Actually, if you scroll a couple of dozens posts up, you'll probably see half a dozen posts saying exactly that.
Sorry, I didn't think I was responsible for what other people said. Shall I lambast you because of what other people said, too?
I suppose the phrase "nobody said" when defending one's own arguments could be misconstrued to mean "the entirety of humanity agrees with me." I mean, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that, and it's honestly fairly clear I meant myself, but I guess when talking to you I need to be more careful. In the future, I will be certain to be more specific, when pointing out that you are attempting to hold me to claims I never made.
And claiming that these opinions are based on concrete scientific fact. There are quite a few people claiming it.
Not by me.
There is a clear financial motive for most of the source of anti-global warming research, most of it is derived from the the companies most likely to be adversely affected by climate regulation.
Yawn. Not by or for me. Exxon isn't paying me any money, and the data I'm reading comes from thermometers. It's kind of hard to bribe a thermometer. Or, didn't you know that weather balloons broadcast their data by radio, and thus couldn't be tainted? Or, has your paranoia gotten so bad that you actually believe the USGS is making faulty hardware to support corporate interests?
I get very tired of you argueing what I'm saying based on what other people are saying. I don't give a shit what other people are saying and it has no impact on what I'm saying. If you are unable to discuss honestly, find someone else to talk to.
It doesn't mean they're wrong, you just have to be very careful with the information they present you, it's been tailored to help ensure they make the most money they can.
They're not giving me my data, which you would know if you had bothered to follow any of my citations. Please stop arguing based on expectation. Your expectations in this matter have been almost universally wrong. I get sick of you calling me wrong because of guesses you made about me.
Now, the issue about C02 levels not rising seem disingenous, current carbon dioxide levels seem to be significantly higher than historical ones.
Again, this is only true if you ignore everything other than the last two hundred years. In the Holocene period we were well over 3500 PPM. In the Mesozoic we generally fluctuated between 1400 and 2100 PPM. You're freaking out over the difference between 295 and 380. Jesus god, man, get a sense of perspective. How many times do I have to tell you we're at the bottom of a valley before you quit screaming about how we're going to suffocate a hundred feet up the hill?
Higher than the historical maxima, and they're still rising.
Doesn't it embarrass you to spout falsehoods like this? I realize you're just going on images like this, or maybe slightly wider images like this, but if you can't see the problem just between those two, then I suspect an image like this would be completely lost on you.
I'd like to see more specific reasons why Kyoto and greenhouse gas curbing iniative are "bad science" than the vague claims you are giving and a reference to a documentary that's not very well respected even by the people who are in it.
That's far from the only reference I've given. Quit pretending it is.
Yes, you keep claiming that documentary isn't well respected. Except, I see no proof of that. You're demanding proof based on things you won't prove, that I repeatedly ask you to prove, which you continue to ignore. Hypocrite. Find me any evidence that documentary is ill respected, or quit tel
It's funny, the scientists in the program make the claim that they were grossly misrepresented by the other side. I'd love to know who in that program feels they were misrepresented, and how. Carl Wunsch is doubtless one of them, but then, he always says that.
Thank you for the update in the difference between channels. As an American, I thought all British national TV was BBC. Someone else made a very similar comment, with the extension that it being channel 4 rather than the BBC made, and I quote, "all the difference." In America, there are several channels which Must Not Be Taken Seriously. Am I to understand that in Britain, channel 4 is one of those?
Massive amounts of scientific evidence disagree with that claim.
No, they don't. Cite them. What you're going to generate are a list of political polemics based on other papers, not actual scientific papers. Then, one by one, you'll realize that they all misinterpret the papers they're based on. Please stop saying things like "massive amounts of blah blah." Either cite it or it doesn't exist. You cannot expect me to debunk things you read that you won't even indicate, and it becomes clear from your reference to RealClimate that you confuse the personal blogs of individuals with actual science.
I refer you to the 2006 comprehensive review of Foukal et al. in Nature.
Er. That review agrees with me. Have you even read it?
The reason the cold phase matters is that I take the position that the primary determinant of atmospheric CO2 rates is the temperature of the ocean. Mind you, I'm not claiming the ocean is a source of CO2; rather that it's a storage unit. Insert the well-worn fuel versus battery argument here. The primary source of CO2 is a few billion years of volcanic outgassing (from my perspective, the biota impact - rotting plants and so on - is just another battery, like the ocean, having originally gotten its CO2 from the air.)
The primary determinant, however, is the ocean. Remember that thing they showed us in middle school, where you mix a bunch of salt into hot water, and then cool it off, and the salt starts coming back out? The dissolution of a solute in a solvent is frequently governed by temperature. Salt likes hot water.
CO2 likes cold water. The colder the water (to a point, but the oceans never leave that range, so whatever) the more CO2 it can hold. If the ocean warms up, it starts releasing CO2.
And, do remember, the global warming people have been telling us all how the ocean is warming. They think it's a result, rather than a cause - greenhouse gasses supposedly warm the planet, so why shouldn't that affect the ocean, style of thing. Except, of course, if you ask an oceanologist, they'll tell you that the Earth's oceans have a temperature memory of about 700 years (a small ice cube accepts heat faster than a large ice cube, and the ocean is pretty damn big.)
We haven't been making CO2 that long. If the oceans are warming up, either we all did a whole *lot* of peeing in the ocean around the Renaissance, or something else is going on. If you look at the graphs, solar activity and global temperature are extremely strongly correlated, and CO2 has that same correlation with about a 680 year lag. Funny how close that is to the ocean's temperature memory, no? Look, how many times were you told as a kid that most of the planet's heat comes from the sun? Now, why are you so reluctant to consider that as a possible cause of Global Warming?
The sun's magnetic field is more than twice as strong now as it was at the end of our recent cold spike. It increases at a shockingly close correlation to our temperature.
Also, if you work under the assumption that our current CO2 rates are 700 years delayed, then our current CO2 rates are doing exactly what you'd expect, given temperatures in the 1300s. Just give it a look. You might be surprised how much better some other explanations fit the data than does CO2 Greenhousing.
Feh. If volcanoes cause CO2 increases, then they would have been doing so for the past many millions of years, and CO2 levels would be monstrous.
Uh. Are you seriously claiming volcanoes don't outgas CO2? Yes, they *have* been doing so for the past many millions of years, and they are the primary source of atmospheric CO2 (people will tell you it's the ocean, because the ocean outgasses a whole lot more than volcanoes do, but the ocean had to get it from somewhere.)
The only reason you don't think current CO2 levels are monsterous is because you evolved for this atmosphere.
