Slashdot Mirror

But the alternative is not global cooling, isn't it? Even if we somehow return to pre-Industrial concentration of CO2, the ice age won't come until the next glaciation cycle several thousand years in future.

Yup, it pretty much is, given we're many thousands of years past when we'd normally see the glaciers advance. Take a look at the Vostok ice core data some time, it's enlightening. You'll see that stable climate not covered in ice is a real anomaly. The last 15k years or so are really weird, we should have returned to the glaciers. No coincidence human civilization finally began when this stable mild climate did.

The Earth has been in an ice age for the past 30+ million years. It's possible that actually ended 15k years ago and this is what a natural flip to a warm age looks like, merely aggravated by human activity. Hard to know. But my point is: glaciers are the norm, stability is not, for 30M years now.

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had 12 times more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

If 12 times more CO2 doesn't melt the ice, your little car engine isn't going to either.

It's fucking common sense, stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why these global warming idiots just don't do their own research before opening their mouths.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I can't say it more boldly, but it doesn't seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don't understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesn't require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had 12 times more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

If 12 times more CO2 doesn't melt the ice, your little car engine isn't going to either.

It's fucking common sense, stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why these global warming idiots just don't do their own research before opening their mouths.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I can't say it more boldly, but it doesn't seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don't understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesn't require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

3 Global warming articles in the front page, really Slashdot?

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had 12 times more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

Stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.

Stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

We had more CO2 in the fucking ice age.

Stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.

I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research and keep screaming about CO2.

CO2/Temp Graph

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Global Warming Scam

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence

The last couple of glaciation cycles ended rather abruptly, yes.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...
https://grist.files.wordpress....

If you have better data to support your view, let's have it.

Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

I'll take a stab at this. I believe climate change is happening, is man-made, and will cause widespread problems over the next century. I believe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

However, in terms of earth's entire history, we're in a very low-CO2 period. (See the graph here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...)

If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd express concern that Earth has been slowly sequestering its CO2 stores, and may not stop until it's all gone. The graph certainly seems to imply that, and intuitively it makes sense. It is more likely for organic matter to be permanently buried than for buried matter to be returned to the atmosphere. Meteor strikes and volcanic action are the only ones I can think of.

Potential benefits of higher CO2 and temperatures (benefits for non-human ecosystems, that is) are faster plant growth and further distribution of rainwater as there are more hurricanes and storm-intensity rises in general.

Not exactly.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

This over-the-top alarmism over climate change doesn't help - because credibility is permanently lost when the crazed predictions fail to come true.

The average temperature of the Earth in geological terms has been about 25C, or a helluva lot warmer than now - and life did fine.

Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.

I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.

Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.

Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?

Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive. some of his key events

17 May, 2000 Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.

Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00

8 March, 2007

Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)

28 July, 2003

Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.

Source: Independent Institute report 2003

2 May, 2007

Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"

Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.

Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics

This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.

But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that

Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't.

Really? Then why is the glare from PV installations of any appreciable size now regulated by the FAA in the US and the CAA in the UK? For absolutely no reason?

Simple common sense should also tell you that when you have a large field full of flat glass panels, all pointing in the same direction, you can get glare. I find that to be an interesting proposition. Apparently you haven't flown much in small planes.

Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources?

Since nobody has come up with a realistic or even credible means of estimating such cost, the answer would have to be "obviously no". But given that almost all electricity here is hydro, and the vast majority of any CO2 generation from those installations was in the past, realistically I would say: for the most part yes.

Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources? If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?

Since the authors themselves don't come to any real conclusions, and only suggest, again there is no way to estimate. Do hydro dams cause ocean acidification? Does an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere cause significant ocean acidification? You have pretty much implied what your answer would be, but the truth is that these are unknowns. Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you.

While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoids evolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today.

I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?

It's lower than in much of the Earth's history, but no, not anywhere near an all-time low. The all-time low is about half the current value... which, as it turns out, also was a much colder time in Earth's history.

