Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

[seer]

Maybe cos people like to jump from 'warming is happening' to 'we must pull all stops to stop warming cos sky is falling!!!' Measure of temp more certain than prophesy of disaster, but they pretend cos we are so so sure about warming we are so so sure that sky is falling.

Tell demi 'earth is warming, even unprecedented'. Ok, so what???

There will be positives and negatives to a warmer earth:

Global Warming: A Balance Sheet

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/...anceSheet.html

[demi-conservative]

There will be positives and negatives to a warmer earth:

No need to tell demi

(CNN)Could this be good news about global warming? Latest research suggests that human intervention has postponed the beginning of the next ice age.
The researchers suggest that even moderate human interference with the planet's natural carbon balance, through activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, might delay the next glacial cycle by 100,000 years.

Scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany have found that the Earth's last eight ice ages can be explained by a relation between insolation -- solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface -- and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This also helps to predict future glacial cycles.

Now Ice Age is actually catastrophe, will actually destroy most of life on earth.

So it is duty of humans to prevent it. Burn more coal!!!

[seer]

so it is duty of humans to prevent it. Burn more coal!!!

lol...

[demi-conservative]

Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to get people to deal with the question of IS the planet warming due to human activity independent from the politics of WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT.

demi will make it very very simple. Your side never separate 'planet is warming' from 'sky is falling, point of no return soon, need to do something NOW!!!'

Second part turned out to be yuge lies, so many 'point of no returns' gone already. So natural for people to think 'planet is warming' is lie too. Cry more, demi does not care.

[oxmixmudd]

OK and?



Jim, did you read my link? We don't even know in the past if the rise of Co2 preceded the warming or if the warming drove the rise in Co2. And, I quote:Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear as well. So in these past warming trends we don't even know where this extra Co2 came from. And what exactly is the natural equilibrium for the earth? What is the mean? And if we were not cutting down trees and such a rate most of his may be mitigated.

I think maybe you didn't read your link :)

Source: seer's link

Researchers are not sure what caused the sudden boost of carbon dioxide that set the greenhouse effect on broil. Possible culprits could be huge releases of methane from the ocean, gigantic continent-sized burning of trees, or lots of volcanic eruptions.


What's troubling is that this suggests that the current projections that say the Earth will grow warmer by several degrees over the next century may be on the low end, said the study's lead author, Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also, the findings are proof that too much carbon dioxide — more than four times current levels — can cause global warming, said another co-author, Henk Brinkhuis of Utrecht University.

© Copyright Original Source

So think about this. You are trying to use an article about a tropical arctic to say we don't really know what is causing global warming - both in terms of 'is it CO2' and 'are we the source of the CO2' - yet the very article you quote says that this arctic tropical event was in fact caused by a significant rise in CO2 AND that the effects of the CO2 on warming may be WORSE that we are predicting.

So the link between CO2 and warming seems rather clear, both historically and in the current time. The only question is - are we the CO2 source that is the problem ... and I don't see how we could not be since the Mouna Loa record is monotonic and we can look at it and observe other natural bursts of CO2(chiefly from volcanoes) from natural sources as blips on an otherwise almost constant rise. We certainly know we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an enormous and increasing rate. And - as you point out - we are simultaneously reducing the number of CO2 sinks available through deforestation.

So how is it not likely we are the cause again?


Jim

[seer]

I think maybe you didn't read your link :)

Source: seer's link

Researchers are not sure what caused the sudden boost of carbon dioxide that set the greenhouse effect on broil. Possible culprits could be huge releases of methane from the ocean, gigantic continent-sized burning of trees, or lots of volcanic eruptions.


What's troubling is that this suggests that the current projections that say the Earth will grow warmer by several degrees over the next century may be on the low end, said the study's lead author, Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also, the findings are proof that too much carbon dioxide — more than four times current levels — can cause global warming, said another co-author, Henk Brinkhuis of Utrecht University.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes Jim, possible culprits... And you again ignored my quote - was the warming driving higher Co2 levels or the other way around? The link clearly said we do not know, and...

In Hot Water: Ice Age Defrosted by Warming Ocean, Not Rise in CO2

Warmer waters in the deep Pacific triggered the end of the last ice age, preceding the rise in greenhouse gas levels

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a.../in-hot-water/

So think about this. You are trying to use an article about a tropical arctic to say we don't really know what is causing global warming - both in terms of 'is it CO2' and 'are we the source of the CO2' - yet the very article you quote says that this arctic tropical event was in fact caused by a significant rise in CO2 AND that the effects of the CO2 on warming may be WORSE that we are predicting.

