the rules are inferred from ancient history(you need more than basic physics), the data doesn't have that great of a resolution and, guess what, computer time costs money. Lots of it, either governmental or corporate.

That's three sources of error and inaccuracy to begin with. And I believe it's a giant leap of faith to trust that all scientists are emotionless machines.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (54) Oct 10, 2009
And proof of the inherent complexity of the subject is that a mere 30 or so years ago it was widely believed that there was a global cooling problem. It is not an unarguable science and there is no consensus as to it's causes.
Snowhare
1 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2009
And proof of the inherent complexity of the subject is that a mere 30 or so years ago it was widely believed that there was a global cooling problem. It is not an unarguable science and there is no consensus as to it's causes.


Actually, no. There were some popular press articles claiming that global cooling was coming. But there was absolutely no scientific 'wide belief' that there was 'global cooling problem' in our near term future (as in the next several hundred years).

http://www.realcl...ng-myth/
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2009
Actually, 30 and more years ago, there was data showing a (very) slight overall cooling trend. HOWEVER, this trend was completely reversed when industrial nations began reducing particulate emissions. If anything, evidence of cooling all those decades ago, together with the coupling to particulate emissions rates, strengthens the arguments of AGW. It shows human activity does have climate effects.

It is truly mind boggling how so many people here just obstinately refuse to acknowledge facts. Just since we've been measuring CO2 levels, they've doubled thanks to industrial activities. To think this wouldn't have climate effects is beyond perverse. It's like claiming deforestation has no effect on soil erosion rates.

And bringing up water as a more powerful greenhouse gas is such a red herring. The earth's atmosphere already holds almost as much water as it possibly can. Warming due to water vapor is already at its max, and will be so long as 70% of earth's surface is water.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (56) Oct 10, 2009
I find it mind boggling that the 'industry' claims to have a firm handle on global weather patterns such that minute effects of man is claimed to be The Straw in the vast pile of hay that will break the cammels back.
Further credibility is lost when a consensus is fanatically insinuated where none exists.

Oil will become more expensive to extract, and once this occurs alternitive energy sources will manifest via a free market society,... no need for massive redistribution of wealth, nor social engineering on a massive scale. Has there been any such studies? No because those driving AGW are for the most part on the left, and can't think in terms of natural solutions.

Various graphs are compared and wild conclusions drawn from appearences of correlations, yet there is no testable link between data sets, just speculaton. Not good enough.

http://news.bbc.c...9079.stm

Snowhare
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2009
Oil will become more expensive to extract, and once this occurs alternitive energy sources will manifest via a free market society,... no need for massive redistribution of wealth, nor social engineering on a massive scale.


The cheapest alternative fuel to oil is coal - which is even worse for CO2 emissions.

Counting on the magic of the free market to solve a problem where the full economic cost of CO2 emisions is not born by the people emitting it is folly. A distorted market will always produce distorted results.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (55) Oct 10, 2009
That didn't make sense. Those emitting the evil emissions will be the first effected by increased cost of oil/coal, and are by far the most likely to respond by developing alternatives.

Exactly, its about redistribution of wealth, and it's folly to think developing and existent economies will sacrifice themselves for a questionable theory. Anyone who thinks that near future technological advances will manifest without free market fores fully in play is a fool. Until oil becomes expensive your windmills and biofuel will continue to be a joke. Btw, I'm all for cutting emissions, but it's dangerous to do so under the guise of an global emergency.
Snowhare
3.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2009
That didn't make sense. Those emitting the evil emissions will be the first effected by increased cost of oil/coal, and are by far the most likely to respond by developing alternatives.


From California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission reports, coal burned _without_ carbon capture and storage (IOW with the cost of CO2 emission *NOT* included in the bill) generates electric power for between 10.5 and 11.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

This makes it head to head competitive with Geothermal or Hydroelectric and cheaper than Solar, Nuclear or Biomass.

But if you require carbon capture and storage, coal leaps up to 17.3 cents per KWH, and is now one of the most expensive ways to generate power.

The roughly 6 cent per kilowatt difference between the two is the cost shifting of the emitter where they are not responsible for the full cost of coal power generation. That is a large market distortion that makes coal more attractive than it should be.
doctorbitterpill
Oct 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (52) Oct 10, 2009
I find it mind boggling that the 'industry' claims to have a firm handle on global weather patterns such that minute effects of man is claimed to be The Straw in the vast pile of hay that will break the cammels back.


There's only one m in camel. And in this context it should have an apostrophe since it's possessive. However, I'm sure your tenuous grasp of spelling and punctuation says nothing about your understanding of climate science.


So, you registered just to make that comment? Clever. How embarrassing for me,... I should have known that, as I ride a camel to work and smoke camel cigarettes.

What my misspelling of camel should mean, is that I misspelled camel,... certainly less of an abomination than drawing the absurd conclusion that it's indicative of my lack of understanding in any particular field, except perhaps camel herding.

Snowhare misspelled "emisions", "denialists" above, but I'm sure you didn't catch that.
Snowhare
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2009
Snowhare misspelled "emisions", "denialists" above, but I'm sure you didn't catch that.


Actually, I only misspelled "emisions". "Denialists" is spelled correctly.

Skitt's law: Spelling or grammar flames always contain spelling or grammar errors.


Noumenon
Oct 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LuckyBrandon
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2009
Who cares, the CO2 will all be absorbed in the new ice that will be formed over the next 100 years now that the sun is taking a nap....no worries here...


Shaffer...how would there be 100 years for ice to recover while the sun "naps" when the sun is on 11 year solar cycles....from what I read last, its already waking from its short slumber...
Von
1.3 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2009
I find it mind boggling that the 'industry' claims to have a firm handle on global weather patterns such that minute effects of man is claimed to be The Straw in the vast pile of hay that will break the cammels back.


Minute? Wow.

Here's a simple exercise for you:

Stop right now, wherever you are and look around. It doesn't matter whether you are at home, at work, or out there on your mobile somewhere reading this.

Every single thing you see that was made by man was manufactured somewhere, in a factory, that either directly or somewhere down the line was powered by fossil fuels.

The objects you see, and almost all the products, and tools, and buildings, and glass, and paper, and roads, and autos for the roads, and plastic, and metal, and cups, and pens, and keyboard, and the little pookie doll your kids plays with ...

ALL of the modern products and engineering feats and our whole society was built from us burning something and ripping up the ground and processing ..
Von
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2009
... not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of millions of vehicles of all kinds - the cars, and trains, and planes, and bulldozers, and massive construction rigs tearing up the earth, tearing up the trees ...

... and all of this activity poisoning the ground, which runs off into the water ...

All of this going on 24 hours a day 365 days a year for over 100 years now.

Stop and look around. You don't need to be a climate scientist running a mult-billion dollar supercomputer running simulations to figure it out.

We are only going through the necessary scientific studies to figure out these things:

How much is it changing the climate. How fast is it happening. How long do we have before the damage is irreversable to the point where we cant recover as a species, and have any kind of a life that is recognizable for the coming generations.

The question is:

What emotional thing inside of you - the irrational ones - is preventing you from acknowledging the obvious. What?
GuestLee
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2009
I am constantly amused to see the AGW crowd fail to explain how CO2 lags warming and yet causes it simultaneously. They probably believe in time travel as well.

Let us assume for a moment that the earth is experiencing a warming period. If man is to blame (or be congratulated, depending on whether you like more food or less), why do we observe warming on other planets at the same time?

Please explain what the ideal temperature of the earth is. I'm very curious.

