Slashdot Mirror

How come global-warmists never mention water vapor, which is by far the biggest greenhouse gas. I guess there isn't any money in selling "steam credits".

Other than the section devoted to that exact issue, you mean?

How come global-warmists never mention water vapor, which is by far the biggest greenhouse gas. I guess there isn't any money in selling "steam credits". http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

How much pre-industrial? You mean like 400 million years ago? I wonder what humans were burning to create those levels. We apparently did an awesome job over the next 100 million years to get the CO2 levels down, so maybe all we need to do is check our own history to see what we did. It'll work again, I'm sure, whatever it was.

No, sorry, everything stated is true.
I dislike giving source sites as they radicals have away of destroying facts, but here you go:
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp183/kiwistonewall/2009x.jpg
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%202008%2008%20vs%201998-2006.gif

During those periods of high CO2 you mention, the temperature has been about 15 degrees C warmer worldwide

I have not verified this myself, but Scotese seems to be the same source:

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

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

We're currently in a very CO2-starved climate, if we go through the geological record. Plant life seems optimised (evolution does that) for much higher CO2-levels, and we've had more than a magnitude higher levels without the earth having gone into any self-feedback loops before.

Peer-reviewed source for the above, see fig 8: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

This temperature change has actually happened cyclically and we have data.

No, *this* change has not happened cyclically. As I explained in my post the problem today is the absolutely unprecedented rate of change.

This smashes the concept that humans were responsible for this cycle or the ones before.

That is two entirely separate claims.

No one claims humans caused the previous climate shifts.

Nor does it refute the fact that humans are causing an unprecedented shift today.

The graph does not smash either of the things you claim it "smashes".

Look at the timescale on the graph you posted. Note that it is numbered in fifty-thousand-year increments. The rate of change in this shift is multiple degrees within a fraction of a single pixel on that graph. By my math, todays rate of change would be somewhere between 7 and 15 degrees-per-pixel rate on that graph.

Don't mix up cause with correlation.

And don't mix up correlation with cause.

Especially when the "correlation" isn't even close.

If someone claims there is a tsunami and you measure the sea level rising on the beach at a rate of many feet per minute, it would be absolutely insane to point to a graph of tide-history showing a cycle of water rise and fall of a few feet per twelve hours. You can't point to an orders-of-magnitude-mismatch "correlation" between a many-feet-per-minute increase in sea level and a few-feet-per-12-hours tide, and then conclude the CAUSE of the current sea level change is natural tides. You are mixing up a (false) correlation with a cause.

And it becomes even more absurd to point to historical tides when you do in fact know the current cause, if you recorded an earthquake at sea with a rise or drop in the seafloor and basic physics says it will cause a tsunami. When you dump global-scale quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then basic physics states that it will trap infrared radiation - it will trap heat. You know for a fact that the cause exists.

As a percentage of the total contribution human contribution is about 3.8%. We are only important to us. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I have a question. Do you care if a source is reliable? Or are you happy to grab any old source so long as it supports the side you want?

The figures on that site conflict with accepted science, so I decided ok lets give them the benefit of the doubt take a look at how they are backing up their numbers. I clicked on one of their references and looked it up. The very first thing I checked them on, it took me less than two minutes to discover that the source they were citing - Patrick Michaels - is an already established crackpot denialist and paid at least six-figures by a fossil-fuel based power industry association. This guy was a denialist on the chlorofluorocarbon-ozone issue up until 2001. It also appears he long ago abandoned any career as a scientist and took up writing pop denialism books.

If someone wants to argue that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, it might help if they avoid citing people paid the tobacco industry and literally selling "cigarettes-don't-cause-cancer" as a profession.

But then I think.... ok that's just one source. So lets give them another chance. I completely randomly scroll down their source list and the second source I check is Robert Essenhigh. I try a Wikipedia search and apparently the most notable thing about his is that he came up with an alternate theory on the sinking of the Titanic.... ummmm..... ok. So I turn to Google and find, he's a mechanical engineer. I think huh? Mechanical engineer? Ok, I keep looking and he's a specialist in combustion, and then as if someone set this up as a joke with a punchline.... he's apparently a specialist in coal combustion. So the second source I looked up.... and I find his expertise and qualifications in climatology are that he's a