Again Jim the link said we do not know if the warming was driving higher Co2 levels or the other way around. And as far as us being the source, sure to a degree, but there was a Co2 mysterious source in the past that we do not know as my link said.

So the link between CO2 and warming seems rather clear, both historically and in the current time. The only question is - are we the CO2 source that is the problem ... and I don't see how we could not be since the Mouna Kea record is monotonic and we can look at it and observe other natural bursts of CO2(chiefly from volcanoes) from natural sources as blips on an otherwise almost constant rise. We certainly know we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an enormous and increasing rate. And - as you point out - we are simultaneously reducing the number of CO2 sinks available through deforestation.

So how is it not likely we are the cause again?


Jim

Not historically Jim, we don't understand past warming well enough to make any firm conclusions. And like I said to Demi, there are positives and negatives to a warmer earth and no one knows which will out weight which. And like I also said, if you don't get China, India, Asia in general and Africa on board in a big way destroying our economy will not make a lick of difference.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes Jim, possible culprits... And you again ignored my quote - was the warming driving higher Co2 levels or the other way around? The link clearly said we do not know, and...






Again Jim the link said we do not know if the warming was driving higher Co2 levels or the other way around. And as far as us being the source, sure to a degree, but there was a Co2 mysterious source in the past that we do not know as my link said.




Not historically Jim, we don't understand past warming well enough to make any firm conclusions. And like I said to Demi, there are positives and negatives to a warmer earth and no one knows which will out weight which. And like I also said, if you don't get China, India, Asia in general and Africa on board in a big way destroying our economy will not make a lick of difference.

And like I said - my responses in this thread are not addressing what to do about rising CO2 and temperatures, my responses are to those mocking the science that tells us rising CO2 is causing the current temperature rise, or that the temperature rise is 'manufactured' by some inane global conspiracy to destroy our economy by almost all working climatologists.

As for 'we don't know' - no - we pretty much do know. We are a significant and measurable source of CO2, and the warming trend tracks very closely the increase in CO2. It seems a bit silly to ignore the implications of that on the hope there is really some other hidden and very tricky to find major source of CO2 we just haven't noticed yet.

Jim

[Teallaura]

Frozen farms - cheap!




Sorry, couldn't resist!

[Tassman]

You were saying?

On the other hand:

"the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declared in 2005 that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” adding that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” Other leading U.S. scientific bodies, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union have issued concurring statements—placing the blame squarely on humans’ shoulders.

Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations, says it is “very likely” (more than a 90 percent chance) that humans are causing a global temperature change that will reach between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arming-a-myth/

Why risk it?

[seer]

And like I said - my responses in this thread are not addressing what to do about rising CO2 and temperatures, my responses are to those mocking the science that tells us rising CO2 is causing the current temperature rise, or that the temperature rise is 'manufactured' by some inane global conspiracy to destroy our economy by almost all working climatologists.

As for 'we don't know' - no - we pretty much do know. We are a significant and measurable source of CO2, and the warming trend tracks very closely the increase in CO2. It seems a bit silly to ignore the implications of that on the hope there is really some other hidden and very tricky to find major source of CO2 we just haven't noticed yet.

Jim

Jim, again, there is good evidence that the ice age ended and the earth warmed because of warmer oceans, and warmer oceans in turn drove the rise in Co2, not the other way around. We think this was caused by Milankovitch cycles, but Milankovitch cycles have their own problems. The point is we do not know all the dynamics. Yes, we are adding to the Co2 into the picture, but are there greater drivers like warmer oceans? And the fact is, a far as we can tell, there is not always a correlation between the rise in Co2 and the rise in temperature.


co2_temperature_historical.jpg

[seer]

Why risk it?

Risk what destroying our economy?

[Zara]

Jim, again, there is good evidence that the ice age ended and the earth warmed because of warmer oceans, and warmer oceans in turn drove the rise in Co2, not the other way around. We think this was caused by Milankovitch cycles, but Milankovitch cycles have their own problems. The point is we do not know all the dynamics. Yes, we are adding to the Co2 into the picture, but are there greater drivers like warmer oceans? And the fact is, a far as we can tell, there is not always a correlation between the rise in Co2 and the rise in temperature.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]38808[/ATTACH]

According to whom, you and your band of climate change deniers? You are living in a conspiracy theory.