Neither of these sentences are even remotely close to true. You have been demanding data sources, so where are your sources for this?
In the post you're replying to, among other places. Try looking for links.
By the by, whereas I'm not entirely sure where the page you're pasting gets its data, mankind certainly is not outpacing volcanoes 150:1. The number it cites is appropriate for a small volcano. It seems quite likely to me - though I don't actually know - that the person running that page has mistaken Gerlach's estimate of one volcano for all volcanoes globally.
If you look in the post you replied to - search for the phrase "scare document" - and follow the link, you'll find that document claiming that global volcano activity creates almost exactly one thousand times as much CO2 as the document you cited.
Yes, yours is volcano.und.edu - the machine at the university of North Dakota named "volcano." However, if you look, you'll find that it's actually one guy's personal outreach project to middle schools, that the guy is just hosting on the machines at UND's aerospace department, and that he himself has nothing whatsoever to do with the university (which is why his email address is at space.com.)
On the other hand, the thing I published is a peer-reviewed document which has been internationally published, and is created by dozens of individuals at the Global Change Institute at the University of Michigan (not only one of the best universities in America, but arguably the strongest climatology program on the continent.)
Believe it or not, just because it's a source doesn't mean it's a good one. Look closer next time. The correct number is 3.4 x 10^15 grams.
Well, for one, you might start reading the damn papers. There's a reason that the two claim an order of magnitude difference in the carbon deposition rate: one counts underwater volcanoes, and the other doesn't. Underwater volcanoes release a hell of a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere, because there are so damned many of them (that shouldn't come as a surprise, considering how much more seafloor there is than land shelf, as well as the better proximity to the mantle, the higher thermal stresses and the placement of fault lines.)
For two, one paper counts total human CO2 output, whereas the other counts CO2 outgassing. There's a huge difference. Human CO2 output counts all the CO2 trapped inside plastic, all the CO2 used to treat timber, all the CO2 baked into bricks, all the CO2 captured and sold industrially, all the CO2 bound into salt, all the CO2 used to crack gasoline, all the CO2 used in treating steel, et cetera.
Does it really surprise you that less than one percent of the CO2 we create is lost to the atmosphere? It's an extremely useful industrial gas, and using it typically consumes it by binding it into the material.
Oh how wrong you are about volcanoes.
Not quite.
Sucks when you have no data to back you up, doesn't it?
I wouldn't know. If you had been reading what I wrote more closely, maybe you would have found the data I cited, and had the good sense to try to figure out the differences before going into attack mode.
If you want to reply to this, wait until you've calmed down. You seem to think you're an information bully, out to strip people of their childish beliefs by throwing data at them which you briefly googled up. When you learn that a brief glance over data isn't the same thing as an understanding thereof, lemme know.
If you don't wait until you've calmed down and started to behave as an adult before replying, I will simply ignore you. I'm sure you'll claim it's because I'm wrong and flee-ing, but it's actually because I find conversation with agressive people unpleasant. Yes, I know I'm aggressive too. You don't need to mention it. The difference is that I'm not just blindly pasting data I got off of Google. I'm citing things I actually understand.
Settle down, or find someone else to talk to. There's making your case, then there's being a dick about it.
And yet you have not provided a single citation yourself. Fascinating.
You really need to learn to read. I've provided quite a few.
Now please explain to me "Arrhenius had nothing to do with this.
I made a mistake. Your google is apparently better than my understanding of scientific history from 110 years ago. He was dead in the 30s (maybe earlier,) and the current fascination with global warming started in the late 1960s, at the end of the Global Cooling scare.
You're right: this scare came around during Arrhenius' time too. I didn't know that. Funny how there was a 20 year "scientifically accurate, data-driven" global cooling scare inbetween.
Please, please please: Explain your Arrhenius comment, and cite your volcanic emissions data. And "Source: Out of my ass" is not sufficient.
It takes an individual of poor character to demand what they themselves refuse to do. Or did you forget that I've been waiting for you to defend your own mistakes?
I appreciate the supporting voice. Sometimes just hearing the same thing out of two different mouths is enough to convince people to take a second look. The belief some people take in that a lone dissenting voice must be crazy is unfortunate.
Mutually corroborating data makes for a convincing argument. When multiple investigative conclusions all point to the same thing, it's hard to say the conclusion should be dismissed based in inaccuracy.
I agree. That's why when I see the ice record disagreeing with CO2-driven warming, the CO2 sedimentation record disagreeing, weather balloons disagreeing, the atmospheric temperature gradient disagreeing, oceanic outgassing measurements disagreeing, the CO2/temperature correlation disagreeing and basic common sense disagreeing, I start thinking it's hard to say that the conclusion that global warming is driven by this vanishingly rare industrial gas whose primary output is a system that has been in place throughout the entire life of the planet is incorrect can be argued.
The ice core itself may or may not be accurate enough (what is enough?) But when considered along with everything else, it is spot on.
Yes, they all agree that CO2-driven global warming is a fundamental impossibility. This is why it is looked down upon to make broad statements like "with everything else" - you should be giving a list, so that you can realize that you're not actually on nearly as solid ground as you believe that you are.
Suppose we indulge you for a moment. 10 years?
I'd prefer to indulge in the six hundred million years of data provided by the things you're carefully ignoring, but okay.
10 years? The industrial revolution has been going on a lot longer than that. Even with a margin of 10 years, the general trend is *not* due to statistical sampling or measurement errors.
Luckily, I never said that it was. I was too busy focussing on realistic data that predates animal life, rather than on measurements that go back almost as far as a middle aged man.
I'll be careful to raise my child to be humiliated when they say "your claim X isn't true," only to realize that the person never actually claimed X. That should prevent them from behaving as you do.
By the way, I don't like the way you associated global warming with the wholesale rape of baby seals. (It's not much better when the lies are on topic, either. Funny how what you claim I said isn't actually coming out of my posts.)
The "source" that you cite is nothing more than the polished product of a video production outfit.
What I've never understood is how someone can pretend someone else has only one source, attack that source based on something that isn't a useful observation, and then walk away as anything other than ashamed of themselves.
So, if you ignore everything else I said, and rely only on a professionally edited documentary by a neutral organization featuring dozens of professional climatologists, data which nobody has claimed is false and observations that nobody has claimed to have specific fault with, this is, what, supposed to be inferior to your well thought out opinion or something?
Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?
Reductionism is tiresome. Don't attack 10% of my sources on validity and then claim there are no others. By the way, I don't see you citing a damn thing, which is a hell of a lot less authoratative than the thing you're currently whining about. Indeed, the only things anyone seem to be citing are Wikipedia, bastion of popular belief, and random people's personal web pages. Wow! The Nobody Ever Heard Of It Institute! I'm impressed!