Wow! Where do you get your data? You have been radicalized! First of all relax take a deep breath. You will be OK. This temperature change has actually happened cyclically and we have data. So your fear that the heating up is something new and out of control is not the case. Your main assertions are not based in fact (and I have included the cite) so your conclusions are flawed. This should please you because your hysteria is by logic of a flawed premise not warranted. You are free! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg Read the graph! Don't mix up cause with correlation. On the graph cited it shows three cycles and humans were not the cause because 16,000 years ago when the temperature started to rise there weren't enough of them in the world to populate Maine at its present human density. This smashes the concept that humans were responsible for this cycle or the ones before. So if humans weren't responsible what about all of the CO2 we are pushing up into the atmosphere? It is only logical that it must have some effect on warming. Right? Well maybe. The data suggests that you are overstating the effect of the relatively small contribution. As a percentage of the total contribution human contribution is about 3.8%. We are only important to us. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html You seem to think that we can and should DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. That depends on what it is. Global warming or climate change? These are huge natural forces at work as our planet goes through an aging process which you my friend or the Congress can't stop. Kind of like voting to stop the daily tides. If you want to promote a vote to keep the tide out be my guest but please don't do something that will hurt our quality of life for no effect. So in a couple of paragraphs I have given you enough information and cites to suggest that your assertions are not true, climate change is natural and is like the tide not much we can do about it. To those who predict Noahs flood you could ruin their day by showing the data of 450,000 years of ice cores that through several cycles the Antarctic ice has remained and to really make a point look up the Beacon Valley Pliocene ice ( one two or eight million year old ice!) or the 750,000 year old Arctic perma frost.

ï It may be inconvenient to inject data into a fantasy discussion, if so excuse me. Let us not get hysterical, but cut to the chase. It doesn't make much sense to make a decision on CO2 unless we have some consensus on which facts are relevant. Discussing the CO2 contribution of volcanoes as compared to anthropogenic contribution is interesting but not very useful. (one volcanic eruption put square miles of ash into the air and in less than a year cooled the earth one half degrees Celsius. Now that is climate change power! http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm [nasa.gov] http://www.cas.org/newsevents/connections/volcanoes.html [cas.org] ) To get a useful perspective we need to consider all of the natural sources of CO2 and compare that number against the anthropogenic. This following article takes the position that our contribution is not significant. It has cites. I chose it of many just because I like the notebook style. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html [geocraft.com] If you do not accept this data then what data will you propose we accept? Cites please. It has to pass a reasonableness criterion. From a position of consensus on the data we should be in a position to debate possible action..

bush bashing - bash bash bash.

Riddle: Why did the U.S. Department of energy leave off water vapor as a significant greenhouse gas in its 2000 report on significant greenhouse gases?

Answer: To make human emission of carbon dioxide seem more significant than it really is.

However, scientists are not stupid and know there is money to be made solving for fictitious problems created from politics.

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

Back to your bush bashing republican hate speech.

Jeez, the mantra continues.

Last year the earth cooled ALLOT
Arctic sea ice has been GROWING
The Green house gas argument is a number scam. (Ponzi anybody?)
And unless we get allot more sunspots soon, we be PRAYING for a little global warming.

On top of all that, the psuedo scientist out there call people that present these FACTS "Flat Earth'ers".

Wake up people, you are being taken for a ride.

Ocean acidification, for one example, is a huge problem also related to co2 emissions

You mean, besides it really not happening, really not being a problem and really having nothing at all to do with things being "acid"?

We've had an order of magnitude higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere in Earth's history*. The oceans weren't acidic then, corals prospered and the earth didn't burn.

*) Paper here, see fig 8: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

All that carbon that we are currently putting back into the atmosphere and oceans? It's never been in the atmosphere and oceans all at once.

We're currently close to 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been at 4000. That's an order of magniture - yet the world didn't burn.

Peer reviewed paper, you want fig 8: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Seriously? The top hit for that quote is a website that doesn't cite its sources. Trying to track down the origins of that quote leads to OTHER websites that don't cite their sources either. (c.f. this one, from 2007, this one, which looks suspiciously familiar, from 2005, and this one, which just links back to the first one. You gotta do better than that.

Your Source?

What is your source for "given that since the industrial revolution the CO2 load in the atmosphere has increased by 50%"

CO2 in atmosphere has been increasing for 18,000 years... "Long before the smokestack" "Climate Scientist" seem to ignore that fact...

Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of total greenhouse effect, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% . So total human contribution to greenhouse gasses is @ .28% (less than 1/4 of 1% of TOTAL greenhouse gasses measured in atmosphere.) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Often people here act like they're the first ones to ever think of factors like sun activity but those have been calculated and found insufficient to explain the change we're seeing."

Actually, it isn't the CO2 that is the main Greenhouse gas, it is H2O, and the lack of sun activity explanation is wrong, there is a link, but scientist with an agenda refuse to acknowledge it... Take a surface COVERED with Millions+ tons of ice back 18,000 years with the ice age... Eventually melting that ice results in increased water vapor in our atmosphere. Over 18,000 years, it will accelerate... more water vapor, faster "global warming". If you go to the website I gave, you'll find fact, not fiction.

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

The earth is over 700 Million Years old.. we are but a flash in the geological pan...

Actually, "Global Warming" has been happening for about 18,000 years after most of North America, Europe and Asia were under ice for more than 100,000 years.... :) Problem is that the Egocentrical Humans that portray normal climate functions as a disaster, assume that the temperatures that were steady and realivent back about 100 yrs ago were the norm. There is no Norm, there is only change. Even if we all die a horrid fiery death because of the earth heating up from various solar cycles, there will STILL be changes of cooling and heating even after ALL HUMANS have been wiped from this planet for 100,000+ years... Until our little sun goes boom. WE DO NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Here, Have a test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

We are insignificant on the face of the planet. for people that believe "Global Warming" is a true threat then please do us all a favor and stop breathing so that you can limit YOUR impact on the climate.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7326 http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/No_Evidence.pdf http://jimball.com.au/Warming.htm http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/35/190/ http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate_Change/Older/Ice_Ages.html I still think that it is the ultimate arrogance that humans think they can alter the planets evolution. Think of continental drift and the accompanying earthquakes, volcanic activity etc. and you'll understand how insignificant humans are.

Have you heard? Green is the new you...

Numbers released by the U.S. Department of Energy:

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

__________% of All Greenhouse Gases__% Natural__% Man-made

Water vapor -_________95.000%____94.999%___0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) -__3.618%___3.502%___0.17%
Methane (CH4)_________0.360%_____0.294%___0.66%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)_____0.950%____0.903%___0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)_0.072%____0.025%___0.047%
Total________________100.00%_______99.72%____0.28%

Total human contribution in greenhouse gases - .28%! And .117% just in CO2! An insignificant number!

"Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

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

So, As you see, ALL of humanity can only contributes .117% of CO2, so Global Warming is FRAUD. Created by the likes of AL Gore who sells himself 'Carbon Credits' and uses as much energy in his Tennisse mansion in one day as I do in 17months living in my house. Created for the Eco-Weary that are worried that they have it too good and must stake some blame in the missery of anyone else not doing as well on the planet and justify their place.

If you REALLY worry about the enviornment, and you REALLY feel that you have that great of an impact on it, then please do the responsible thing and quit exhaling, perminatly. The rest of the world MIGHT notice once your gone....

WHEN are you people gonna wake up to this Cult of Green.

It more like any normal change in weather patterns will be called "global warming". It's all about "climate change" now. Give it a few year and it will be "ice age" again, as when I was a kid.

Here's a great graph of the Vostok ice core data (you can also get the raw data yourself and toss it into Excel if you're skeptical).

You can clearly see that dramatic rises in temp (and CO2 levels) are normal events with a period of just over 100k years (and how remarkable recent CO2 levels are). You can also see that the relative stability of the climate over the past 10000 years is *not* normal. We're in an age age, and "normal" temperatures (a long term average) are much colder.

I think "wait, don't we *want* it to be warmer?" is a completely legitimate question. Keeping temps the same just isn't how the Earth works. Given that the historic pattern (past 100M years of the current ice age) would have glaciers covering Canada and most of Europe, maybe warming isn't so bad?

So which "natural cycle" is it? We've looked at the ones which have caused past climate change (e.g., solar variations, volcanoes, changes in ocean circulation), and ruled them out as the cause of the current warming.

Oh? Who, I ask, ruled them out? Wasn't it just a few coercively-financed scientists whose bread and butter depend on getting more government grants to "prove" that only government solutions can solve the computer-model-predicted crisis?