Earth's CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so have averaged about 1,500ppm, with peaks up to perhaps 7,000+ ppm:

And temperatures were much hotter, too. For most of Earth's history, the planet does not have ice caps.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

And temperatures were about 3 degrees C above what they are today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

And temperatures were 7 degrees C above current temperatures.

... the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. ...

Carbon dioxide, on the average, was higher during the Ordovician, and average temperature during Ordovician period was 2C above modern levels (with sea levels 180 m higher). There was indeed a brief ice age-- about half a million years-- during the Ordovician. (for reference, the Ordovician lasted about 45 million years) But, guess what? That ice age corresponded to a low level of carbon dioxide. http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Every single one of the examples you cite supports the basic observation that increased carbon dioxide correlates with increased temperature.

Yes, correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, you certainly can't point to this as evidence that carbon dioxide isn't related to global temperature

carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth

You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)

I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?

Earth's CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so have averaged about 1,500ppm, with peaks up to perhaps 7,000+ ppm:

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

... the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. ...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

It's been hotter 4 times in the last 400,000 years.

This particular heat wave looks to be 10,000 to 20,000 years "early".

If it goes up just a little bit more, then we are in record breaking territory.

Every time it's been this warm in the last 400,000 years, the temperature plunged by about 10c (that's almost 20f) within a few thousand years.

We won't know the answer in our lifetimes. The likely result in our lifetimes is 10" higher water. The likely result in the lifetimes of children being born today is 20" higher water.

I can say, I don't enjoy the "tropical" bugs working their way northward into formerly temperate zones.

The CO2 Alarmists are incapable of rational thought. Of all the Global Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere, CO2 is only a small percentage of total Global Greenhouse Gases

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

Water is approximately 95% of all Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and CO2 is roughly 3%. Life needs greenhouse gas CO2 to survive; plants need at least 200-300OPPM to survive, and actually thrive with higher levels (meaning grow bigger faster). Increasing CO2 is not proven, nor even likely, to be the catastrophic problem the Alarmists claim it to be.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

The problem I have, is that while everyone is saying CO2 is bad, the only "bad" they can come up with are leaps in judgement and assumptions, none of which are fact, but rather simply opinions. This is why the whole "Global Warming is bad" thing is at best a "guess", and at worst pure Myth and the newly rediscovered "mother earth" Religion of the left.

That being said, there are greater issues related to our planet, and our poisoning of it. The amount of debris, trash and other waste is what is going to kill our planet, long before CO2 does. We should be addressing THAT problem first IMHO.

Never before seen? Ever? What about during the Cambrian period? CO2 levels 18 times as high as they are today.

In fact - this may come as a shock to you - we are currently at one of the low points for CO2 levels in Earths history. Not just low, but VERY low.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Thank you. Also known as appeal to belief. 98% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, God must exist.

Now, let's all play 'Call me a denier for asking a question.' (AKA Appeal to ridicule) Let's assume for a moment that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to man. Let's assume our current atmospheric CO2 is close to 400ppm. If 400ppm CO2 is causing global warming, then can someone please explain to me how the Earth's climate was cooler during the late Ordovician period when CO2 was about 4400ppm?

Earth's climate was cooler in the late Ordovician period with atmospheric CO2 ~4400ppm. How did that happen if 350ppm is the trigger for global warming?

How about the historical average value for CO2?

Question is what period to average over

Over hundreds of millions of years we'd end up with a very high average. In fact the further you go back, the higher the average. There's something wonderfully twisted about the idea of pitching a plan to set an industry friendly high target CO2 level to US right wingers by explaining that we should set it at the average over the last say 100 million years given that a sizeable minority of them would be young Earth creationists who don't actually believe the Earth is 100 million years old.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

How about the average over 400,000. That looks like it would be about 250ppm, i.e. quite a bit lower than today. On the other hand consider

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!

So either way it seems like we need to get those SUV engines running. Also tell the Brazilians to fell more rainforest to stop them sucking the valuable CO2 out of the biosphere and causing an economically disastrous ice age.

Luckily the Chinese are doing a heroic job emitting CO2.