When you can read one of these models, or even argue without putting lies in other people's mouths, lemme know, and I'll take you a little more seriously.
Professionally speaking, they're no different from "alien autopsy", "moon landing hoax", and other similar embarrassments.
Why do you agree with this graph when the data was collected using ice core samples? I thought you didn't believe in ice core samples?
I never said any such thing. What I said was that their time accuracy was approximately one decade, which faulted the specific argument being made at the time by a third party.
Log in. I'm getting tired of dealing with your anonymous trolling. Have the balls to have a name.
He probably won't drown at all. Given a sealed container of roughly human size, he'll suffocate far before drowning.
Actually, the outgassing in the water will transfer more than enough oxygen into the air, provided any significant water transfer rate. It's pretty amusing to me that much like how the story wouldn't be here if people understood water outgassing, neither apparently would the troll insults (not you, grandparent.)
The most likely fashion of death in the 1.001% in, 1% out model is hypothermia. Failing that, you're probably looking at being crushed to death by the increasing pressure in the box, or possibly starvation. Someone would only drown if they were forced to stand up inside the box for air, and fell asleep (which is easy to do in cold water.)
The spike is over the last 150 years or so, and basic modeling techniques show you that it is abnormal.
Yeah. We've had several volcanoes commit a tremendous amount of CO2 to the atmosphere lately, as I've now mentioned several times in several places. Just because the trend doesn't do what you expect doesn't mean we're to blame. There are more than a dozen things on this planet that regularly put out more CO2 than we do. Until you have investigated all of them, your analysis is not complete.
All your questions can be answered by looking through the two graphs I provided you.
Think so? Try it: you might be in for a surprise. I don't actually see those two graphs saying anything I didn't say. Perhaps you could be more specific, instead of just handwaving everything away?
However, our emissions are currently not being absorbed as fast as they are generated
They were until 1983, and our CO2 output has not increased much since then (sure we're growing, but we're also becoming more efficient.) The reason the CO2 is no longer being absorbed is because the ocean is outgassing. You're jumping to conclusions (though unlike most of this other thread, you're at least drawing conclusions based on actual throught, rather than repeating what you heard.)
The believed primary reason for the CO2 upshot, under the current understanding given by academic climatology, is twofold: 1) volcanic activity, 2) oceanic warming.
That's the key part - we are putting stuff into the regular cycle that doesn't get absorbed.
Well, it is and it isn't. I mean sure, the vanishingly small amount of CO2 we're contributing to the global CO2 model - we're responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of what's going into the atmosphere, remember - does in turn have a vanishingly small impact on the global thermal model. That said, this is a little like saying that the reason the chicken in your oven is cooking is because of the heat increase caused by the cigarette you're smoking in the other room.
Does it have an impact? Yes. Is the impact so small as to be completely unimportant? Yes.
I realize there's an impact. You don't need to keep proving the impact. What you need to understand is that all things equal, there are so many other things involved that the CO2 side of this pretty much just doesn't matter in any significant way.
Animal respiration dumps almost eight times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as industry does. Should we kill all other life on the planet?
I know you don't think that it's affecting the earth. You still haven't given a reason why, despite the well known physics of infrared absorption, which are described quite nicely here
Yeah, that's what everyone keeps saying. I don't think that at all. Jesus. There's no point at which I said that. I have never denied that CO2 is warming the Earth. You don't need to keep reminding me of basic physics.
If I tell you that holding a match across the room from your oven isn't cooking the chicken, are you going to remind me about the brownian motion involved in the air between me and the stove? Something can have an unimportant impact, y'know. The total historic human input of carbon dioxide is less than one part per trillion (american trillion) of the entire atmosphere.
Most climatologists believe that humanity has a net decrease on global CO2 creation, because industry generates less CO2 per acre than biota do. Why doesn't anyone take into account what we destroyed when counting what we created?
I've got plenty of data. I can pull data for days.
I'm waiting for the germane stuff. You show what CO2 we create, but not what we destroy. You show disparate graphs of temperature and CO2, then make assumptions about their correlation (which are incorrect) and argue based o
Well you've managed to convince me that you're completely wrong. That little tirade about ice cores proves you're either disingenous, stupid or both.
Personal attack is the last resort of someone without the presence of character to admit a mistake. (You might want to look up disingenuous by the way - it applies to statements, not people.)
Ice core samples don't have to be accurate to less than ten years, you use ice core samples to estimate atmsopheric readings beyond the years we have atmospheric readings for. You can claim that's not the most accurate way to measure it, but frankly it's the most accurate measure we have.
I made no such claim, and that's only the most accurate method we have if you don't know about CO2 sedimentation, which can be dated down to the month.
According the information I've seen, for example This graph at wikipedia, it looks like CO2 levels are rising at rather dramatic rate.
Yes, they are. That's what happens when solar peaks start feeding plants, as the fossil record shows clear as day over the last six hundred million years.
However, it looks like the CO2 levels have rising by almost 25% over the last 3 decades
Yep. And, as long as you look at charts which rely on a spectacularly tiny fourty year window, and ignore all data other than the two things you want to correlate, then you're going to have ample reason to continue to believe what you believe.
Also your claim that we have less than 30 years of atmospheric readings for CO2 seems very suspect, considering the chart I referenced above has over 40 years of atmospheric readings on it.
You're confusing ice core samples with atmospheric readings. We've only been able to make CO2 meters light enough to put into high-air balloons since the advent of tiny cheap CPUs.
So, are you just repeating verbatim the anti-global warming rhetoric from over a decade ago or what?No, though you seem absolutely desperate to paint me with that brush. Funny how everything you refer to is from decades ago, but then you attempt to lambast me for exactly the same. Except, of course, many of the things that I've cited are less than two years old, which you'd know if you'd looked into them.
The word hypocrite comes to mind. I'm done with this discussion; you're obviously not listening.
You need to read that article much more carefully. What it actually says is that CO2 has raised from ~295 to ~380 parts per million since we started being an industrial race.
Now, ignoring the poor math that leads to that being called a third, let's be clear: this is the freshman philosophy class teaching the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." All you have discovered is that CO2 is going up. That it happened while we were in the industrial growth phase does not mean that we created it.
It's worth actually looking at the CO2 graph. You'll find for example that the vast bulk of those increases occur after Mount Saint Helens, Mount Pinatubo, Cerro Hudson, El Chichon, Ksudach or Novarupta.