"CLIMATE cannot be accurately predicted more than a few weeks ahead" - yeah, one more idiot who can't tell the difference between climate and weather. What this has to do with your claim is beyond me - unless it's the silliness of both.

...we are ramping atmospheric CO2 up to levels not seen in millions of years...

On what evidence do you base this claim? There is hard evidence showing carbon dioxide concentrations are much lower now than in recent geological ages.

Don't you mean "There is hard evidence showing carbon dioxide concentrations are much lower now than in recent geological ages - as recent as millions of years ago"?

Global warming doesn't predict that every location on Earth gets monotonically hotter every year.

The theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't predict the current cooling since 1998.

What cooling? Your source says nothing about "the current cooling since 1998." Not to mention that you only get a correlation between his beloved PDO and an oscillation on top of an upward trend in temperature - and we've got so many of those that they are probably a correlated block linked to solar output and completely besides man-made Global Warming.

So which "natural cycle" is it? We've looked at the ones which have caused past climate change (e.g., solar variations, volcanoes, changes in ocean circulation), and ruled them out as the cause of the current warming.

Oh? Who, I ask, ruled them out? Wasn't it just a few coercively-financed scientists whose bread and butter depend on getting more government grants to "prove" that only government solutions can solve the computer-model-predicted crisis?

...we are ramping atmospheric CO2 up to levels not seen in millions of years...

On what evidence do you base this claim? There is hard evidence showing carbon dioxide concentrations are much lower now than in recent geological ages.

Global warming doesn't predict that every location on Earth gets monotonically hotter every year.

The theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't predict the current cooling since 1998.

Here is your link: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

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

well, finding that in a very short period of time, of natural global warming, that rainforests are replaced with giant ferns is a little disheartening. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

this is a wonderful find, oh and BTW the area where the coal was mined was actually a peat bog, that turned into a forest in the carboniferous period, then turned into sea several times and then back into a forest, and was also a ferny weedy place. most likely earthquakes from changes in plate tectonics played a huge role in how the land mass changed, from being above land, below land, and the erosion of nearby mountains provided the silt to cover the land when it was above ground.

so no the coal was not the result of the forest, although it may have added slightly to the coal, when it was submersed, most coal is formed from wetlands where vastly more biomass concentrates and is preserved from decaying due to water covering it thus preventing microbes from getting the oxygen to decay the plant matter. if you want coal you look for places where the water was stagnant like prehistoric wetlands, or former continental shelf areas.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html simple google search

Right, random moron mouthing off on slashdot with the usual "correlation not equal to causation" bromide (which you didn't phrase accurately) must be believed over the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change.

Ahhh, your overwhelming scientific consensus again. Words from the holy gospel at Realclimate.org. Let us read about it, shall we? From your article:

The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]
2. People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)

I've put those four points in rough order of certainty. The last one is in brackets because whilst many would agree, many others (who agree with 1-3) would not, at least without qualification.

Wow, that just oozes confidence, doesn't it... but let's look at the individual points made here:

1. Assuming the measurements are accurate. Arriving at a global mean temperature is voodoo enough, but when you place your surface temperature measuring stations beside air conditioning unit exhaust vents you have to wonder if the temperatures even reflect reality. Most of these stations surveyed have a margin of error in recording temperatures of more than 2C... while your measured catastrophic increase is 0.6C?? Next stop, measuring your member with an unmarked ruler. "Hey, it's about a foot long. Really!!"
2. How much of it are we causing exactly? We can all grapple with the idea that CO2 helps keep the planet warm and we are creating a lot of it. What I have yet to get out of any single climatologist is a hard number. Exactly how many degrees hotter is it going to be in 5 or 10 years. I take that back... The IPCC gave us a hard number in 1990. Sure enough, five years later they were WAY OFF. They've since started making *unverifiable in our lifetime* predictions 100 years out. Fantastic!
3. We're now glossing over point 2 and making broad assumptions. Nevermind that "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." [Source] Hmmm... what's the phrase I'm looking for here... something about correlation and causation.
4. This last one brings us to the ultimate death blow to the global warmers' argument. The warming we've experienced since the last glacial period has brought us grasslands, forests, jungles.... When the next glacial period comes, the planet will be covered mostly by icy tundra and extreme deserts again. Warming has only made this planet MORE habitable to us. I've got 12000 years of proof that warming is good. What do you have to the contrary?