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/forecast_co2_line.jpg

So it doesn't really matter what the US tries to do - even if it could somehow magically cut its CO2 output to zero in the long run we'll have a lot more of it around thanks to China. And over a few decades it is almost certain that Burma, Vietnam and the like will industrialise in much the same CO2 intensive way China has. Taiwanese manufacturers have a "China+1" strategy - i.e. build factories in China plus one other country. In fact China is a big country and it is only the coastal regions that are highly industrialised and thus emit the CO2. Unfortunately that pattern is unlike to be repeated in smaller developing countries that make up the rest of Asia - they are likely to end up as industrialised as Japan over the whole country.

So the odds of humanity as a whole agreeing to cut its total CO2 output is zero. That's not really unreasonable actually - the US and Europe industrialised in a CO2 intensive way. Their CO2 outputs are now flat or falling because the factories have moved to Asia. If I were in China, Burma or Vietnam I'd be very hostile to the idea that my country should stop industrialising because of concerns about CO2 affecting the climate in the future. Especially if those concerns came from countries who have already passed through that stage of development. Even a new Cultural Revolution in China would only cause a pause in the process. Once it was over it would resume.

You need to know a system before you can conclude if it is out of balance. You need to objectively consider all possibilities as to the cause. Before interfering with a system, you need to evaluate the costs and risks of your actions.

You mean like the careful evaluation we did before dumping CFCs into the atmosphere...

Use of CFC's and banning CFC's are two very different things. All human action can potentially have unintended consequences - if we had to prove that everything is safe beforehand then no action would be possible. If any action does cause verifiable harm, then this harm can be calculated and the transgressor be made to pay for his liabilities, but presumption of innocence is absolutely essential - civilization is utterly impossible without it!

Government aggression, on the other hand, can only be justified when it is absolutely positively unavoidable.

...and the one we did before digging up fossil fuels and burning them like there is no tomorrow?

Your jab at burning fossil fuels ("like there is no tomorrow") is completely unfounded. Fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas) are the most accessible dense sources of energy that the human civilization could get at the start of the Industrial Revolution, which is the cause of countless benefits that we enjoy today. Before fossil fuels, the most common sources of energy were burning wood or manure, whale oil, draft animals, and other primitive sources of energy that were significantly dirtier and/or significantly more scarce. Without fossil fuels, you and I would probably be illiterate peasants involved in subsistence agriculture, and our lives, as well as the lives of our children, would be "nasty, brutish, and short" - until some viable energy source for industrialization could be found. Given the decrease in mortality / increase in population that was only made possible as the result of the Industrial Revolution, without fossil fuels there'd be "no tomorrow" for the vast majority of people alive today!

And, having gone past this stepping stone where fossil fuels are irreplaceable, fossil fuels will fall out of use by "tomorrow", the same way we no longer use horses and whale oil lamps today. We could have been very close to that already if not for the hippies who've sabotaged nuclear energy... and the warmongers -- Hitler, Stalin, as well as Truman, and their successors -- who've cast nuclear science in such a murderous light...

Increasing natural production of CO2 and other gases by about 4% (for a blink of an eye on the scale of this planet) is a very, very small price to pay for advancing the human civilization! As the result of this temporary increase, human beings can do things that nothing else in the known universe can accomplish, leaving this planet (and this solar system, and beyond) in a much better shape than we found them! On this planet alone we can plant farms, aid natural selection of plants to increase their productivity by several orders of magnitude, irrigate the deserts, build vast gardens floating on oceans, erect solar-concentration greenhouses that can grow bananas in Antarctica, and increase absorption of CO2 so much that it becomes a scarce commodity!

Or the one we do before we all send all our cattle onto the common grazing ground?

I (and other libertarians / pro-market philosophers) are fighting to prevent the tragedy of the commons, which governments tend to create. When it comes to environmental issues, emerging pollution-monitoring technologies can do much to make pollution a Property Rights issue, with no government intervention required. If over a billion people can maintain active accounts on one social networking site, the

i can pull data out of my ass too... http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html this clearly shows that humans are in no way responsible for global warming.

Whoever modded this insightful is retarded. In no point in recorded history, or in the estimation of past CO2 levels, has the level of CO2 ever been 10 times the current amount.