I would like you to do a simple experiment. Please try to measure the temperature of your neighborhood. But you must consider where to place your instruments (at what elevation, near a road, over grass, in the pond or merely beside it), how many instruments you will need, how often do you record the data, what data points are valid or invalid and why, will you average the data based upon elevation or will you combine elevations, and if so, how, what statistical techniques will be required to analyze the data,
etc.
GuestLee
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2009
I believe the problem lies in the belief of the AGW crowd that the rest of us are not concerned for damage we may be doing to the earth. I, and every other rational person, wish to see the damage minimized while maintaining the necessary functions to support humans.

If you have valid solutions, please present them. But do not hand me hogwash about ethanol (uses more energy to produce than can be extracted), battery power (how many jets will that power; how much pollution will be caused by dead batteries), or solar, wind or wave action generators, all of which require batteries to store the energy produced.

We will and should continue to seek other sources of energy, but it must be viable economically or we destroy or damage the lives of the ones you wish to save.

All we are asking is for true scientific research to be done and reported with the same vigor that the press and politicians regurgitate that which has been discredited.
brianweymes
3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2009
Here is an interesting guide for most objections brought up against AGW. http://www.grist....keptics/

It is a couple years out of date, but since so much of the same memes are recycled, it's still very informative.
kasen
3.1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2009
What emotional thing inside of you


Ah, see, that's the point. There's no emotion involved. When someone makes prophecies of worldwide catastrophe, which do you think is the emotional response? Taking a step back and being sceptical, or jumping right in and relaying the gospel(I doubt all the AGW people ride bikes to work and grow their own food)?

A very valid point has been raised. What is the ideal temperature of the earth? Is it the one with which we're used to? Ironically, although environmentalism advocates a 'no trace' attitude, AGW has lead to one of the most dangerous ideas humans could have, geo-engineering.

First off, we perceive a blame. It's not normal for the climate to change, it must be someone's fault! Then, we take it upon ourselves to undo their wrong, because, hey, everyone loves a hero. But Gandhi-style isn't enough, let's make it Hollywood-style! So you get people who want to put a giant umbrella over the earth to cool it...
USPorcupine
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2009
All global warming worshipers, you have to stop being worry about it. You listening to people, that can't figure out what weather we get 3 days down the road. Those goof balls have their own agenda behind all that global warming crap. They just trying to corner you with fear, so you end up begging them for help. They need you to dance according to they music. And best way to do it is spread a fear among the ones, that will let them. If there is a global warming is certainly not caused by CO2 , but seasonal changes in space, which would explain why there is warming going on on other planets in our solar system as well. It is a October and ski resorts are opening up. And is really hard to listen to this bull when I have to freeze my ass in October and ground is covered with snow.
STAY STRONG AND UNINFLUENCED!!!!!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Oct 11, 2009
Von,

To begin with the sun is responsible for over 98% of the heat on earth, then green house gasses are a normal and vital aspect of nature. Humans are a part of nature also. Humans exhale co2, and plants release co2 through the normal process of decomposition. The oceans store and release stupendous quantities of co2.

If you compare green house gasses that are a direct result of unnecessary waste of man, it is absolutely minute compared to the rest of nature. The whole AGW is talking about 1.4 f in the last 100 years.
eurekalogic
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2009
Until we have a decoupling of money for scientific reasearch out of the hands of politicians you cant blame scientists who have to put food on table for their kids. We need to form and undeground science fund.
Noein
2.3 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2009
Lots of radical big oil fundamentalists these days, who keep repeating the same old, same old, over and over again, much to the delight of corporations desperately seeking to maintain the status quo, and prevent any serious move away from filthy fossil fuels and towards a green, sustainable future.

Big oil fundamentalism is the most popular religious cult on the planet now, one that appeals to a wide variety of radical extremists: anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, free market theologians, shallow materialists, the most scientifically illiterate and ignorant pockets of world populations, concentrated mostly in the United States, which has a culture that has traditionally harbored a deep hatred of science. They all copy&paste their favorite scriptures from their favorite global warming denialism blogs: "1998," "global cooling," "sundidit," "volcanoes," "cosmic rays," the list of their lunacy just goes on and on.



USPorcupine
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2009
Big oil fundamentalism is the most popular religious cult on the planet now, one that appeals to a wide variety of radical extremists: anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, free market theologians, shallow materialists, the most scientifically illiterate and ignorant pockets of world populations, concentrated mostly in the United States, which has a culture that has traditionally harbored a deep hatred of science




On the contrary US has always been science friendly. Why do you think they import scientists from Europe, Asia and Middle East. Only other choice would be listen to bunch of hippies, that only concern of theirs is where to get cheaper pot or something to sniff on and make other people miserable.
It took me over 20 years under communistic regime to develop sense of uncovering brainwashing from light years away. And let me tell you. You definitely smell like one.
Von
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2009
What emotional thing inside of you


Ah, see, that's the point. There's no emotion involved. When someone makes prophecies of worldwide catastrophe, which do you think is the emotional response?


Right now I'm still utterly in shock that I'm reading these kinds of responses.

One thing I am finding in all my years of observing human nature, is our ability to completely shut down our ability to see the obvious when it is right in front of our faces ... as a species ..

What kind of emotion is driving the naysayers on this obvious issue? The people that ignore not only common sense - but all of the studies and data coming from hundreds and thousands of cross disciplinary scientists around the planet.

I'll take a stab at it:

FEAR: Fear of the shares dropping on your oil stocks. Hmm? Fear that your whole way of life .. your car .. your house .. your freedom to consume and buy more and more crap to feed your ego .. is in jeapordy? Hmmm ?
Von
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2009
FEAR:

I think the people that I see posting here - and now, around the net - that are ignorantly ignoring every single sign that things are going to change ..

They are terrified that they are in danger of losing the entire way of life they base thier identity on:

This modern consumer culture that says its ok to fill your big tank on that big SUV regardless of the costs - that says its OK to fill up five huge plastic bags every week full of shit that is the waste product of all the crap we build in factories, and toss it away forgetting about where it came from or where its going ..

The culture that is constantly pumping us full of birth, the message that we need to keep up with that latest products and crap and keep buying day after day after day to be powerful, and sexy, and wanted, and worthwhile.

I honestly think that has to be it. Its an emotion, FEAR, that totally prevents some people from seeing reality no matter how obvious and compelling it is.

Sad.

GuestLee
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2009
As I expected, not one credible argument, just more of the same garbage.

Again, what is the ideal temperature of the earth? On what do you base your response?

You see, until we can answer that, all other debate is pointless.
GuestLee
3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2009
Von, fear is not part of the equation, but it is a useful strawman, I suppose. The debate should be over the science, not your opinion of mankind.

What is the ideal temperature of the earth?

If CO2 causes GW, why does it lag in time? This is a very important question. You see, from a scientific stance, a result can never preceed a cause. So, again, how can CO2 cause warming when it is the result of warming?

PLease at least attempt a rational response.
Von
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2009
What is the ideal temperature of the earth?

If CO2 causes GW, why does it lag in time? This is a very important question. You see, from a scientific stance, a result can never preceed a cause. So, again, how can CO2 cause warming when it is the result of warming?

PLease at least attempt a rational response.


I'd be glad to consider your points. You apparently are basing your argument on some ideas or studies you've seen somewhere.

Do us a favor and post some links to some reputable studies that have been done on these things:

- C02 "lagging warming". Are you saying we have seen warming trends that predate a rise in CO2?

Post please.

- the ideal temperature of the earth.

? Totally missing your point here.