As for "I don't understand where these people are coming from saying that warmer temperatures are bad", try asking the people in coastal areas and island nations such as Tuvalu, who have already been displaced, what they feel.

Sure, and while I'm at it, why don't you ask the entire population of blue states in the north eastern US if they'd like to be buried under a mile of ice again any time soon. That has always puzzled me.

Offtopic, but---

It simply doesn't follow that Co2 levels haven't ever been this high. That Co2 that we are generating; you know, from fossil fuels?

Where do you think it was before it became fossilized?

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

For most of the current Cenozoic era, Co2 levels have been *higher* than they currently are. The *only* possible issue with "global warming" right now is whether or not the rapid rate of change in Co2 levels will be damaging, not the absolute level of Co2 in the atmosphere.

For example, during the Jurassic period, Co2 levels were at 1800 ppm. During the Cambrian period, Co2 levels were 5000 ppm. Currently, Co2 levels are at 378 ppm, and even if we burn ALL known sources of Fossil Fuels it is unlikely we will drive that above 900 ppm or so.

check out this site http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Alternately, climate change destroys much of human life on the planet.

600 million years of temperature and CO2 levels

The climate is pegged between fixed limits, as the paleoclimate record shows. It's not sensitive to CO2 levels --- nature tried that experiment already, injecting vastly more CO2 than we can even imagine generating (up to 7000 ppm, versus our few hundred ppm).

There's no reason to believe that mankind's survival is in any danger at all, wherever we end up on that graph which spans a 10-degree C variation of possible average global temperatures.

So get to know the science, and be afraid. Be very afraid.

Yes, get to know the science, and be very afraid when you realize that you've taken falsehoods on trust and have believed them without justification.

600m years of temperature and CO2.

So, over 600 million years, where exactly do you see a correlation of CO2 vs temperature?

The simple answer is, you don't. Instead, you see that they are not correlated in the slightest.

There have been epocs in Earth's history with well over 10 times our current CO2 levels, yet the Earth was suffering the worst state of glaciation ever at the end of the Ordovician Period. The only correlation is within the last million years, a mere blink in geological time, and even that doesn't separate cause from effect -- as the well-know Keeling curve shows, changes in temperature cause dramatic changes in CO2 levels.

So, don't be a sheep. Look at the science for yourself, and stop believing those who hijack science for their own agendas.

> As soon as the GCMs actually start predicting (accurately) the very pronounced 100ky cycles of climate change over the last million years or so

Done.

Not even close. The latest GCMs barely predict a 5-6 degC change from the largest acknowledged non-terrestrial effects, primarily direct insolation and orbital variance. They don't model cloud formation except in the most primitive of manners (no surprise, since we don't understand the dynamics yet), they don't model the immense changes there have been in oceanic biota (kind of funny, when you consider that that's the prime vehicle of transport in the carbon cycle, yet is ignored), and they don't yield glaciations every 100ky at all.

So no, sorry, the GCMs are far too primitive at this stage to be considered models of climate akin to theoretical models in the scientific method. That day will come, but it's decades away.

> and also explain accurately how the coldest epocs in the history of the planet happened to coincide with CO2 levels many dozens of times greater than the current ones

Since that didn't happen, no explanation is required. CO2 levels are positively associated with warming climate throughout the paleoclimate record.

Haha, "didn't happen" ... that's funny.

Rewriting history just because it doesn't match your worldview seems to be the done thing these days in the climate debate. Fortunately, it matters little to science, because the data continues to say otherwise.

Temperature and CO2 Variation over the Last 600 Million Years.

High levels of CO2 have been the norm in our paleoclimate, not the exception. In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present Quaternary Period have seen CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. And the Late Ordovician Period was an extremely severe Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were in excess of 4000 ppm, over a dozen times higher than today.

BTW, Both sides of the argument are full of shit. Having been to many of the countries in Europe (and spent significant time in some) I have seen that most European countries are much less concerned about the environment than the US is, they require significantly lower standards and allow vehicles to smog freely.

Why not also test your global warming knowledge. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/sta rt.html

Test your Global Warming knowledge:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/sta rt.html

lol.. \I just got done citing the evidence for over whelming consensus. I cannoit believe it just came back.