Actually, it certainly has.

But your were mistaken with a really awesome amount of confidence, so kudos to you!

How do you know it's "bloody accurate"? (It's a serious question)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf

It's quite significant. Humans release far more fossil CO2 than any natural processes, even volcanoes are dwarfed.

Apparently what you say is far from the truth.

The link you posted was from an AGW site that was last updated in 1998. Here Nineteen-fucking-ninety-eight.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your armchair scientist drivel. It's all been responded to and debunked if you'd take the time to read.

--Jeremy

Here is the chart that shows CO2 levels compared to global temps: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

You'll notice that during the Ordovician period, CO2 was well over 4000ppm, and sometimes upwards of 5000ppm, yet the temperatures near the end of that period were right at modern levels.

Also, if you'll carefully look at the CO2 levels vs. the temps during the Carboniferous period, CO2 had been precipitously dropping for ~50 million years, bottoming out at around 350 ppm... but look carefully at the CO2 line compared to the temp line... CO2 bottoms out and stays there for ~5 million years before you start to see a decrease in global temps... and CO2 was under 1000 ppm for several million years with zero change in global temps.

Also notice that that cooling cycle ended in the mid-Permian period, but the temps rose quickly, but CO2's rise followed this rise in temps, it didn't precede it.

Also notice that CO2 levels were steadily declining throughout the Cretaceous, yet that was coupled with rising global temps. You would think that if CO2 was so closely tied to global temps, that a precipitous drop in CO2 would be accompanied by a precipitous drop in temps and vice versa, but that has rarely been the case.

It seems clear that something else is driving these large scale warming and cooling cycles and no absolute connection can be made between global temperatures and CO2 levels, let alone a causal connection.

And even if we could draw such a connection, we would first have to look at where all this atmospheric CO2 was coming from in the first place... there were no factories, cars, or even humans during the high-CO2/high-temp periods, such as the Cambrian or Devonian. Considering that all the CO2 produced by humans is infinitesimal compared to what Earth naturally produces, it is highly doubtful, even if CO2 does contribute to global warming, that we could produce enough to appreciably affect global temperatures.

And finally, even if we could say that humans are significantly contributing the global warming, there is absolutely no proof that such would endanger life on Earth in any way, shape, or form. During the hottest periods of this Earth's history, life has seen the greatest explosions in diversity and growth. Indeed, hot temperatures are the norm for Earth and we should welcome the rising temperatures and the economic, agricultural, and biological benefits it is sure to bring.

Well, I don't think you can ignore a lot of the facts about how temperatures are rising and how that is correlated with CO2 concentrations.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Now, from a particular Carlinesque viewpoint we are a "minor surface nuisance" and yes the Earth will survive, even as scientists predict when the Sun becomes a Red Giant near the end of it's Nuclear Cycle and it is reduced to a rock floating in space, the Earth will survive. It just wouldn't want to be a place where I'd like to live.

If indeed Sun spot activity and the lack thereof is correlated to Earth Temperatures, then yes, lack of Sun Spots would mean less energy radiating from the Sun and less heat here on Earth, normally. Now that we've pumped billions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere, we're probably averting the next Ice Age but again I probably wouldn't want to live close to a coastline or in areas where strong weather fronts can converge creating severe weather patterns. Wait, that rules out most of the inhabitable space on the planet, doesn't it?

Well, we'll all see. It's one big experiment and while I'm not a C02 alarmist I think there's enough evidence there that indicates we need to make some changes. We may not eliminate C02 emissions either, but we certainly could reduce it. Heck the Ozone layer was going away and we were all going to die of skin cancer, but wait it's healing! But wait, that may cause more global warming! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125192016.htm So, let's bring back CFCs so we can deplete the Ozone layer to create brighter clouds and reduce warming otherwise we'll all just die in a massive Tornado! It's just one big happy experiment with the planet and we're the lab rats.

You might actually look a bit further: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Ok, something more like 400 000+ years then ? Also worthy of note that there never has been such a quick increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But yes, it could be benign and increased vegetal activity can probably compensante for it on the long term, but stopping the emissions at one moment may still be a good idea.