Wow, CO2 went up since we invented the internal combustion engine. IT MUST BE OUR FAULT! (sigh)
----
As a side note, I think this is my favorite example of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. That it's about global warming is coincidence; lord knows I dust this off every time someone reveals a basic infamiliarity with logic. But, I've got to admit, that it's topical is icing on the cake.
Ok, historically CO2 has been part of the feedback to solar forcing of climate change.
I realize it's traditional for people defending global warming to do so without actual data, but let me be clear with you: if you don't have data, I'm not going to listen to a word you say. I'm looking at a climatological record right now, and I see not one bit of evidence that the CO2 level has ever reinforced temperature in any way. STOP MAKING UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. THEY HAVE NO VALUE.
But the increased CO2 has been a positive feedback, sustaining the climate change well past the solar forcing.
No experimental evidence has ever shown this. What you are reciting is the speculation of a Swedish pseudoscientist from the 1960s. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. You might as well be telling me about how oxygen transfers into and out of the phlogiston. (If you don't know what the phlogiston is, you probably don't understand my violent reaction to the droning repetition of bad science. I'll be simple and say "global warming isn't the first time science has done this.")
What's different this time is that due to human activity we are pushing CO2 directly
You do realize that by ratio, if you dump a single bucket of water into Lake Erie, you've put a hell of a lot more change in parts per million into Lake Erie than mankind has put into atmospheric CO2 throughout all time, right? Yes, we're pushing CO2 directly. And we're doing it at a rate that makes me question whether you've ever actually looked at the math, once you say that. There are other greenhouse gasses we've pushed more of into the atmosphere, for fuck's sake. Why are you so fixated on CO2? Our impact through water vapor, for example, should be several orders of magnitude greater than that through CO2, but I don't see any international movements to cover our pools, or put saran wrap over our bathtubs.
Do you see the spike? My eyeballs tell me the slope is roughly 100ppm/century.
Yes, that number is about right. Amusingly, it's parts per million against emitted gasses, not against the atmosphere, which is why any intro to statistics class will tell you to never, ever rely on charts that don't explain units of measurement, since you actually have no idea whatsoever what they're saying. This is a common sense issue, something you might try out. If it was 100 parts per million per century, then in the last 250 years, as shown by that chart, 2.5% of our atmosphere would have been replaced by carbon dioxide.
Do you really believe we've replaced 1/40 of our atmosphere with carbon dioxide? Really?
But, more specifically:
Do you see the spike?
Yes, in the same way that one might say there's a mountain in front of me, then point out an anthill. Wow, you found a slight shift in the ratio of constituent gasses released by humanity.
Now find the spike in a graph of those actual gasses. When you realize that our CO2 change is so minor that you can't even see the point on the graph just in the gasses we release, let alone in gas presence, maybe you'll start understanding the scorn.
HOLY CRAP, THERE'S A CAR RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, GET OUT OF THE WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HIT IT! Here, use this telescope. Can't you see it?
Yes, the ratio of CO2 to other gasses we're emitting is going up. THAT IS A GOOD THING. The other things we emit are much, much worse. I'm going to say it again, and maybe this time you'll listen.
Mount Saint Helens released more CO2 than humanity has in its entire existence. The ash from Mount Saint Helens had settled within a month. Why is it that Mount Saint Helens is in the downslope of temperature, if it happened to release double of mankind's total global warming mechanism all over the matter of a few hours? Why point at data which is better explained by other thing
To my knowledge, Ice core records correlate pretty well with tree ring records and other geologic evidence.
That has what, exactly, to do with their being difficult to date more accurately than ten years? (By the way, where do you believe those correlations come from? Something other than estimates?)
Oh right, and also, where did I say they failed to correlate? Oh, right: I didn't.
Pretty much all of it stands up to scientific scrutiny.
You should look up the phrase "weasel words." All of what, exactly? Do you believe you see me saying the ice core samples are wrong? Because I never said that. All I said was that parent was likely jumping to conclusions based on a poor understanding of the data the ice cores gave.
You seem to have turned that, in your mind, into something else entirely.
Would you mind citing *your* source to support your claims?I've cited several, and if you'd bother to follow any of the links I'd given, you'd have watched a documentary that showed similar data. I realize you think it's cute to catch someone asking others to support their data and say "no u," but maybe you should check and find out whether they did before accusing them of not having done so.
What part of "don't bother replying without data" is too complicated for you? I most certainly am not dead wrong about that; I've got a history in this. You, I suspect, do not. (Whatever fool moderated that "informative" doesn't have the slightest idea how moderation works; saying "nuh-uh" is not informative in the slightest.)
Stop claiming to know things you don't. Either cite actual data, or shut your mouth. All you're doing is spreading environment FUD. The problem is, this kind of FUD can do us all very real, very permanent damage.
Cite data next time, or consider yourself called a liar in public.
Parent post (my own) is not flamebait. It is a belief based on clear science, and it cites an explanation. There's nothing even remotely trollish about it. Please meta-moderate the moderators who've confused disagreement with trolling into the ground, lest they do the same thing to you the first time you say something unpopular.
Slashdot should be looking into a more permanent fix for people who don't know what (-1, troll) means. This has been a serious problem for several years now, and it's getting progressively worse.
I love the way people are able to discard mountains of scientific evidence on the basis of a crappy documentary.
I'm ot discarding it on the basis of that documentary. As someone who can read the actual climatological models in question, I'm speaking from my own impressions of the data.
The documentary (which wasn't made by the BBC) has been strongly debunked
Where, please? All I see you pointing out is a dubious wikipedia claim about one of the dozens of people contained. Given that I have personal access to two of the other people contained, and given that they're not reacting at all in the fashion Wikipedia claims, I remain skeptical of the other wikipedia-driven opinions you have. Can you show me an actual debunking, or just one scientist saying "just because we don't have current proof doesn't mean we can't affect the environment?"
You seem to be confused. Allow me to help you. Nobody said "humans aren't warming the earth." Nobody said "we have no part in global warming." Was was said was "our current climate models are so poor as to be unusable, and the international treaties we've made to stop this phenomenon are based on bad science."
Is there a problem? Yes. Does the Kyoto treaty address it in any way? No.
Carl Wunsch is well known for being excitable. I'm surprised he hasn't lambasted any of his own out of date work as clueless and reprehensible yet. He's a brilliant scientist, but he has completely lost the ability to interface with normal people. If you can show Carl, or anyone else, pointing out specific flaws in the science, I'm all ears.
That said, when you get right down to it, the carbon dioxide we're introducing into the atmosphere right now is NOTHING. Canada's tundra farts more CO2 than this on a semi-regular basis. Every single Russian earthquake scares more CO2 out of the taiga than this.