First, the over whelming consesus is a study by the IPCC who looked at published articles in a couple of journels. It equates to abstract from 928 papers published between 1993 and 2003. 25% of them didn't list humans as the cause but were counted as not disenting from the normal opinions.

And the overwhelming consiracy people are claiming that certain article are being excused because of association to employers and not because of the science. People are refusing death threats and such. Sound like we have an issue wiht the overwhelming consesus here.

The total impact of man made Co2 compared to all the greenhouse gasses is less then .28%. In case you are thinking that is 28 percent, it is actualy .0028 or 28/100ths of 1 percent.

Amd no, It isn't that I don't think that automobile emissions don't contribute to smog as well. I'm saying that stopping driving them will have little to no impact on the problem as presented. It doesn't matter what he is doing wiht his hummer.

I suggest you read the two papers I referenced.

I was already familiar with the Wikipedia cite, what other papers did you refer to?

You say the CO2 emissions correlate with global temp curves, did they cause the Medieval Warming Period or Holocene?

No.

Other than solar activity, the only explanation for the extraordinary Holocene warming is a recent (1999) theory that the Earth's tilt may have changed for a couple thousand years. That theory is based on a model, there's no evidence as of yet. But it could be that the change in tilt and unusual sunspot activity caused the warming.

So maybe it's manmade CO2 and sunspots together causing the current warm spell?? Possibly, except that the Earth's history shows the global climate has little sensitivity to CO2 levels. For example, over the last 600 million years:

- CO2 levels have dropped from 7000 ppm to approx 400 ppm

- Average global temps have remained steadily within a 72F (22C) to 54F (12C) range while CO2 levels have plunged to current levels These fact alone show that the Earth's climate is not as sensitive to changes in CO2 levels as the models indicate

Finally, there have only been three periods during which temps have been as low as they are today, and the other two took place during mass extinctions (Ordovician and Permian). Also, the Permian extinction period is the only other time when CO2 levels have been as low. Just another coincidence? Or proof that we're in an unstable period of cooling and the Earth's climate is eventually going to get warmer no matter what we do.

So there you have it: wide swings in CO2 levels have occurred at the same time temps have remained relatively stable; certainly there haven't been runaway greenhouse effects that the current models would lead us to expect. In short, I question your science.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/11 10_051110_warming.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/ causes12.jsp

These are only some of the links you get when you google water vapor and global warming. You might want to read them.

Both natural and anthropogenic forcings exist. Nobody is denying this, let alone preventing you from mentioning it. As it happens, the anthropogenic forcings are the more significant of the two concerning the recent climate, but the natural forcings are not negligible.

True enough. But all the informed, meteroligist we have heard from Is contributing it to natural forces. I don't know if they are saying anthropogenic disturbances are influencing those natural forces or not. But the one, We don't even know what causes to a repeatable degree (El Nino). We cannot even predict it's behavior outside expecting a large interaction or a smaller one. The atlantic currents are pretty much predicable and we do know much more about it. But something we don't know is how the El Nino effects are powerful enough to effect the north atlantic oscillation wich effect the atlantic currents as well as weather pattern across north america as well as northern Europe. We do know that El Nino can effect it but the NAO is another one of many El Nino like effects that we don't understand in ways to make complete blanket statments like humans are destroying the world thru the weather.

That argument was dumb the last time you posted it and it's still dumb now.

As I responded last time, it's true that most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are natural. Without them, the Earth would be tens of degrees cooler. Our contributions are a relatively small addition on top of that effect, but they are still enough to raise temperatures by several degrees, which is what the whole global warming issue is about.

And you asumptions are wrong. The site I linked to shows that the amounts of human greenhouse gasses are a fraction of what is the true effect. I think your statment about without the other greenhouse gasses the earth would be cooler by 10 degees. But the fact show that man made green house gasses acount for less then 1 percent of total gasses contributing to the effect. Yet the less then one percent is supposed to move the climate to more then half the effect of all the other greenhouse gasses combined. If you ignore water vapor, then it makes more sence. But we don't live in a world without water vapor. This intentional omision to promote a cause is what is dumb! It is also more evidence to suggest an alterior motive to the whole global warming; we have to do something now movment.

Because that would be stupid, and unlike our CO2 emissions, our water vapor emissions are not causing substantial climate change.