You do know that 90,000 of the last 100,000 years was an ice age, right?

You might actually look a bit further: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Although for the most part, sure, I agree. The Holocene could be ending as it has already been warmer, longer, than it has been in the last few interglacials. Given a record of climate extremes (most of which occurred without human-sourced CO_2) it certainly would be wise to prepare for more. And hey, it is simply a grand idea to build alternative energy sources and get off of our dependence on oil, for lots of other very good reasons, as long as we don't create anything as silly as a global market for "carbon credits".

rgb

So we have data showing a correlation for the industrial revolution, now extend it back 40000 years.Oooh will you look at those correlated peaks and troughs, and look at how the sudden massive spike up in the left part of the graph did not cause a sudden massive spike up in temperature as well?

Correlation does not imply causation. The climate is changing, quickly. The more I think about it, the more I would point the finger at the extraordinary things that are happening on the sun in the last 10 years. That and given the trends of history we're overdue for another ice age.

"It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'"

I am certainly not an expert in the subject, but my basic understanding of snowball earth is that first the continents got into a position that led to a runaway glaciation.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I've got a graph just for you! (hint: Plate tectonics most likely caused the ice age I was referring to.)

You seem to be implying that high levels of CO2 at the same time the earth was frozen over somehow contradicts global warming when in fact it supports the idea.

That's what I love about you guys. No matter what someone says, you insist it "Supports global warming!" without the first shred of evidence.

Were you not aware of that? Or were you just hoping that we weren't? (And in any case, how is a fact or set of conditions a "law of physics"?)

I was _quoting_ the hyperventilating zealot from the Cult of Climate Change in the parent post, if you bothered to read it. (^_^)

I guess they better tell all of the false scientists who deny it. Have some perspective... http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

• The missing carbon
• Graph showing ice age with 12 times more CO2 than today.
• Polar bears
• Ethanol
• Ethanol again
• Climate cultist whack job from "Whale wars" believes quote We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.
• NASA's chief on global warming.
• The IPCC get their their asses handed to them in front of Congress in 1997. A personal favorite is this quote:

  The observed warming since the late 19th Century has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius, or less than one-third of the predicted value. Critics argued, as I did before this committee, that there would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile the facts and the hypotheses.

  By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'

  Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.

My links are getting old it seems. I have a folder full of them, but a lot seems to have been eradicated by the cult of climate change. Feel free to use this stuff in your next big flame war, but I think you'll find that arguing with these idiots is pointless. Your best bet is to put together a well reasoned, informative essay... then wait for a related story and top post. You may be marked troll, but it doesn't matter. People like myself who don't agree with /.s group think tend to read at troll +6 anyway. In fact, I would have never seen your response if you had not been marked troll above... anyhow, we'll mod you up if you're hit with -1 disagree mod.

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

The planet is warming due to natural changes. Some of this is due to greenhouse gasses, but much of it is also due to solar activity and geothermal activity. The problem is many of the environmental models don't even take other factors into account.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

This statement is flat out false. If it were true then man would have to make a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses. The number one greenhouse gas (95%) is water vapor which is 99.99% natural. CO2 comprises 3.62% of all greenhouse gasses of that 0.117 is man-made. The total percentage of man-made contributions to greenhouse gasses are a whopping 0.28%. Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

No they aren't, see above.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

This would only be true if warming occurred faster or larger than the Earth's climate can handle. Phil Jones, one of the authors of the IPCC report, admitted that non only was the Earth warmer during the Medieval Warming period but that Earth hasn't statistically warmed in 10 years. Sources: http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2010/02/climategate-expert-phil-jones-admits.html, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

This is fear-mongering with no facts to refute. Your turn, warmer.

How much more simple can it be explained? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Even a not so good at math type of person knows if you leave out the greenhouse gas that causes 95% of the greenhouse effect, the numbers will be all wrong.

Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40% over pre industrial levels

Sadly, not true. Not even close.