Post a link please

.
7734
not rated yet Oct 12, 2009
There have been many comments, both for and against the AGW & GW lobbies. But it seems to me that whilst the problem being caused by climate change exist (and undoubtably our planets climate IS changing, for whatever reasons)Another major and totally FACTUAL & REALISTIC problem does exist . . . That of Overpopulation!
There may even be tentative links between the two, apart from fossil fuel consumption.
If dinosaurs ride in motor cars as one writer suggested (Ha Ha!!) Then may I suggest, that now the technology exists to genetically modofy plants and the human genome. We should pay attention to genetically modifying the human species to Photosynthesisers . . . . Big reduction in CO2 . . .No food shortage, until we find away to contaninate the O2 supply, like we contaminate everthing else!!!
Rod.
vanderMerwe
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2009
The ignorance in this community is just boggling. It's all well and good to be critical, but when you are that way to EVERY single study that comes out in support of anthropogenic global warming (meanwhile there are virtually none that come out against it), you need to recognize you have a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

I will admit that the graph is somewhat confusing, although it probably wasn't designed to be easily understood by laypeople.


To equate skepticism with ignorance when the highly politicised "science" of advocates anthropogenic global warming is at issue doesn't go a long way towards improving our understanding of climate.
Sancho
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2009
"Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years - they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth's rotation and axis."

http://www.physor...411.html

The article goes on to say that the ice-age pendulum is due to start swinging toward "cold" at anytime. Will we be taxed if we don't pollute enough?
Von
3 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2009

Do us a favor and post some links to some reputable studies that have been done on these things:

- C02 "lagging warming". Are you saying we have seen warming trends that predate a rise in CO2?

Post please.

- the ideal temperature of the earth.

? Totally missing your point here.

Post a link please

.


Actually ... did a bit of looking around on my own, no need to post any links. Save your time and effort.

I can see that the people responding on this forum are watching trash like "the Great Global Warming Swindle" and swallowing it whole.

Typical.

Here's a link of my own.

http://www.medial..._the.php

GuestLee
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2009
kasen
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2009
Fear of the shares dropping on your oil stocks. Hmm? Fear that your whole way of life .. your car .. your house .. your freedom to consume and buy more and more crap to feed your ego


I actually smiled after reading this. Oil stocks? I don't even have a car. I buy the cheapest clothes I can find, I don't wear jewellery, or even a watch, and I have a very cheap cellphone, which is mostly for receiving calls. I can eat almost anything and the only reason I'm not full-blown vegan is because it's more expensive here.

My ideal house would be underground, surrounded by permaculture and self-sufficient in all aspects. I'm what you would call a survivalist. I actually despise capitalism. Used to believe in communism, but I've outgrown that too. I guess now I'm a zenarchist. Oh, and a physics student.

So, tell me, where do my emotions come from?
GuestLee
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2009
The point is, if GW is a problem, ie. the rise in temperature is a bad thing, then there must necessarily be a reference point that is the ideal temperature. What is it?

Also note that the studies do show that rise in temperature predates the rise in CO2. CO2 does slightly amplify the effect, but if it were causal, there would be no end to the cycle until all available CO2 was in the atmosphere. Hopefully, this is simple enough for you to understand.

And no, I do not get my data from the "opinion" sources. In fact, I find that only create "noise" in the serious debate of scientific study.
Von
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2009
And here's another one about the psychology of those that ignore mountains and mountains of evidence against the obvious and believe lies, half truths, and those that are scientifically ignorant and logically deficient:

http://climatedenial.org/

Read it. (most of you wont)

"People’s attitudes towards climate change [sic] are belief systems constructed through social interactions within peer groups.

People then select the storylines that accord best with their personal worldview"

If I could bold that last line ... I would.

kasen
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2009
A blog, seriously? I couldn't even find what that person's qualifications were, other than that he was heavily involved with all sorts of green movements.

You seem to be lacking the science, so you make up with psychology. Even so, I've provided you with some information regarding my lifestyle and my stand on the issue should be quite clear. How does that corroborate with your emotional response theory?

In fact, I doubt it's even your theory. How can you talk about peer pressure, when all you and that guy on the blog do is rely on "overwhelming numbers of studies"? Have you even read any of those studies? I'm not talking science news websites and magazines, I'm talking about the actual research papers.

How many reputable climatologists do you think are involved with green movements?
GuestLee
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2009
Von,

either respond to the science or fold your tent. You are rapidly losing credibility.

One more time, what is the ideal temperature of the earth? Here's a hint: you won't find the answer through Google. It requires logic and reason to answer, and quite a bit of both.
defunctdiety
2.9 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2009
Here is some light reading for you so you can understand why water is a *feedback* and not a *forcing* on the climate:

You want to talk about forcing. Let's take a close look at CO2 radiative forcing, and the facts surrounding that.

CO2 conc. (ppm) and radiative forcing (W/m^2) have a logarithmic relation. This means diminishing returns: CO2 as a compound can only radiate so much (which, I might add, is 100% dependent on the ENERGY COMING IN from the sun) no matter how much CO2 there is (i.e. there is a point where it doesn't matter how much CO2 there is, it can only radiate so much).

The amount of ENERGY IN (the sun) must raise before the amount of ENERGY OUT (CO2 forcing) can. This is basic physics. And why CO2 IS NOT A DRIVER OF CLIMATE, just as H2O is not.
Von
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2009
Von,

either respond to the science or fold your tent. You are rapidly losing credibility.


I'm not interested in gaining credibility here, I could care less.

I keep an open mind toward all sides of an argument until the preponderance of evidence is so overwhelmingingly against a particular side as to make it ludicrous.

So I firmly believe the earth is round, that things will probably be going along staus quo in 2013, and that the moon is not made of green cheese.

Most of the people that believe otherwise are almost always motivated by some deep seated political or emotional agenda that there is absolutely the slimmest chance in hell you will ever change by virtue of overwhelmingly solid evidence.

But good luck with your anonymous credibility on here. Have fun!

Von
3 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2009
PS: before I go, this "ideal temperature" thing:

Still not following what this has to do with AGW.

The "ideal temperature" of the earth for our purposes has to be based on our needs.

The ideal temperature supports human life and the environment that supports us.

Otherwise life adapts to whatever temperature and environmental conditions it finds until that environment and those conditions change to the point where it can no longer support us.

Any 5th grader could tell you that all the kids shitting and pissing in the pool that he is swimming in for long enough, then trying to drink it, will make you sick.

So you either stop shitting in the pool, or get out and find another pool. Since we dont have the means to find another one, Im all for doing the former.

kasen
3 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2009
The "ideal temperature" of the earth for our purposes has to be based on our needs.


So what's the definition of anthropogenic? Yeah, I know you also said the environment supports us, but guess what, we can create and better adapt to artificial environments, and the natural one is better off without us.

Any 5th grader could tell you that all the kids shitting and pissing in the pool that he is swimming in for long enough, then trying to drink it, will make you sick.


Well, piss is sterile. It's the (bull)shit that needs checking. Still, it does make the grass grow, doesn't it?
GuestLee
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2009
I can understand your position of not caring about your credibility, since you have amply demonstrated that you have none. You refuse to engage in a rational discussion of facts and merely spew pablum.

Your position that you do not understand what the ideal temperature has to do with a discussion of AGW shows the entire world that you are not up to the challenge of logical discourse.

It amazes me that you think you have an open mind. You have made up your mind that you have all the information you need and there can't possibly anything left to learn. Yet, inside, you know that you are wrong.

I remain open to you convincing me of your position, but have not seen a single shred of anything from you that could pass for a fact. In fact, and you know this to be true, the reason you haven't produced even a single thing that could pass as fact in regard to this discussion, is that you don't know any. Hard to defend that which you know nothing about, isn't it?
Snowhare
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2009
You want to talk about forcing. Let's take a close look at CO2 radiative forcing, and the facts surrounding that.