Am I saying we're not pumping anything awful into the atmosphere? God, no. But the CO2 isn't the problem, and our current treaties don't address the problem.
I believe that CO2-driven Global Warming is a hoax, and it's not just based on that documentary; you can dig through my comment history and see me pointing out many of these things long before that documentary was made. I'm basing my beliefs on clear science: the CO2 levels are way below planetary norms even after human involvement, there's a much stronger predictor of temperature data, and there's a clear proof that CO2 is an effect, not a cause.
Without making vague claims that "such and such" has been debunked or that "some scientist [I just learned about] says that documentary didn't waste half its running time listening to me vascillate," can you point to any actual science that shows any good reason for the CO2 to have that lag, or why the current CO2 rate should be a disaster when it's roughly half the level it was just four hundred years ago?
You can make personal attacks until you're blue in the face. Science laughs at ad hominem. Cite data or stop feigning familiarity.
but I do also believe that our "Global Warming" is just another planetary cycle of which has been occurring for million/billions of years prior to the existence of the first human.Actually, it's primarily solar. You should watch the video; it's very interesting, and is as much about the politics of the situation as the science.
My basic concept is "If you make the mess, you clean it up". The idea is not to make a mess and we "are" making a mess.
Yeah, well, it's a noble idea. However, consider what we would have done if we'd had that mindset 200 years ago, and consider how we'd see those actions today.
The issue isn't that I want us not to clean up our mess. The issue is that we are using the spectre of a problem which doesn't exist to prevent the development of the non-industrialized world, and the effects of our preventing that development on the environment alone are far worse than allowing the development would be (and that's before you look into the starvation, the disease, the horror, the menial labor and so on involved in living like it's the 1700s.)
Industrialization is important for a whole lot of reasons. Lots of those wars going on in Africa would never have happened if they had had the kind of reasonable food supplies that you get from electrified irrigation, refridgeration, and cooking without animal dung.
I am not saying we shouldn't try to do the ecologically sound thing. All I'm saying is we have no idea what that is, and we're not doing things we should be doing out of a culture of fear spawned by 1960s science which has long since been disproven to a degree that would have scuttled any other movement in modern politics today.
It's time we started the science from scratch, and then looked a second time at the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty is well meaning, misguided, ecologically driven international scale murder.
Yes, there's an entire industry behind it, worth about eight times what a science field with that count of people in it is typically worth. Academic funding goes to hot topics. Watch the video.
For the last 100000 years or so, you're right. The only problem is that in the last 150 years or so, CO2 concentration has changed its correlation pattern with temperature.
And you base that on what, exactly? Humanity has less than 30 years of atmospheric data, so I'm rather skeptical. Don't waste my time by bringing up ice core samples; there is no correlation of ice core samples to global temperature which is accurate to less than ten years, and if you actually bother looking at the ice core record, you'll notice that the correlation that we've seen for more than ten million years is actually holding exactly where we would expect for it to.
Start citing sources for data, because on this case, you're dead wrong.
Now, there's a massive CO2 spike that is not explained by temperature dependencies.
That's funny, none of the scientists see said spike. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what year(s) this spike is over, which CO2 measurement you see it on, where the CO2 is (since no such measurement is ever made without an atmospheric segment,) and what the change rate is? (Of course, if you were making the data up, you'd insist that I do the research for myself, that I'm being lazy to ask you to cite data to back up your false claims, but that's what I'm expecting, since I've never seen a pseudoscience book make your claims, and since it's sure as hell not coming from actual planetary data.)
Besides, since you are so sure, riddle me this: we can calculate our CO2 output (it dwarfs natural emissions).
Where do you get this stuff? Humanity is responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere. We are positively dwarfed by rotting vegetation, dead animals and the tundra. However, the vast bulk of atmospheric CO2 (~72%) is released from the ocean CO2 reservoir.
We know the physics behind CO2 absorption of solar radiation. What makes you think that this is affecting the earth?
I don't think it's affecting the earth. Why do you? Don't pull what you did above, making up data and spouting things you expect. If you can't explain with references to data, accept that you have no idea.
I'm always amazed by how easily people believe things they want to believe.
Imagine how that would sound if you found out I was actually operating on good, solid science. Next, go watch the video I posted.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I didn't think I was responsible for what other people said. Shall I lambast you because of what other people said, too?
I suppose the phrase "nobody said" when defending one's own arguments could be misconstrued to mean "the entirety of humanity agrees with me." I mean, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that, and it's honestly fairly clear I meant myself, but I guess when talking to you I need to be more careful. In the future, I will be certain to be more specific, when pointing out that you are attempting to hold me to claims I never made.
Not by me.
Yawn. Not by or for me. Exxon isn't paying me any money, and the data I'm reading comes from thermometers. It's kind of hard to bribe a thermometer. Or, didn't you know that weather balloons broadcast their data by radio, and thus couldn't be tainted? Or, has your paranoia gotten so bad that you actually believe the USGS is making faulty hardware to support corporate interests?
I get very tired of you argueing what I'm saying based on what other people are saying. I don't give a shit what other people are saying and it has no impact on what I'm saying. If you are unable to discuss honestly, find someone else to talk to.
They're not giving me my data, which you would know if you had bothered to follow any of my citations. Please stop arguing based on expectation. Your expectations in this matter have been almost universally wrong. I get sick of you calling me wrong because of guesses you made about me.
Again, this is only true if you ignore everything other than the last two hundred years. In the Holocene period we were well over 3500 PPM. In the Mesozoic we generally fluctuated between 1400 and 2100 PPM. You're freaking out over the difference between 295 and 380. Jesus god, man, get a sense of perspective. How many times do I have to tell you we're at the bottom of a valley before you quit screaming about how we're going to suffocate a hundred feet up the hill?
Doesn't it embarrass you to spout falsehoods like this? I realize you're just going on images like this, or maybe slightly wider images like this, but if you can't see the problem just between those two, then I suspect an image like this would be completely lost on you.
It's funny, the scientists in the program make the claim that they were grossly misrepresented by the other side. I'd love to know who in that program feels they were misrepresented, and how. Carl Wunsch is doubtless one of them, but then, he always says that.
Thank you for the update in the difference between channels. As an American, I thought all British national TV was BBC. Someone else made a very similar comment, with the extension that it being channel 4 rather than the BBC made, and I quote, "all the difference." In America, there are several channels which Must Not Be Taken Seriously. Am I to understand that in Britain, channel 4 is one of those?