First of all, the greatest greenhouse gas is naturally produced water vapor. It makes up about 95% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Industrialization has not changed this much, certainly not by 40%. More like 0.0001%. From HERE

When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

  Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

  Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

  Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

However, if you are just talking about CO2, then you're still not close. I believe the number you are looking for can be found here:

To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

I have no doubt that the climate is changing. Of course it is. That's what it does. It always has and always will. If it were not warming, it would be cooling, and there would be politicians claiming that man was responsible.

There is also no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its percentage in the atmosphere has an effect on the climate. What is debatable is how much of an effect that is. Within that debate, the amount of CO2 that man is directly responsible for must be considered as well.

As to your source, it's a video, so it's not like I can copy and paste from it. But the title itself is telling, The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History. From everything I've read, water vapor, not C)2 is the "Biggest Control Knob" affecting the Earth's climate. So it would appear that this video is wrong starting with the title itself.

What's the point of pretending you are debating if you've already decided the conclusion? A futile exercise if I ever saw one. But what the heck, I'll humour you. I have actually read both the pieces, and FWIW I am a scientist (physicist).

You quote two opinion/personal webpages, dated 7 and 9 years ago, by people who aren't even climatologists (one is an engineer, the other is appears to be a geologist or archaeologist). Not that that makes their opinions wrong - just it means you should take extra care when accepting what they say. Just as you should double check medical advice from people who aren't doctors.

I'll provide the source:

This is a viewpoint piece, just because it is on a journal website doesn't mean it was peer-reviewed or otherwise considered good science. Also dated 9 years ago. Specifically, his presentation of the Arctic Ocean model is not backed up by anything other than his assertion that "this is sufficient to explain the cycle", which is in direct conflict with actual data, for example referenced in the video I linked. The Arctic Ocean model was, as he says, developed 30 years ago then (40 years ago now!) and the general opinion today is that it has been shown that it cannot explain the warming cycles. This pretty much invalidates every conclusion he purports to reach.

In other words, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's concentration is minuscule in the atmosphere and its effect even less so.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

This is a false analysis of the situation. Natural greenhouse gases, including water vapour, contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect - but a majority of this effect is simply keeping the earth habitable. The question of how much _additional_ effect is man-made.

When the articles you reference (this one is 7 years old) were written, there were indeed significant questions about the magnitude of the contribution by water vapour, and any honest climatologist would have told you that. It's one of the reasons the first few IPCC reports were so vague. Knowing this was a weak point in our understanding, however, it has been a major focus of effort since then and modern climatologists are now much much happier about water vapour. Here's a quote from AR4:

Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water

I have no doubt that the climate is changing. Of course it is. That's what it does. It always has and always will. If it were not warming, it would be cooling, and there would be politicians claiming that man was responsible.

There is also no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its percentage in the atmosphere has an effect on the climate. What is debatable is how much of an effect that is. Within that debate, the amount of CO2 that man is directly responsible for must be considered as well.

As to your source, it's a video, so it's not like I can copy and paste from it. But the title itself is telling, The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History. From everything I've read, water vapor, not C)2 is the "Biggest Control Knob" affecting the Earth's climate. So it would appear that this video is wrong starting with the title itself.

I'll provide the source:

What the evidence shows
So what we have on the best current evidence is that

        * global temperatures are currently rising;
        * the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
        * the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
        * there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
        * the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
        * if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
        * the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
        * water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
        * determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-m water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
        * the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

In other words, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's concentration is minuscule in the atmosphere and its effect even less so.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

I'm not going to give up control of my life for a 0.0028 affect in greenhouse effect especially when considering that natural variation of climate outweighs this effect by an exponential order of magnitude. It's as if we are trying to bail out the Titanic with a shot glass.

Once again, you're quoting amateurs who don't know what they're talking about. In this case, West Virginia Office of Miner's Safety chief engineer, Monte Hieb. Here's his webpage. Now, you might be asking yourself why you're getting your science data from a mine safety engineer. If not, you probably should!