[...]

The amount of ENERGY IN (the sun) must raise before the amount of ENERGY OUT (CO2 forcing) can. This is basic physics. And why CO2 IS NOT A DRIVER OF CLIMATE, just as H2O is not.


To quote Wolfgang Pauli, 'That's not right. It's not even wrong.' Your complete mishmash of scientific-sounding garbage above doesn't even mean anything. It's one of those things that sounds like it should mean something but in fact is just a jumble of words thrown together by someone who doesn't understand what they mean.

What you appear to be _trying_ to claim (in a completely incoherent fashion), is that CO2 as a greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere is 'saturated' and can't trap any more heat than it does right now.

And that *is* completely wrong.

Read: http://www.realcl...rgument/ to understand why.
lengould100
3 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2009
Man, these threads are just monopolized by the apologists for fossil fuel interests, eh? I manage to read down as far as Oct. 9th through all the repeatedly debunked myths still being spouted by the anti-science bunch and just give up because its pointless.

In all that mess, the only link to anything actually scientific is Snowhare's. Some of the "sceptics" don't even understand water vapour's role as a controlled variable, not controlling.

Educate yourselves a bit!! (Tempted to shout that).
GuestLee
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2009
Please try to find some better sources. Realclimate is agenda driven, not science driven.

What is being said about CO2 is that in order for it to play any role at all is from energy provided from an external source.

No on has said the CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated. Please try to read carefully. If you will spend a few minutes of research (hint: ice core samples) you will find that CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past without the catastrophic effects preached by Al Gore and company.

I guess you are one of the people who believe that melting sea ice will cause catastrophic flooding. Please just get the conversation back to facts and leave the opinion out of it.

Please show me a single model that has accurately predicted climate change, either future or past.

Ad hominem attack does not equate to intelligent discourse. PLease note that it is the AGW crowd that reverts to it.
lengould100
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2009
If you will spend a few minutes of research (hint: ice core samples) you will find that CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past
That's flat wrong. Atmospheric CO2 levels are higher today than ever measured in any ice core samples aver taken. (Hint: ice core samples go no further back into history than 800,000 years.) If you dispute that, provide a reference.
kasen
3 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2009
Try the article above. Even at 20 million years, it still covers only a small portion of the earth's history, so uncertainty is still high.
lengould100
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2009
The amount of ENERGY IN (the sun) must raise before the amount of ENERGY OUT (CO2 forcing) can. This is basic physics. And why CO2 IS NOT A DRIVER OF CLIMATE, just as H2O is not.
At least, get a dictionary and look up the terms you are using to argue. That's just pure nonsense.
defunctdiety
3 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2009
What you appear to be _trying_ to claim (in a completely incoherent fashion), is that CO2 as a greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere is 'saturated' and can't trap any more heat than it does right now.

I was trying to break it down to lay terms. And no, I never implied the atmosphere CO2 is saturated. That's not my point. The point is that CO2's irradiance is COMPLETELY dependent on the sun and has a very very small relative ability to re-radiate infrared energy and thereby affect global temperature.

What I am saying is this: the peak insolation of the sun for the past couple hundreds of thousands of years has ranged from around 400 to 600 W/m^2, the MAXIMUM estimated irradiance of CO2 is something like 2 W/m^2. That's the most energy/area any amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can ever possibly irradiate. At non-saturated levels it is much much less like .8 W/m^2 is estimated if our present CO2 levels double.
GuestLee
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2009
OK, I tried to do this the easy way, but here goes. Get an education and get back to me in about a month.

Look at:
Chylek, Petr
Idso, S.B.
Scafetta, N.
Schwartz, S.E.
Wyant, M.C.
Braswell, W.D.
Lindzen, R.S.
Spencer, R.
Lohmann, U.
Knox, R.S.
West, B.J.

When you have researched (I don't mean scanned) and absorbed their research, get back to me on how "settled" the science is.
defunctdiety
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2009
This means that CO2, at saturation levels, is capable of being responsible for 1/2 to 1/3 of 1% of our global infrared energy input (temperature).

The over arching point here being that CO2 is, just as I said before, not a driver of climate change. It is only a very small fluctuation in the much much much greater fluctuation of our global temperature due to the sun.

Draw a very large wave function on a piece of paper, then "superimpose" a wave function 1/200th of the size of the first one, onto the first one, and that is what CO2 does to our global temperature.
defunctdiety
3.5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2009
Atmospheric CO2 levels are higher today than ever measured in any ice core samples aver taken. (Hint: ice core samples go no further back into history than 800,000 years.) If you dispute that, provide a reference.

http://en.wikiped...mosphere
CO2 concentrations today are at near minimum values for what we have proxy records of. Which while they are imprecise, they do provide evidence for levels an order of magnitude above todays.
GuestLee
1 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2009
In other words, about 1/6 of the AGW models predictions
Snowhare
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2009
Look at:


Chylek, Petr -"This suggests a 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2" Not an AGW denialist. http://www.agu.or...59.shtml

Idso, S.B. - A Ph.D in Geography, an M.S. in Agronomy. And funded by ExxonMobil. Not a Climatologist.

Scafetta, N. - Not a Climatologist.

Schwartz, S.E. - Not a denialist. http://www.ecd.bn...ming.pdf

Wyant, M.C. - I can't figure out why you included this guy. He's a researcher, and doesn't appear to doubt AGW.

Braswell, W.D. - Not a denialist.

Lindzen, R.S. - Not willing to put his money where his mouth is except at 50 to 1 odds. http://en.wikiped...es_Annan

Spencer, R. - A Creationist. That shows a problem with critical thinking skills. And he writes for TCS Daily, which was funded by ExxonMobil through 2006.

Lohmann, U. - Not a denialist.

Knox, R.S. - Not a Climatologist.

West, B.J. - Not a Climatologist.
Snowhare
2 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2009
Let's add it up now:

2 referenced people whom are Climatologists, but don't deny AGW.

2 referenced people whom aren't Climatologists, but don't deny AGW.

4 whom deny AGW, but aren't Climatologists.

And 1 whom is (was, actually) a Climatologist and denies AGW, but he won't bet he is right about it unless given 50 to 1 odds.

You need to get better references.
defunctdiety
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2009
You don't have to be a climatologist to make accurate conclusions about AGW. It is largely an issue of chemistry and physics/thermodynamics. I don't know if any of the "not a climatologist" above are qualified in any way, but it's completely scientifically disingenuous to discount someone's opinion just because they don't have a climatology degree or are labeled a climatologist.

Indeed, due to the boost for the industry that AGW has provided climatologists, I would sooner discount their studies as biased, by potential personal gain, than a chemist or physicist.
Snowhare
2 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2009

Indeed, due to the boost for the industry that AGW has provided climatologists, I would sooner discount their studies as biased, by potential personal gain, than a chemist or physicist.


And you have just demonstrated why AGW denialists are properly labelled denialists rather than skeptics.

You've proudly proclaimed how you don't accept expert opinions *in their area of expertise* as valid while swallowing any kind of swill from anyone *working outside their area of expertise* as hard evidence.

That isn't being skeptical, it's just putting your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you."
defunctdiety
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2009
And you have just demonstrated how you disregard all of the hard physical facts that are counterpoint to AGW. You won't even acknowledge my arguments based in science, just go for the easy rhetorical target. Good job however it doesn't make the truth go away.

It demonstrates further how AGW proponents are so emotionally invested in their crusade that they can't afford the damage to their ego to consider the reality is otherwise.