The reason the cold phase matters is that I take the position that the primary determinant of atmospheric CO2 rates is the temperature of the ocean. Mind you, I'm not claiming the ocean is a source of CO2; rather that it's a storage unit. Insert the well-worn fuel versus battery argument here. The primary source of CO2 is a few billion years of volcanic outgassing (from my perspective, the biota impact - rotting plants and so on - is just another battery, like the ocean, having originally gotten its CO2 from the air.)
The primary determinant, however, is the ocean. Remember that thing they showed us in middle school, where you mix a bunch of salt into hot water, and then cool it off, and the salt starts coming back out? The dissolution of a solute in a solvent is frequently governed by temperature. Salt likes hot water.
CO2 likes cold water. The colder the water (to a point, but the oceans never leave that range, so whatever) the more CO2 it can hold. If the ocean warms up, it starts releasing CO2.
And, do remember, the global warming people have been telling us all how the ocean is warming. They think it's a result, rather than a cause - greenhouse gasses supposedly warm the planet, so why shouldn't that affect the ocean, style of thing. Except, of course, if you ask an oceanologist, they'll tell you that the Earth's oceans have a temperature memory of about 700 years (a small ice cube accepts heat faster than a large ice cube, and the ocean is pretty damn big.)
We haven't been making CO2 that long. If the oceans are warming up, either we all did a whole *lot* of peeing in the ocean around the Renaissance, or something else is going on. If you look at the graphs, solar activity and global temperature are extremely strongly correlated, and CO2 has that same correlation with about a 680 year lag. Funny how close that is to the ocean's temperature memory, no? Look, how many times were you told as a kid that most of the planet's heat comes from the sun? Now, why are you so reluctant to consider that as a possible cause of Global Warming?
The sun's magnetic field is more than twice as strong now as it was at the end of our recent cold spike. It increases at a shockingly close correlation to our temperature.
Also, if you work under the assumption that our current CO2 rates are 700 years delayed, then our current CO2 rates are doing exactly what you'd expect, given temperatures in the 1300s. Just give it a look. You might be surprised how much better some other explanations fit the data than does CO2 Greenhousing.
The only reason you don't think current CO2 levels are monsterous is because you evolved for this atmosphere.
By the by, whereas I'm not entirely sure where the page you're pasting gets its data, mankind certainly is not outpacing volcanoes 150:1. The number it cites is appropriate for a small volcano. It seems quite likely to me - though I don't actually know - that the person running that page has mistaken Gerlach's estimate of one volcano for all volcanoes globally.
If you look in the post you replied to - search for the phrase "scare document" - and follow the link, you'll find that document claiming that global volcano activity creates almost exactly one thousand times as much CO2 as the document you cited.
Yes, yours is volcano.und.edu - the machine at the university of North Dakota named "volcano." However, if you look, you'll find that it's actually one guy's personal outreach project to middle schools, that the guy is just hosting on the machines at UND's aerospace department, and that he himself has nothing whatsoever to do with the university (which is why his email address is at space.com
On the other hand, the thing I published is a peer-reviewed document which has been internationally published, and is created by dozens of individuals at the Global Change Institute at the University of Michigan (not only one of the best universities in America, but arguably the strongest climatology program on the continent.)
Believe it or not, just because it's a source doesn't mean it's a good one. Look closer next time. The correct number is 3.4 x 10^15 grams.
What does that teach you?
Well, for one, you might start reading the damn papers. There's a reason that the two claim an order of magnitude difference in the carbon deposition rate: one counts underwater volcanoes, and the other doesn't. Underwater volcanoes release a hell of a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere, because there are so damned many of them (that shouldn't come as a surprise, considering how much more seafloor there is than land shelf, as well as the better proximity to the mantle, the higher thermal stresses and the placement of fault lines.)
For two, one paper counts total human CO2 output, whereas the other counts CO2 outgassing. There's a huge difference. Human CO2 output counts all the CO2 trapped inside plastic, all the CO2 used to treat timber, all the CO2 baked into bricks, all the CO2 captured and sold industrially, all the CO2 bound into salt, all the CO2 used to crack gasoline, all the CO2 used in treating steel, et cetera.
Does it really surprise you that less than one percent of the CO2 we create is lost to the atmosphere? It's an extremely useful industrial gas, and using it typically consumes it by binding it into the material.Not quite.I wouldn't know. If you had been reading what I wrote more closely, maybe you would have found the data I cited, and had the good sense to try to figure out the differences before going into attack mode.
If you want to reply to this, wait until you've calmed down. You seem to think you're an information bully, out to strip people of their childish beliefs by throwing data at them which you briefly googled up. When you learn that a brief glance over data isn't the same thing as an understanding thereof, lemme know.
If you don't wait until you've calmed down and started to behave as an adult before replying, I will simply ignore you. I'm sure you'll claim it's because I'm wrong and flee-ing, but it's actually because I find conversation with agressive people unpleasant. Yes, I know I'm aggressive too. You don't need to mention it. The difference is that I'm not just blindly pasting data I got off of Google. I'm citing things I actually understand.
Settle down, or find someone else to talk to. There's making your case, then there's being a dick about it.
You're right: this scare came around during Arrhenius' time too. I didn't know that. Funny how there was a 20 year "scientifically accurate, data-driven" global cooling scare inbetween.It takes an individual of poor character to demand what they themselves refuse to do. Or did you forget that I've been waiting for you to defend your own mistakes?
What's good for the goose, et cetera.
I appreciate the supporting voice. Sometimes just hearing the same thing out of two different mouths is enough to convince people to take a second look. The belief some people take in that a lone dissenting voice must be crazy is unfortunate.
I agree. That's why when I see the ice record disagreeing with CO2-driven warming, the CO2 sedimentation record disagreeing, weather balloons disagreeing, the atmospheric temperature gradient disagreeing, oceanic outgassing measurements disagreeing, the CO2/temperature correlation disagreeing and basic common sense disagreeing, I start thinking it's hard to say that the conclusion that global warming is driven by this vanishingly rare industrial gas whose primary output is a system that has been in place throughout the entire life of the planet is incorrect can be argued.
Yes, they all agree that CO2-driven global warming is a fundamental impossibility. This is why it is looked down upon to make broad statements like "with everything else" - you should be giving a list, so that you can realize that you're not actually on nearly as solid ground as you believe that you are.
I'd prefer to indulge in the six hundred million years of data provided by the things you're carefully ignoring, but okay.
Luckily, I never said that it was. I was too busy focussing on realistic data that predates animal life, rather than on measurements that go back almost as far as a middle aged man.
I'll be careful to raise my child to be humiliated when they say "your claim X isn't true," only to realize that the person never actually claimed X. That should prevent them from behaving as you do.
By the way, I don't like the way you associated global warming with the wholesale rape of baby seals. (It's not much better when the lies are on topic, either. Funny how what you claim I said isn't actually coming out of my posts.)