I don't know if you looked at that page I linked to in the other post or not, but the conclusion is that human GHG contribution is as negligable too. Why would it make sence to concentrate there? Go ahead and tell me about numbers that ignore water vapor to make the impact apear greater. Or better yet, point me to a study that factors it in and still comes to the popular conclusion. BTW here is that link again.

Something else you respneded to in the other reply was the comment I made about people claiming things were caused by global warming then someone else having to change that statment and show it was caused by something else. You resopnce was Quotes, please. What the scientists usually say is that "global warming may be contributing to the warm winter". you then link to a site who's fist line discusses this axact same thing. So I guess you were either wanting the newscasters names to either ind the general location I live in or as it is now happening you were trying to make sure they had thier credentials revoked. It is amazing that we just had a discusion were i made the acusation of people being ridiculed, blackballed and other things when they disputed global warming and now

The data, as well as the physics, do far more than "suggest" it to be the case at this point.

Not exactly. Maybe moreso then I apear to give credit to but not to some undenyable extent. That is a real stickler to me and plenty of others. This entire global warming, the cause and what to do about it apear to be more agenda drivin then anything. Plenty of scientist question the extent we effect even to the point of our abilities to do anything about it. Those who do it publicly usualy find themselves in a heap of trouble afterwards.

Scientists are not shunned for having contrarian opinions. They are, however, expected to have arguments against anthropogenic global warming that are as strong as the arguments for it. They do not. And they do have arguments to support their opinions. Thats the point, thier argument is cast aside and they are discounted because they worked for some project with ancient conections to Exxon or something. All we hear is this deosn't seem right or this could be better explained by this process and those evil republicans put you upto this or Exxon is behind it, and all you leave with is someone disagreed yet was backed by some faction we done agree with so they are shills and cannot be trusted as pure science like our opinions. Time and time again this happens.

You're not in a position to evaluate what I am or am not willing to "admit". You complain about how the brave climate skeptics are "labelled" and "shunned" by the dastardly uncritical consensus, but if anyone expresses the opinion that the case for AGW has finally been scientifically established, you label them "brainwashed" and pitiable.

Yes, i do lebel them brainwashed and pitable. And i am in a position to do so. I'm not the one holding onto something as if it was the gospel and fearfull to the point of not entertaining the thought it could be wrong. The evidence definatly supports my theory in the same ways the evidence supports that we are the ones responsible for global warming.

In an article entitled closer look at the numbers, It apears when all natural greenhouse gasses are taking in comparison to man made GHG, we only contribute to around less then half a percent of the total green house effect. And to belive unconditionaly that man mad green house emision is the underlying cause of global warming, we have to discount effects from changes in the weather patterns wich keep a reletive stable earth temperature but shows increases in temperatures were the records are taken, we would have to not consider natural fenominoms like elmino and it's bretheren, volcanic activity (both gas emisions as well as heat, dust and other atmospheric effects), we would have to ignore deforestation and reforestation (wich could account for some weather system changes), we would have to exclude any inacuracies of the oceanic temperature were they measure the intake temperature of cooling water on ships to determin the air temperature and later foudn that to be inacurate, We would have to forget about takeing C02 readings in specific geographical locations at certain times (like at night when plantlife aspires or durring rush hour near the freeway) as one study was found to be doing, An most importantly we would have to forget that we cannot even predict natual occurances like elmino and sunspots or solar activity. So there is some information that isn't acurate because of our own limitations or inocent inconsistancies in data colection that when combined with other data leaves a good room for doubt to the amount of influence that is actualy caused by man.

Now to be fair, some of that information is directly caused by man. But the results of curbing GHG emisions would have no effect in changing or altering the course of that measure. So at minimum, I think focusing on industry and large corperations, attempting to do some global redistribution or wealth campain (kyo

If someone can explain how we caused the same phenomenon 100,000 years ago (said phenomenon being the current near-peak in global temp, on pretty much that cycle), then I'll agree that we are both to blame and can stop it. Otherwise, I'll remain highly aggravated that we don't have a substantial colony on the moon and aren't honestly exploring space.

It is possible for something to be correlated on short timescales, but not correlated on longer timescales.

Going from a correlation to a causation is not trivial, but Patterson seems very confused about this.

Note that even in his own department, Patterson is controversial.

You just proved you can't read a graph. The Ordovician ice age was pretty severe. Our present ice age is really only since the Eocene and the interglacial we are enjoying now eneded only about 10,000 years ago.