If you were familiar with my posting history, Snowhare, you would know I have stressed in the past how I don't doubt that mankind's activities effect climate. Indeed it's complete ignorance to assert so. I guarantee the unnatural rate of CO2 release has some effect. But it's even more ignorant to believe that we are causing the overall change in climate, and further more that we can control the climate into changing only the number of degrees C we want it to, as the IPCC proposes. It's idiocy.

I argue against AGW as the socio-political control it has become
GuestLee
3 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2009
Snowhare, you are dishonest. Those you label as "not denialists", in total, do not agree with you. They do not deal in absolutes as you do (mark of one who is bereft of the ability for critical and nuanced thought) and concede some minor effect of human activity. That does not rise to the level of agreeing with AGW as a major cause and therefore within the control of humans to correct.

Stop reading other peoples opinions of what they say and read their research.

The surest sign of a weak argument is the use of labels instead of arguing facts. The surest cause of a weak argument is a lack of familiarity with the facts.

I am done with you.
Snowhare
2.8 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2009
Atmospheric CO2 levels are higher today than ever measured in any ice core samples aver taken. (Hint: ice core samples go no further back into history than 800,000 years.) If you dispute that, provide a reference.


http://en.wikiped...mosphere
CO2 concentrations today are at near minimum values for what we have proxy records of.


He said *specifically* "ice cores". You know - that stuff that develops when the planet has significant ice caps because of low temperatures.

Which while they are imprecise, they do provide evidence for levels an order of magnitude above todays.


And when combined with the *temperature* proxy records show how CO2 and high temperatures are strongly linked. When CO2 was 10 times higher, surface temperatures were 30 degrees C higher, too.
Snowhare
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2009
Lovely. The comment system ate my response on CO2 saturation. Fine.

defunctdiety: The blackbody theromodymanic equilibrium temperature of the earth *without the greenhouse effect* would be -15 degrees C. Throw on a layer of 'white stuff' (aka snow) at that temperature and the mean temperature plummets even further.

And, of course, we have Venus to demonstrate what *SATURATED* CO2 really means. The surface of Venus is 100 degrees hotter *everywhere* than the peak Sun facing temperature of Mercury.

Snowhare
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2009
Snowhare, you are dishonest. Those you label as "not denialists", in total, do not agree with you.


Go look at them yourself.

They do not deal in absolutes as you do (mark of one who is bereft of the ability for critical and nuanced thought) and concede some minor effect of human activity. That does not rise to the level of agreeing with AGW as a major cause and therefore within the control of humans to correct.

Stop reading other peoples opinions of what they say and read their research.


I suggest you go look at primary sources. I *did*. Clearly, you have not.
Snowhare
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2009

I was trying to break it down to lay terms.


No you weren't. You were regurgitating terminology from somewhere.

The point is that CO2's irradiance is COMPLETELY dependent on the sun and has a very very small relative ability to re-radiate infrared energy and thereby affect global temperature.


And your physics reason for disbelieving it beyond "I don't believe it"?

The problem is analogous to a large tank of water with a small inflow of water and a small outflow drain at the bottom.

As long as the water comes in faster than it goes out - the level *goes up*. It will continue to go up until the water column reaches a new height sufficient to balance the outflow via the pressure of the deeper water.

Lastly, temperature is NOT measured from 0C. It is measured from 0 Kelvin.

The Earths surface is about 289K. If the temperature rises _0.5%_ that is an additional 1.4 degrees K.
Snowhare
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2009
If you were familiar with my posting history, Snowhare, you would know I have stressed in the past how I don't doubt that mankind's activities effect climate. Indeed it's complete ignorance to assert so. I guarantee the unnatural rate of CO2 release has some effect. But it's even more ignorant to believe that we are causing the overall change in climate, and further more that we can control the climate into changing only the number of degrees C we want it to, as the IPCC proposes. It's idiocy.

I argue against AGW as the socio-political control it has become


To make sure I have your argument clear: You believe that AGW is real, but so small as to be irrelevant and that attempts to rein it in are just political power grabs?

Is that correct?
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
Is that correct?

Not even remotely.

You love to read what you want from posts, impinge your own interpretation onto that fragement, and ignore what is being said as you have no valid response to the actual thrust of any given statement.

You're just the latest in the unending stream of sophomoric trolls to hop on any discussion forum anywhere on the web who believes you can prove your own belief to be infallible, and/or cow people from arguing against it, through ad hominem attacks and being demeaning. Which makes you feel you are even more correct, but everyone else just reads what you type and cringes at the thought of being you. Everyone sees it, even in your short stay here, and everyone is already able to discount everything you say out of hand because you're such a child in the way you conduct yourself.

Care to try being a decent, rational person?
Snowhare
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
Is that correct?

Not even remotely.


Then state what you *DO* mean clearly. You seem to want to *both* say AGW is real and that that man made climate change isn't. Both statements can't be true. Believing that the global temperatures are going up while simultaneously believing that it won't drastically affect the climate is nonsense.

Perhaps this checklist will help clarify what you *do* believe.

1) AGW is both real and a significant problem that we SHOULD take strong action to control.

(Y/N)

2) AGW is real, and a significant problem, but we SHOULD NOT take strong action to control it.

(Y/N)

3) AGW is real, but NOT a significant problem, and we SHOULD NOT take strong action to control it.

(Y/N)

4) AGW is NOT real, and we SHOULD NOT take (any) action to control a non-existent problem.

(Y/N)

Have I missed a case that you *do* believe?

(Detail)

Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 14, 2009
To continue, since the char limit prevents the first half from being in the same message...


You're just the latest in the unending stream of sophomoric trolls
[...]

Everyone sees it, even in your short stay here, and everyone is already able to discount everything you say out of hand because you're such a child in the way you conduct yourself.

Care to try being a decent, rational person?


I am decent and rational. But I will not tolerate "playing" at being scientific. If you want to go toe-to-toe on the *SCIENCE* I am happy to do so.

REBUT my post on why CO2 is a forcing while H2O is a *feedback*

REBUT my post on why when CO2 levels were 10 times as high, temperatures were 30 C warmer.

REBUT my post on why it is not unreasonable that a 0.5% increase in the radiative flux balance due to CO2 would result in a similarly sized increase in the temperatue.

REBUT my post that the proxy records show CO2 and temperature to be linked.
GuestLee
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
Last time so even you cannot mischaracterize it.

1. We are currently in a cooling trend for at least 6 years.

2. When warming was occurring, the amount of contribution from human activity was very small compared to other causes.

And just so you know, it does not matter which temperature scale you use, heat content is the same.

Now go find an audience you can impress with pseudscience.
Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 14, 2009
Last time so even you cannot mischaracterize it.
1. We are currently in a cooling trend for at least 6 years.

Actually, not. I already responded to this: http://www.realcl...g-pause/

And don't riff off about "It is a biased site". If you disagree with their *science* - _rebut_ it.

2. When warming was occurring, the amount of contribution from human activity was very small compared to other causes.


Actually not. Without accounting for CO2, the climate models radically underestimate historical global temperatures for the last half century. This is known as 'backcasting'.

And just so you know, it does not matter which temperature scale you use, heat content is the same.


It does matter. If you think temperatures start from 0C then warming from 15C to 16C is 6.7% increase in temperature. If you use (correctly) K, then warming from 15C to 16C is a 0.35% increase in temperature.
Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 14, 2009
To continue, while the heat change is not different _as an absolute number_ whether you talk C or K, the percentage change is different by a factor of 19.

When you talk about how the heat balance has changed by 0.5% (2 watts/square meter or so), it is not a surprise when the temperature *ALSO* changes by roughly similar amount _as a percentage_ based on nothing more than blackbody physics. We can get nitty-gritty with the blackbody math if you want.
Shaffer
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
Who cares, the CO2 will all be absorbed in the new ice that will be formed over the next 100 years now that the sun is taking a nap....no worries here...