What I've never understood is how someone can pretend someone else has only one source, attack that source based on something that isn't a useful observation, and then walk away as anything other than ashamed of themselves.
So, if you ignore everything else I said, and rely only on a professionally edited documentary by a neutral organization featuring dozens of professional climatologists, data which nobody has claimed is false and observations that nobody has claimed to have specific fault with, this is, what, supposed to be inferior to your well thought out opinion or something?
Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?
Reductionism is tiresome. Don't attack 10% of my sources on validity and then claim there are no others. By the way, I don't see you citing a damn thing, which is a hell of a lot less authoratative than the thing you're currently whining about. Indeed, the only things anyone seem to be citing are Wikipedia, bastion of popular belief, and random people's personal web pages. Wow! The Nobody Ever Heard Of It Institute! I'm impressed!
When you can read one of these models, or even argue without putting lies in other people's mouths, lemme know, and I'll take you a little more seriously.
It doesn't actually much surprise me that you ca
Log in. I'm getting tired of dealing with your anonymous trolling. Have the balls to have a name.
The most likely fashion of death in the 1.001% in, 1% out model is hypothermia. Failing that, you're probably looking at being crushed to death by the increasing pressure in the box, or possibly starvation. Someone would only drown if they were forced to stand up inside the box for air, and fell asleep (which is easy to do in cold water.)
Yeah. We've had several volcanoes commit a tremendous amount of CO2 to the atmosphere lately, as I've now mentioned several times in several places. Just because the trend doesn't do what you expect doesn't mean we're to blame. There are more than a dozen things on this planet that regularly put out more CO2 than we do. Until you have investigated all of them, your analysis is not complete.
Think so? Try it: you might be in for a surprise. I don't actually see those two graphs saying anything I didn't say. Perhaps you could be more specific, instead of just handwaving everything away?
They were until 1983, and our CO2 output has not increased much since then (sure we're growing, but we're also becoming more efficient.) The reason the CO2 is no longer being absorbed is because the ocean is outgassing. You're jumping to conclusions (though unlike most of this other thread, you're at least drawing conclusions based on actual throught, rather than repeating what you heard.)
The believed primary reason for the CO2 upshot, under the current understanding given by academic climatology, is twofold: 1) volcanic activity, 2) oceanic warming.
Well, it is and it isn't. I mean sure, the vanishingly small amount of CO2 we're contributing to the global CO2 model - we're responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of what's going into the atmosphere, remember - does in turn have a vanishingly small impact on the global thermal model. That said, this is a little like saying that the reason the chicken in your oven is cooking is because of the heat increase caused by the cigarette you're smoking in the other room.
Does it have an impact? Yes. Is the impact so small as to be completely unimportant? Yes.
I realize there's an impact. You don't need to keep proving the impact. What you need to understand is that all things equal, there are so many other things involved that the CO2 side of this pretty much just doesn't matter in any significant way.
Animal respiration dumps almost eight times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as industry does. Should we kill all other life on the planet?
Yeah, that's what everyone keeps saying. I don't think that at all. Jesus. There's no point at which I said that. I have never denied that CO2 is warming the Earth. You don't need to keep reminding me of basic physics.
If I tell you that holding a match across the room from your oven isn't cooking the chicken, are you going to remind me about the brownian motion involved in the air between me and the stove? Something can have an unimportant impact, y'know. The total historic human input of carbon dioxide is less than one part per trillion (american trillion) of the entire atmosphere.
Most climatologists believe that humanity has a net decrease on global CO2 creation, because industry generates less CO2 per acre than biota do. Why doesn't anyone take into account what we destroyed when counting what we created?
I'm waiting for the germane stuff. You show what CO2 we create, but not what we destroy. You show disparate graphs of temperature and CO2, then make assumptions about their correlation (which are incorrect) and argue based o
So, are you just repeating verbatim the anti-global warming rhetoric from over a decade ago or what?No, though you seem absolutely desperate to paint me with that brush. Funny how everything you refer to is from decades ago, but then you attempt to lambast me for exactly the same. Except, of course, many of the things that I've cited are less than two years old, which you'd know if you'd looked into them.
The word hypocrite comes to mind. I'm done with this discussion; you're obviously not listening.
Now, ignoring the poor math that leads to that being called a third, let's be clear: this is the freshman philosophy class teaching the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." All you have discovered is that CO2 is going up. That it happened while we were in the industrial growth phase does not mean that we created it.
It's worth actually looking at the CO2 graph. You'll find for example that the vast bulk of those increases occur after Mount Saint Helens, Mount Pinatubo, Cerro Hudson, El Chichon, Ksudach or Novarupta.
Wow, CO2 went up since we invented the internal combustion engine. IT MUST BE OUR FAULT! (sigh)
----
As a side note, I think this is my favorite example of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. That it's about global warming is coincidence; lord knows I dust this off every time someone reveals a basic infamiliarity with logic. But, I've got to admit, that it's topical is icing on the cake.
I realize it's traditional for people defending global warming to do so without actual data, but let me be clear with you: if you don't have data, I'm not going to listen to a word you say. I'm looking at a climatological record right now, and I see not one bit of evidence that the CO2 level has ever reinforced temperature in any way. STOP MAKING UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. THEY HAVE NO VALUE.
No experimental evidence has ever shown this. What you are reciting is the speculation of a Swedish pseudoscientist from the 1960s. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. You might as well be telling me about how oxygen transfers into and out of the phlogiston. (If you don't know what the phlogiston is, you probably don't understand my violent reaction to the droning repetition of bad science. I'll be simple and say "global warming isn't the first time science has done this.")
You do realize that by ratio, if you dump a single bucket of water into Lake Erie, you've put a hell of a lot more change in parts per million into Lake Erie than mankind has put into atmospheric CO2 throughout all time, right? Yes, we're pushing CO2 directly. And we're doing it at a rate that makes me question whether you've ever actually looked at the math, once you say that. There are other greenhouse gasses we've pushed more of into the atmosphere, for fuck's sake. Why are you so fixated on CO2? Our impact through water vapor, for example, should be several orders of magnitude greater than that through CO2, but I don't see any international movements to cover our pools, or put saran wrap over our bathtubs.
Yes, that number is about right. Amusingly, it's parts per million against emitted gasses, not against the atmosphere, which is why any intro to statistics class will tell you to never, ever rely on charts that don't explain units of measurement, since you actually have no idea whatsoever what they're saying. This is a common sense issue, something you might try out. If it was 100 parts per million per century, then in the last 250 years, as shown by that chart, 2.5% of our atmosphere would have been replaced by carbon dioxide.