Here's the huge blunders he makes in his numbers:

1) He only credits a small portion of the CO2 to anthropogenic emissions. Why? He doesn't say it, but one can only assume that it's because natural emissions are higher than anthropogenic emissions. The problem with this argument is that natural emissions of CO2 are nearly perfectly balanced with natural sinks of CO2; that's why CO2 levels have historically fluctuated by such small amounts on the order of thousands of years. We haven't had CO2 levels this high in at least the past 15 million years. Picture a half-full bathtub draining water at a constant rate, with water being added to it at the same rate. The level of the tub remains the same. Now start adding extra water -- even a small amount. The bathtub will steadily fill up. Our emissions are not matched by corresponding sinks.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are very easily measured. Past levels are very readily measured from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. Here's what you see. That's the addition to the atmosphere that is not balanced out by a corresponding CO2 sink. The atmosphere's C13/C12 ratio changed 1/5th as much in the entire last glacial as it changed in the past 150 years (the C13/C12 ratio shows how much of our atmosphere is made of old, deep carbon rather than fresh surface carbon).

You should also know that Hieb faked this graph. Go compare his graph to the DOE's that he "cites". He adds a "natural" and "manmade" column that exists nowhere on his reference, thus making it sound like the DOE believes what he's trying to imply.

2) He does no calculations to determine his water vapor forcing. None of his references are primary sources, and in fact, one of them states that the elimination of CO2 entirely from our atmosphere would lower heat-trapping efficiency by 12% and elimination of water vapor would lower it by 36%. That said, all of his references for the "95%" number trace back, ultimately, to "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models" (Ramaswamy, 1993). Please pay attention to the title. Solar radiation absorption. That is, incoming radiation, not outgoing. Here's the abstract. You probably don't have access to the full paper, but I do. The very first line is, "A proper representation of the absorption of solar radiation in the atmosphere is important to determine accurately the radiative fluxes and heating rates in weather forecasting and climate models." Got that? Solar, not re-radiated infrared from Earth's surface. The greenhouse effect is based on absorbing as *little* solar radiation as possible and as *much* re-radiated infrared as possible.

Want real references and numbers for the *total* greenhouse contribution? Here you go. For a more layman's version, here. These numbers all come from first principles.

I hate to dump on Hieb so hard for this, but this is what you get when you go to a coal mine safety engineer for science.

3) As has been mentioned to you before, and is something Hieb completely ignores, water vapor is not forcing. It's feedb

Still wrong.

Clearly there's too much for plants to absorb anyway, since we know CO2 levels are increasing; we're not just getting more plants.

Yes we are, the Earth's biosphere is booming and has been for the last decades. Up more than 6% in total. Plants are currently CO2 starved, most become increasingly happy up to 1000ppm.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

And, of course, the acidification of the oceans is also a huge problem.

No, it's not. CO2 in the atmosphere has been more than a magnitude higher before in history without the oceans having gone acidic. They're at PH>7 and will stay so. Any slight changes are easily coped with by creatures who've lived through much largers changes before - they've evolved to handle them. Some even grow better with increased levels of CO2.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

Why don't you like science?

I know it is true that humans are both increasing the amount of carbon dioxide to multiple times what it is w/o human influence

Unfortunate, since it's not true .. ;)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

We're currently living in a CO2-starved environment - and that's why plants grow better when CO2-levels are higher. They evolved in a more CO2 rich atmosphere.

First, mere fact that the Earth's atmosphere once had more CO2 is entirely besides the GP's point. The reason for difference between the Carboniferous climate and our current "CO2-starved environment", as you call it, was that massive amounts of organic compounds were sequestered for millions of years (the name "Carboniferous" itself refers to the formation of carbon-bearing mineral deposits). Unless you have a convincing argument of how natural processes would release either these sequestered deposits or other natural sources of CO2, in our current geological period, at a rate similar to human activity; you can't claim that the current increase in CO2 isn't greater than what would happen had humans never figured-out how to burn oil and coal.