Shaffer...how would there be 100 years for ice to recover while the sun "naps" when the sun is on 11 year solar cycles....from what I read last, its already waking from its short slumber...


The sun is 3 years behind...25% off?? It's gunna take a nap for a while, don't worry...a few spots here and there don't really mean anything at this point.
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
First AGW makes not only the assumption but direct implication if not statement that man (burning fossils) is the MOST SIGNIFICANT emitter of CO2. This is in all likely hood completely false. At best it's debatable, at worst (for AGW) man is but a drop in the bucket. When you consider how much is released from respiration, wild fires, geologic events, and organic decomposition (not to mention all the other natural sources - such as the ocean i.e. 75% of our planet's surface), this amount is immeasurable. Every day. Natural. Not saying man's is small, but it is not the most significant. This is part of the great uncertainty of AGW.

Second AGW makes the statement that CO2 emitted by man is what is causing our planets climate to change. This is patently false, the AGW lie. The sun, ocean currents, geologic characteristics, atmospheric characteristics of which CO2 is a tiny part, these things interacting cause our climate to change. CO2 whether anthropogenic or not, is a tiny tiny part.
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
That was a quick 1000...onward!
why CO2 is a forcing

I already rebutted, CO2 can only do so much and it cannot drive change. It is only a part of change. It is further more completely dependent on the sun. The sun is the forcing. CO2 does lend net irradiance gains, I never said it didn't, but they are too small to cause change.
when CO2 levels were 10 times as high, temperatures were 30 C warmer

Correlation is not causation. There is no conclusive evidence of causation, more often it lags.
why it is not unreasonable that a 0.5% increase in the radiative flux balance due to CO2 would result in a similarly sized {temp} increase{

0.5% is the MAX that CO2 can muster, reality is much less. And less and less, the more isolation from the sun there is. But no matter what, this 0.5% does not cause climate change.
proxy records show CO2 and temperature to be linked

That's because they are. But again climate does not change because of CO2. It's not a big enough factor.
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
I work in the industrial emissions regulating industry. I see everyday how policy is used (and misused) in the name of improving our world's environment. AGW has been twisted, much like the EPA, into something different than what it began as and was intended to be. AGW is America's environmentalism. It's perfect for America because it, in large part, de-emphasizes personal responsibility.

Patronize a green company, buy carbon offsets, buy a more fuel efficient car, just slightly change your spending habits and you too can be green. That's crap. But that's what America believes because Al-freaking-Gore said so.

Do I think that it's good to try and get off of fossils, of course. Do I think it's good people are planting trees and buying fuel efficient cars, of course.

But it is NOT good to impose CO2 restrictions upon the very foundation of modern living, i.e. utilities and the industries which rely on combustion engines to give us a modern life.
Snowhare
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2009
Ah. So you think it is a problem but it is too expensive to actually fix.
jcrow
not rated yet Oct 15, 2009
I am calling bullshit here.
You people are being lied to by industry.
There is obviously a push to manufacture doubt.

How in the hell can you expect to release such a vast quantity of pollution globally and not change anything?

We are talking about risk here.
Clean up pollution vs risk of starvation, extinction and flooding.
Lets say we continue to pollute at the same level and nothing happens. Great! Energy companies saved some money.
But if things go wrong.. which there is plenty of data to suggest things will..
Will the energy companies pay the tab?
Can you put a price on lives and bio diversity?

Seriously,
Don't be a sheep.

This is a pretty interesting talk on google.
http://www.mefeed...21741467
Snowhare
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009
First AGW makes not only the assumption but direct implication if not statement that man (burning fossils) is the MOST SIGNIFICANT emitter of CO2. This is in all likely hood completely false. At best it's debatable, at worst (for AGW) man is but a drop in the bucket. When you consider how much is released from respiration, wild fires, geologic events, and organic decomposition (not to mention all the other natural sources - such as the ocean i.e. 75% of our planet's surface), this amount is immeasurable. Every day.


You are utterly wrong here.

Read http://www.radix....ise.html
and http://www.strom....on3.html

Snowhare
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009
Second AGW makes the statement that CO2 emitted by man is what is causing our planets climate to change. This is patently false, the AGW lie. The sun, ocean currents, geologic characteristics, atmospheric characteristics of which CO2 is a tiny part, these things interacting cause our climate to change. CO2 whether anthropogenic or not, is a tiny tiny part.


Ah. The other half of your position: You are denying that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas.

Read http://www.aip.or.../co2.htm to see why *that* contention is wrong.
Snowhare
Oct 15, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Snowhare
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009

when CO2 levels were 10 times as high, temperatures were 30 C warmer

Correlation is not causation. There is no conclusive evidence of causation, more often it lags.


Great - now explain _WHY_ they are linked without invoking CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
kasen
not rated yet Oct 15, 2009
An interesting fact from that link is that the amount of human CO2 emissions has been derived from economic statistics. Just how accurate do you think those are?

Here's a thought that crossed my mind. Have any measurements been done from outer space? One thing that site stresses is that the atmosphere has to be treated as multi-layered and I can't see how you'd accurately measure the varying amounts of CO2 just from the ground or with weather balloons alone.
kasen
not rated yet Oct 15, 2009
Great - now explain _WHY_ they are linked without invoking CO2 as a greenhouse gas.


More evaporation would mean the oceans would trap it at a slower rate, wouldn't it? It would also mean more water vapour to act as a greenhouse gas and provide more heat for even more evaporation and an even slower rate.
defunctdiety
2 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009
Ah. So you think it is a problem but it is too expensive to actually fix.

Again you read what you want and impinge your own meaning.

You are unwilling to address the most basic of issues of AGW, which is the very foundation of AGW, the whole basis for the economic oppressions proposed: global warming beginning in man. It doesn't begin in man, man is only a small part of any change that does occur. Does mans small part justify the proposed socio-political controls? Absolutely not. Climate change would occur anyway, and will occur no matter what we do. We will get warmer or colder as the sun "wills". Trying to prevent that through ridiculous and unreasonable policies, such as cap and trade and limiting the earth to 2 degrees centigrade in temp increase through carbon taxing, is just absurd and economically oppressive.

You want real change? Ride a bike to work. Wash your dishes by hand. Dry your clothes on a line. Grow a garden. Run your thermostat at 65 degrees and wear socks.
defunctdiety
2 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009
Run your computer in energy saving mode. Conserve. Educate people on how they can conserve. Educate people and let them make a CHOICE.

DO NOT impose economically oppressive policies and subsidize weak alternatives and enact draconian scorched earth-like policies. DO NOT grow government in the name of something it will turn around completely take a dump on. The US is heading into a world of hurt from inflation in the coming years, and completely ineffective policies like cap and trade and carbon taxing will only worsen it.

If people can't understand this, and will only assert that the science matters, rather than the principle, than we're lost anyway. You can continue arguing the science is there, I will continue to argue the principle is not. And we will have to agree to disagree.

If AGW is right, and I've done nothing but educated people on real changes, than I still feel good. If AGW is wrong, and you (and your ilk) have pushed us into further economic hell, well, thanks for that.
Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 15, 2009
Ah. So you think it is a problem but it is too expensive to actually fix.

Again you read what you want and impinge your own meaning.


Not intentionally. I have been trying to get you to state concisely what you *do* believe.

You are unwilling to address the most basic of issues of AGW, which is the very foundation of AGW, the whole basis for the economic oppressions proposed: global warming beginning in man. It doesn't begin in man, man is only a small part of any change that does occur.