Do you really believe we've replaced 1/40 of our atmosphere with carbon dioxide? Really ?
But, more specifically:
Yes, in the same way that one might say there's a mountain in front of me, then point out an anthill. Wow, you found a slight shift in the ratio of constituent gasses released by humanity.
Now find the spike in a graph of those actual gasses. When you realize that our CO2 change is so minor that you can't even see the point on the graph just in the gasses we release, let alone in gas presence, maybe you'll start understanding the scorn.
HOLY CRAP, THERE'S A CAR RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, GET OUT OF THE WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HIT IT! Here, use this telescope. Can't you see it?
Yes, the ratio of CO2 to other gasses we're emitting is going up. THAT IS A GOOD THING. The other things we emit are much, much worse. I'm going to say it again, and maybe this time you'll listen.
Mount Saint Helens released more CO2 than humanity has in its entire existence. The ash from Mount Saint Helens had settled within a month. Why is it that Mount Saint Helens is in the downslope of temperature, if it happened to release double of mankind's total global warming mechanism all over the matter of a few hours? Why point at data which is better explained by other thing
Oh right, and also, where did I say they failed to correlate? Oh, right: I didn't.You should look up the phrase "weasel words." All of what, exactly? Do you believe you see me saying the ice core samples are wrong? Because I never said that. All I said was that parent was likely jumping to conclusions based on a poor understanding of the data the ice cores gave.
You seem to have turned that, in your mind, into something else entirely.
Would you mind citing *your* source to support your claims?I've cited several, and if you'd bother to follow any of the links I'd given, you'd have watched a documentary that showed similar data. I realize you think it's cute to catch someone asking others to support their data and say "no u," but maybe you should check and find out whether they did before accusing them of not having done so.
That graph clearly shows CO2 lagging temperature. Thank you for supporting me in so clear a fashion.
What part of "don't bother replying without data" is too complicated for you? I most certainly am not dead wrong about that; I've got a history in this. You, I suspect, do not. (Whatever fool moderated that "informative" doesn't have the slightest idea how moderation works; saying "nuh-uh" is not informative in the slightest.)
Stop claiming to know things you don't. Either cite actual data, or shut your mouth. All you're doing is spreading environment FUD. The problem is, this kind of FUD can do us all very real, very permanent damage.
Cite data next time, or consider yourself called a liar in public.
Parent post (my own) is not flamebait. It is a belief based on clear science, and it cites an explanation. There's nothing even remotely trollish about it. Please meta-moderate the moderators who've confused disagreement with trolling into the ground, lest they do the same thing to you the first time you say something unpopular.
Slashdot should be looking into a more permanent fix for people who don't know what (-1, troll) means. This has been a serious problem for several years now, and it's getting progressively worse.
It'd be nice, but Snopes doesn't have the balls to take on something like that.
You seem to be confused. Allow me to help you. Nobody said "humans aren't warming the earth." Nobody said "we have no part in global warming." Was was said was "our current climate models are so poor as to be unusable, and the international treaties we've made to stop this phenomenon are based on bad science."
Is there a problem? Yes. Does the Kyoto treaty address it in any way? No.
Carl Wunsch is well known for being excitable. I'm surprised he hasn't lambasted any of his own out of date work as clueless and reprehensible yet. He's a brilliant scientist, but he has completely lost the ability to interface with normal people. If you can show Carl, or anyone else, pointing out specific flaws in the science, I'm all ears.
That said, when you get right down to it, the carbon dioxide we're introducing into the atmosphere right now is NOTHING. Canada's tundra farts more CO2 than this on a semi-regular basis. Every single Russian earthquake scares more CO2 out of the taiga than this.
Am I saying we're not pumping anything awful into the atmosphere? God, no. But the CO2 isn't the problem, and our current treaties don't address the problem.
I believe that CO2-driven Global Warming is a hoax, and it's not just based on that documentary; you can dig through my comment history and see me pointing out many of these things long before that documentary was made. I'm basing my beliefs on clear science: the CO2 levels are way below planetary norms even after human involvement, there's a much stronger predictor of temperature data, and there's a clear proof that CO2 is an effect, not a cause.
Without making vague claims that "such and such" has been debunked or that "some scientist [I just learned about] says that documentary didn't waste half its running time listening to me vascillate," can you point to any actual science that shows any good reason for the CO2 to have that lag, or why the current CO2 rate should be a disaster when it's roughly half the level it was just four hundred years ago?
You can make personal attacks until you're blue in the face. Science laughs at ad hominem. Cite data or stop feigning familiarity.
The issue isn't that I want us not to clean up our mess. The issue is that we are using the spectre of a problem which doesn't exist to prevent the development of the non-industrialized world, and the effects of our preventing that development on the environment alone are far worse than allowing the development would be (and that's before you look into the starvation, the disease, the horror, the menial labor and so on involved in living like it's the 1700s.)
Industrialization is important for a whole lot of reasons. Lots of those wars going on in Africa would never have happened if they had had the kind of reasonable food supplies that you get from electrified irrigation, refridgeration, and cooking without animal dung.
I am not saying we shouldn't try to do the ecologically sound thing. All I'm saying is we have no idea what that is, and we're not doing things we should be doing out of a culture of fear spawned by 1960s science which has long since been disproven to a degree that would have scuttled any other movement in modern politics today.
It's time we started the science from scratch, and then looked a second time at the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty is well meaning, misguided, ecologically driven international scale murder.
Yes, there's an entire industry behind it, worth about eight times what a science field with that count of people in it is typically worth. Academic funding goes to hot topics. Watch the video.
Start citing sources for data, because on this case, you're dead wrong.That's funny, none of the scientists see said spike. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what year(s) this spike is over, which CO2 measurement you see it on, where the CO2 is (since no such measurement is ever made without an atmospheric segment,) and what the change rate is? (Of course, if you were making the data up, you'd insist that I do the research for myself, that I'm being lazy to ask you to cite data to back up your false claims, but that's what I'm expecting, since I've never seen a pseudoscience book make your claims, and since it's sure as hell not coming from actual planetary data.)Where do you get this stuff? Humanity is responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere. We are positively dwarfed by rotting vegetation, dead animals and the tundra. However, the vast bulk of atmospheric CO2 (~72%) is released from the ocean CO2 reservoir.I don't think it's affecting the earth. Why do you? Don't pull what you did above, making up data and spouting things you expect. If you can't explain with references to data, accept that you have no idea.Imagine how that would sound if you found out I was actually operating on good, solid science. Next, go watch the video I posted.
You're in for a dry shock.