In fact the plunge into our current cold phase is about the same shape as the plunge during the Ordovician. We can come out of the present cold phase just as quickly... but it might last another 5 million years before this happens.

The Ordovician cooling correlates with the Taconic orogeny.

Our present cooling corrlelate with the upthrust of the Himalayn mountains, the Colorado and Tibetian plateaus, the Pyrannes, Rockies, Andies and hellenic mountain ranges.

The graph you referenced is excellent.

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

Too bad you can't read what it says. I'm sure TIm Patterson can read it but it you think not you can ask him. You might not be able to pass his courses mind you - but I am sure he has an open mind even for closed minds.

How come he explains that temperatures have actually dropped between 1940 and the 1980's, then makes a statement to the commission (at 03:48) that the last century has seen modest warming ?

And about that ice age, it didn't last very long, in fact the temperature dropped to about what it is today. Take a look at this graph to see how you have sucked up lies:

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

• Man-made CO2 *does* cause a tiny initial rise in the greenhouse effect (that's just simple physics), even if it turns out that its final effect is not the obvious one expected.

• The climate is in the process of abrupt change, as noted from the extremely rapid melting of Greenland ice flows and polar ice cover, and the very dramatic observed slowdown in the Atlantic overturning that drives the Gulf Stream. And these processes are unstoppable, period, no matter what we do.

While many of your points are good, I wouldn't stress so much about predictions of gloom. It's both safer and more credible to stick to objective assessment of the hard science in this area, which is extensive but doesn't always make the headlines.

When faced with minimally-informed climate theorists, I like to direct them to Take the Global Warming Test". (Part of an excellent fossils resource.)

It gives a reasonably accurate scientific picture which non-scientists can comprehend, and most importantly it deflates any agitated arm-waving and predictions of imminent doom. While I'm not a geologist, geologists do tend to take the long view, and given the sheer inertia of the Earth's systems, that is a sound approach.

...as seen over the last 500 million years.

Both the temperature and CO2-levels are at an all time low value.
And the correlation between temperature and CO2 is very weak at best.

If You look at the diagram http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/ image277.gif over the last 500+ million yers of CO2-levels and temperature You will maybe get the impression that the humanitys CO2-production is not the main climate factor.

Just to expand on this point. As you can see, humans really do add a marginal amount. IMHO, the current alarmist attitude serves a good purpose, although it is kind of getting out of hand. The purpose it serves is to try and get clean technologies to be developed and to attempt to change the current wasteful culture into one that conserves more. This is similar to the extremist attitude of organizations like Green Peace. I may not agree with them and their methods, but in the end they serve their purpose (usually getting something that benifits everyone).

CO2 is a horrible greenhouse gas. http://www.icbe.com/emissions/calculate.asp Methane is 21 times more powerful. Some of the other chemicals are thousands of times better greenhouse gases. Secondly, despite the hype, overall, CO2 makes up only 0.5% of the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere, with assumed human contribution (the total increase from 280ppm to 360ppm) equaling 0.28% of the total "greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere. In fact, most of the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere comes from a far more abundant greenhouse gas, namely, water. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html

Now, your argument has become: a change of 0.28% is responsible for all heat increase over the last century, despite the fact that solar cycles far better follow the actual temperature profile of the same period of time.

So, as I've stated in other responses, you must ignore the fact that (in the article you're commenting on) 800,000 years of data show vast (50%) swings in CO2 concentration without human intervention, but human produced CO2 must be causing the current warming trend of the last three decades/12 decades/future 10 decades (based on your current belief).

And it causes more hurricanes, except for this year, when it causes fewer.

I don't disagree that we're getting warmer, but I find it interesting that both you and the article are blaming CO2 for it. Water vapour is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. Did you know that there was an ice age at the end of the Ordovician period 430 million years ago when CO2 levels were more than 11 times greater than now?

No, what I'm saying is that all the crazy shit that will hapen as a result of climate change is inevitable. Recent human actions looks like they may force the direction, but the climate isn't stable, so it was changing anyway.

An ice age won't "come along and save us" because (a) we're in an ice age right now (which is over 100 million years old), and (b) returning to normal temperatures for the current ice age may be worse than global warming.

Look at the Voctock data yourself (or google for it if you don't like that page). We're about 5 degrees C above the median for recent history, and a bit below the normal peak for a warming cycle.