So, again attempting to summarize your position:

You believe that AGW is, in some minor but irrelevant degree, real, but so small as to not justify taking political action that might affect short-term economic growth? More specifically you believe that recent climate is driven by solar variations to a far greater extent than by CO2 and that regulating CO2 will do nothing meaningful to affect climate?

Correct?

Snowhare
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009
An interesting fact from that link is that the amount of human CO2 emissions has been derived from economic statistics. Just how accurate do you think those are?


Actually, pretty accurate. Petroleum, natural gas, and coal are bought and sold on the global open market making the quantities being used public knowledge. The stock market has a _deep_ interest in correct numbers for them since they trade contracts for it all day long.

Here's a thought that crossed my mind. Have any measurements been done from outer space?


Yes. See http://www.jpl.na...ure=2029

Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 15, 2009
More evaporation would mean the oceans would trap it at a slower rate, wouldn't it? It would also mean more water vapour to act as a greenhouse gas and provide more heat for even more evaporation and an even slower rate.


Evaporation rates of water from the ocean has little to do with the rate of CO2 absorption.

See http://harvardmag...cle.html for details on the processes via which the oceans adsorb CO2.
kasen
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009
Evaporation rates of water from the ocean has little to do with the rate of CO2 absorption.


I actually took that from the aip.org link:

The central insight was that although sea water did rapidly absorb CO2, most of the added gas would promptly evaporate back into the air before the slow oceanic circulation swept it into the abyss.


That was from 1959, but if I read correctly, it's still valid. And this is from the 2002 one from the latest link:

There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature.


I believe they are refering to the temperature of the water.

Petroleum, natural gas, and coal are bought and sold on the global open market making the quantities being used public knowledge.


There's buying, and there's using. And then there's stealing, defrauding, general illegality, or just plain not declaring everything you burn. Not to mention military operations. You're assuming government works as advertised.
defunctdiety
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2009
My stance on AGW is very complex, I'm a conservationist and environmentalist, I am also a humanist and realist and against the growth of our ever swelling government. To state it concisely is to misrepresent it. It's a complex issue regarding a complex topic.

As stated above. I would never argue that CO2 doesn't have a positive net input on our global irradiance. I know the therodynamics.

However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know how large or small of an effect man's CO2 emissions are having on global atmospheric CO2 conc and thereby temp as there is no control: no earth duplicate w/o man.

Given that global CO2 fluctuates with or without man, not to mention global temp/climate, the fact is we don't know what we've done, we CANNOT. Yea yea, before IR CO2 was "stable" at 200 to 280 ppm. Explain how a 28-40% relative variation is stable.

The geologically/climatologically modern earth has been nearly covered in ice to completely without polar ice caps, all before the influence of man. IMHO...
kasen
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2009
As for the space-borne measurements, it's roughly what I had in mind, although I was thinking of actually shooting infrared beams instead of using the sun's light. I guess it wouldn't have been feasible from an energetic standpoint, though.

Unfortunately, that mission was 209 million down the drain:

http://www.nasa.g...dex.html

So much for accurate CO2 measurements.
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2009
With this humongous uncertainty that 1.)we have anything to do with the overall change and 2.) that we could do any good at all in trying to control climate, we can not ever ever ever justify the impending economic oppression.

Instead, we NEED to focus on developing a sustainable economy (economic transparency in ALL sectors) and energy independence. Accomplishing these things will 1.) make America as a society as sustainable as is possible and will 2.) fix AGW, both at the same time. The AGW movement props up this ephemeral straw man foe (CO2), and distracts from the REAL issues. It has been twisted into a socio-political control and method of economic oppression.

And you (along with all AGW proponents) perpetuate this. You have to be able to see that. AGW, carbon regs, cap and trade, all this does nothing towards gaining economic sustainability nor for energy independence.

Can you really not understand any of this?

Anyway... these past 2000 words are as concise as my stance gets.
Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 16, 2009
Evaporation rates of water from the ocean has little to do with the rate of CO2 absorption.


I actually took that from the aip.org link:

The central insight was that although sea water did rapidly absorb CO2, most of the added gas would promptly evaporate back into the air before the slow oceanic circulation swept it into the abyss.


That was from 1959, but if I read correctly, it's still valid. And this is from the 2002 one from the latest link:


Ok. My mistake.

There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature.


I believe they are refering to the temperature of the water.


You are right as to whether CO2 would tend to come out of the ocean with increasing water temperature. I was wrong about that.
RobertKLR
not rated yet Oct 16, 2009
The graph in the article is unreadable. How about next time using either higher resolution or a larger graph?
Snowhare
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2009
I'm going to answer your post in parts. Don't freak out that it takes me a while to do it.

Given that global CO2 fluctuates with or without man, not to mention global temp/climate, the fact is we don't know what we've done, we CANNOT. Yea yea, before IR CO2 was "stable" at 200 to 280 ppm. Explain how a 28-40% relative variation is stable.


Here is a chart showing CO2 levels for the last 4000 years (based on Antarctic ice cores and atmospherice measurements):

http://snowhare.c...ears.png

As you can see, at no time did CO2 vary by more than 3% from the mean value from 4000 years before present to 200 years before present (the low was 268 ppm, the high was 285 ppm).

In constract, in the last 200 years, CO2 has risen 34%.
Snowhare
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2009
However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know how large or small of an effect man's CO2 emissions are having on global atmospheric CO2 conc and thereby temp as there is no control: no earth duplicate w/o man.


Here is a chart showing CO2 for the last 420000 years:

http://snowhare.c...ears.png

See that essentially vertical line at the far left? That is the last 200 years. No similar vertical spike has been found anywhere else in the CO2 record. But it started right as humanity began burning carbon rich fossil fuels in massive quantities.

We *know* that humans are responsible for that increase.

Here is a good article on that specific subject: http://www.realcl...ivities/
Snowhare
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2009
With this humongous uncertainty that 1.)we have anything to do with the overall change and 2.) that we could do any good at all in trying to control climate, we can not ever ever ever justify the impending economic oppression.


1) We are 100% certain that mankind is responsible for the atmospheric CO2 spike of the last 2 centuries.

We know it didn't come from the oceans because they are becoming *more* acidic with CO2. IOW, they are _adsorbing_ CO2 (which is precisely what is expected with increasing atmospheric CO2).

We know it didn't come from volcanoes because there would be spikes in CO2 following volcanic eruptions. And there aren't. Volcanoes are responsible for perhaps 1/150th the CO2 emissions that humans produce.

It's us. And we are *VERY SURE* about that.
kasen
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2009
You know what else has increased in the last 200 years? Our capacity to maintain records of various data, scientific or otherwise. Temporal resolution is much higher for the last 200 years than for the last hundreds of thousands.

So while the data we have for post-industrialisation can tell us the average CO2 concentration for a year, or a few years at worst, the data we have for several thousands years ago can give us the averages of centuries at best(pulling the numbers out of a hat, feel free to correct). And it gets blurrier the further you go into the past.

Given a carbon cycle of varied duration, we could very well be currently measuring a natural rising trend which would be followed by a decreasing one. Averaging over a 1000 years could be well within that 3% you quote.

Come on, we're talking about deducing the amount of a certain gas in the entire atmosphere of a planet some 100K years ago, from a tiny amount of air trapped in ice. Approximation is the key word here.
Snowhare
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2009
(continuing)

2) We are sure that it isn't primarily due to the Sun.