Second, modern plants grow larger and faster in with higher CO2 levels, but that is only "better" if you ignore other measurements. For instance, the efficiency of the photosynthetic process and the per-pound nutrient-level actually goes down in a CO2 rich atmosphere. This is apparently because while the leaves can absorb CO2 faster, the intake of minerals and other nutrients through the root system is not increased at the same rate. So while fruit, vegetables, and grain grown with excess (relative to pre-industrial atmospheric levels) may be larger; they will have either the same, or perhaps even less (i.e. some of the nutrients that would've gone into the edible parts instead are split among the larger non-edible parts), nutritional value as those grown without the extra CO2. I don't see this as a particularly good thing, do you?

It is a greenhouse gas. No blah blah bullshit, it really is. Physics says so, observation says so. Observation also tells us that levels of CO2 are skyrocketing.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, its effects decrease logarithmically - the change from 0 to 20ppm make a huge difference. From 20 to 80ppm a lot happens as well. From 280 to 380 ... not so much.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2.png

Regarding "sky rocketing" levels of CO2, quite the opposite. We're in a very CO2-starved environment compared to the majority of the time plants and animals have existed on the earth. We've had more than a magnitued higher CO2-levels in our atmosphere without oceans going acidic, the planet becomign like Venus etc.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

This is undisputed (really) science. The big question is, why's everyone pretending as if it wasn't?
 

It's possible that you were talking about something interesting, but it seems you weren't able to link to anything supporting your claims :) Thus, it's not about chasing up "more" papers - since you didn't chase up any at all.

The only paper I see posted shows, which fits well with established science, that ocean living creatures have no problems with small fluctionations in CO2 levels. And yes, over their evolutionary lifespan, the current fluctuations are very, very, small.

Did I link to a source for that before? Don't remember, I'll simply do it again:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

From Geocarb III, talked about in detail here:

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2002-051.html

If you want to debate proper science, and your posts imply that you do, you need to source your statements better than random web portals and google searches where the contents don't match up with your sayings.

"it doesn't, but the vast majority of climate change deniers aren't showing any data proving their point. "

Up until recently, the scientists haven't exactly been very open about showing their data or their methods to draw their conclusions, but I guess you wanted to gloss over that a bit.

Regardless, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html has an interesting take on the CO2 vs temp debate AND he gives the sources for his data(NOAA). If you look carefully you'll see that he's showing a correlation over the past 400,000 years of a rise in CO2 followed by a cooling period. This isn't a 100 year graph, or a 1,000 year graph but a 400,000 year graph.

That's significant because, if you recall, all the so-called climatologists will say that the non-warming trend of the past 10 or so years that the skeptics talk about(I actually haven't even bothered checking into it because it seems it could go either way as the climatologists suggest) just isn't enough of a slice of time to show any real trends, and 100 barely is enough.

All that said, I'm checking the guy's data(doing it over the course of this week) and so far he doesn't seem to have doctored any of it to prove his point; he simply seems to have graphed each. The only thing I know someone will eventually whine about is that the graphs don't have their origin at 0, and for anyone who knows anything about a graph, you know that the origin can be non-zero and the data still be accurately portrayed so long as the scale is linear...I mean the guy's just removing all the dead whitespace as far as I've been able to establish so far.. If this checks out then this is incredibly damning evidence that the "scientific" community is blatantly ignoring....if not then I'll be the first person to debunk it in its entirety.

I know it is true that humans are both increasing the amount of carbon dioxide to multiple times what it is w/o human influence

Unfortunate, since it's not true .. ;)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

We're currently living in a CO2-starved environment - and that's why plants grow better when CO2-levels are higher. They evolved in a more CO2 rich atmosphere.

I dont' know. but when I read stuff like this it makes me wonder. I am not a scientist and I dont' trust them on either side. but this is interesting http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

What the fuck. Have you even looked at that graph? Here's a real one. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html ...shows how U.S. department of energy misleads the cause.
 
 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101102724 ...shows how the null hypothesis (read: human-made CO2 concentration is significant enough to change global climite) was protected via sabotage.
 
 

Common sense might tell you that seafloor spreading and the geothermal activity account for more of an increase in ocean and ground temperatures than air temperature can possible account for. Can't link you to any common sense so you'll have to discover that on your own.