It isn't an increase in solar brightness. This chart shows that the Sun has, if anything, gotten dimmer over the last 20 years: http://snowhare.c...rage.png

It isn't variations in Cosmic Rays. They have had no special trend over the last 50 years. See http://www.realcl...s/cr.jpg
Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 17, 2009
You know what else has increased in the last 200 years? Our capacity to maintain records of various data, scientific or otherwise. Temporal resolution is much higher for the last 200 years than for the last hundreds of thousands.


The average time resolution at 40 kiloyears is _80_ years. Easily enough to show a spike the size of the modern one.

Snowhare
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2009
(Deleted - I made an error that I need to correct in the chart)
Snowhare
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2009
Ok. Here is a chart showing CO2 concentrations for the last 400000 years averaged over 200 years.

http://snowhare.c..._co2.png

It is really big so you can see the details. It is easy to pick out the recent spike in CO2 as vertical line at the left edge of the chart.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2009
I hate to come along and dump on your four section post but you're missing quite a few pieces of data.

First, that not only brightness, but erratic behavior, diameter flux, and ejecta are in flux in our solar system and that the brightening of our neighboring planets has been detected, meaning we're also receiving more energy from the sun. Brightness is simply a measure of visible light, one type of energy, the Sun produces several different types.

The charts showing CO2 concentrations are entirely based off of proxies, which while acceptable relative to a recorded and known event, are unacceptable otherwise.

And lastly, in climate science, we're 100% sure of nothing, everything is hypothetical at this point in time.
Snowhare
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2009
I hate to come along and dump on your four section post but you're missing quite a few pieces of data.

First, that not only brightness, but erratic behavior, diameter flux, and ejecta are in flux in our solar system and that the brightening of our neighboring planets has been detected, meaning we're also receiving more energy from the sun. Brightness is simply a measure of visible light, one type of energy, the Sun produces several different types.


The solar brightness chart I posted covers *ALL* electromagnetic radiation from the Sun - not just visible light.

The numbers are from the public satellite data. http://www.ngdc.n...nce.html

As for your other random attempts at FUD: post a reference showing that "erratic behavior, diameter flux, and ejecta" affect the Earth's atmospheric energy budget.

(continued in next post)

Snowhare
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2009
@Velanarris
The charts showing CO2 concentrations are entirely based off of proxies, which while acceptable relative to a recorded and known event, are unacceptable otherwise.


They are based entirely off Antarctic ice core measurements of trapped CO2 and flask readings in Antarctica for the last couple of decades. http://cdiac.ornl...nds/co2/

*ding* - strike two.

And lastly, in climate science, we're 100% sure of nothing, everything is hypothetical at this point in time.


Not even. CO2 content of the atmosphere over the last 400000 years is not speculation, hypothesis, or theory. It is actual *measurement*.

We are _SURE_.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2009
Very simple.

What is the "solar constant"? Exactly, there isn't one. There is continual flux occuring. This was only recently confirmed by the SOHO missions.

Your strike two is not in reference to ice core CO2 readings, so you can kick that umpire out.

And as for the CO2 content of the atmosphere, that isn't climatology. That's one measurement.

Interesting as you bring that up since it has zero causitive information attached. The trick employed by propagandists, such as yourself, is to take a fact that's undeniable, like the Greehouse effect, and tie a tenuous "theory" to it, then assume the theory is correct. When entering debate about the theory, if someone denies your theory has merit, then you defend it with a ludicrous accusation, such as "You don't believe in the Greehouse effect? What's wrong with you, it's fact!" when that wasn't the case in the first place.

As an aside, the "leading" minds in AGW that you tout are not climatologists either. They're physicists.
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2009
It's us. And we are *VERY SURE* about that.

Yes, very nice. You have put up a website to pedal your abysmally insufficient AGW propaganda, with carefully constructed graphs with carefully controlled parameters. Now, please represent the whole truth. Oh that's right, you can't. No one can.

You are still, of course, refusing to address the fundamental flaw of AGW, and your argument. You make the assumption that the change in CO2 = all change in climate. This is undeniably, patently false.

Can you please be scientifically and academically honest for once? You (and AGW) only show what you want the data to show, but nothing else, nothing of the counter and contradictory evidence, and general lack of data and comprehensive understanding. It's getting old, and people everywhere are seeing through it.
Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 23, 2009
What is the "solar constant"? Exactly, there isn't one. There is continual flux occuring. This was only recently confirmed by the SOHO missions.


I didn't reference a 'solar constant'. In fact I posted a chart showing how the average solar irradiance has varied over the last 20 years from satellite data (it's declined; by a bit less than 0.02%). SOHO didn't prove that solar output varied, that has been well known for decades.

Nor did I reference "leading minds". That is your insertion.

Strawman much?

You are downright deceitful in trying to wiggle out of the fact that you asserted
The charts showing CO2 concentrations are entirely based off of proxies, which while acceptable relative to a recorded and known event, are unacceptable otherwise.


But thanks for playing.
Snowhare
not rated yet Oct 23, 2009
Yes, very nice. You have put up a website to pedal your abysmally insufficient AGW propaganda, with carefully constructed graphs with carefully controlled parameters. Now, please represent the whole truth. Oh that's right, you can't. No one can.

[...]



And your *scientific* criticism is? Oh, right, you didn't make one. If you dispute the data presented in the graphs, which are based on publicly available data, provide something more than an ad hominem attack and vague dismissals.

For someone who claims to be all about the science, you haven't presented much.

You love to assert there is contradictory data but, oddly, you haven't presented any of it. You've presented nothing but ad hominem, and unsupported assertions.

Funny that.

(continued in next message)
Snowhare
5 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2009
You are still, of course, refusing to address the fundamental flaw of AGW, and your argument. You make the assumption that the change in CO2 = all change in climate. This is undeniably, patently false.


Of course it is. And I never made that assertion. That is your own strawman.

However, since you've brought up the issue, solar driven warming has been constrained to no more than 8% of the total over the last century and negligible for the last 30 years.

http://www.agu.or...39.shtml


Can you please be scientifically and academically honest for once? You (and AGW) only show what you want the data to show, but nothing else, nothing of the counter and contradictory evidence, and general lack of data and comprehensive understanding. It's getting old, and people everywhere are seeing through it.


All they are seeing is that you love handwaving, ad hominem and unsupported assertion, but don't present any actual data or references to back it up.
aliengenius
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2009
The main problem here isn't a physics one, but a psychological one. You see phenomenon like the belief in AGW arise in complacent societies, usually on the decline. Basically safe, comfortable societies breed this kind of 'disatisfaction' and self loathing- which often isn't personalized but expressed as a hatred/dislike of one's group or species. The afflicted seldom ever realize it as is the case with most mild mental disorders. AGW feeds this disatisfaction and the accompanying malaise of unfulfillment. It is especially noticeable in increasingly secular socieites. For many, AGW fills the spot that religion may have filled in the past generations. You'd better believe that politicians and tyrants know this either instinctually or are wholly aware and use it to great advantage. 'Climate change' is all about control and has nothing to do with planetary warming/cooling. How stupid it will all look to future generations.
kasen
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2009
AGW fills the spot that religion may have filled in the past generations


Amen to that! Although, to be perfectly fair, the same applies to anti-AGW, as far as psycho-social implications go. Anything that has the potential to polarise people's opinions in such a black&white fashion usually ends up big.

I guess it all boils down to conservative vs.liberal, and I mean the really broad sense of the words. Inertia vs. action: some people have a lot of "mass", some people have a lot of "energy"(and nothing to spend it on in developed countries). It remains to be seen whether or not certain thresholds will be surmounted, in order to move in one direction or the other.

Frankly, I just hope some world war erupts soon. As part of the Internet generation, I'm already getting bored by the current global issues. War tends to make the science pierce through the veil of politics. Makes things brutally clear.