The scientific community does not agree with your opinion. You are therefore making false claims to authority. That makes you a bad person. You might not like the conclusions from the world's scientific community, however, I don't like that I can't be an astronaut. I don't cry about it like a baby though. If you don't want this to destroy your economy, stop denying that there is a problem and change your behaviour to fit reality. You've had more than 30 years to do so, but failed. Because you are greedy more than anything else. At this stage, that is your failure in personal responsibility - which means you get what's coming to you.

Grow up.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, again, there is good evidence that the ice age ended and the earth warmed because of warmer oceans, and warmer oceans in turn drove the rise in Co2, not the other way around. We think this was caused by Milankovitch cycles, but Milankovitch cycles have their own problems. The point is we do not know all the dynamics. Yes, we are adding to the Co2 into the picture, but are there greater drivers like warmer oceans? And the fact is, a far as we can tell, there is not always a correlation between the rise in Co2 and the rise in temperature.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]38808[/ATTACH]

Your graph is interesting but only part of the story. There are indeed a large number of factors that impact climate on the planet. Super volcanoes, Asteroid impacts, plant life, oxygen levels and so on. The Ice age cycles from which we are emerging have an onset of around 2.4 million years ago. There were other long cool periods to be sure, but the current configuration of the continents and other factors apparently have allowed such a cyclical pattern to emerge, and with natural changes in CO2 being one of the major driving factors.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-ice-on-earth/

Source: above

14 million years ago

Antarctica wasn’t always a frozen wasteland. It wasn’t until around 34 million years ago that the first small glaciers formed on the tops of Antarctica’s mountains. And it was 20 million years later, when world-wide temperatures dropped by 8 °C, that the glaciers’ ice froze onto the rock, and the southern ice sheet was born.

This temperature drop was triggered by the rise of the Himalayas. As they grew higher they were exposed to increased weathering, which sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere and reduced the greenhouse effect.

The northern hemisphere remained relatively ice-free for longer, with Greenland and the Arctic becoming heavily glaciated only around 3.2 million years ago.

© Copyright Original Source

and

Source: above

The Quaternary glaciation started just a few million years ago – and is still going on. So its history is relatively recent, in geological terms, and can be studied in far more detail than the others’. It’s evident that the ice sheets have gone through multiple stages of growth and retreat over the course of the Quaternary.

During “glacial” stages, the temperature was low and ice extended far away from the poles. During “interglacials”, the temperature was somewhat warmer and the ice retreated. Brief, inconclusive periods of advancing ice – typically lasting less than 10,000 years – are called “stadials”; conversely, periods when the ice retreated, but only briefly, are called “interstadials”.

The main trigger for the Quaternary glaciation was the continuing fall in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the weathering of the Himalayas. However, the timing of the glacials and interglacials was driven by periodic changes in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of sunshine reaching various parts of the planet. The effect of these small orbital changes was amplified by positive feedbacks, such as changes in greenhouse gas levels.

© Copyright Original Source

We are coming out of a natural glacial cycle. The warming prior to the last 1000 years anyway, and likely the last 150 or so, was natural. But in the last 150 years with both the industrialization of the planet and the burning of fossil fuels and just the vast population explosion of the last 100 years (population at the turn of the 19th century was just 1 billion - it is almost 8x that now with population doubling in the last 50 years. We effectively walked past the threashold were our contrbutions were minor to major during the 20th century, with the capacity of the planet to absorb the CO2 we generate being significantly breached sometime in the mid 20th century.


Here is the cumulative CO2 emissions of humans since 1850


human CO2 emissions.jpg

here is the graph of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere since

co2_and_ch4_thick_25pct.png

Notice that the sometime around 1960 in both graphs is where we see a significant uptick in both human emissions and worldwide CO2 levels. We are the wild card there. When you add even then anomaly of Mt. St. Helens and others, the biggest single anomalous contributor is humanity. In fact, on average, human emissions exceed that of volcanoes by 2 orders of magnitude (a factor of almost 100).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/

Source: above

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

© Copyright Original Source

As for if there is a feed back from human induced warming that is causing greater outgassing from natural sources - that is possible. But it still puts human CO2 emissions as the cause.

As for reduced capacity to absorb co2 caused by deforestation - that still makes human activity the culprit.

As for greater melting due to the lower albedo of glacial ice due to human produced soot - that may be as well. But it still puts human fossil fuel use as the cause.

As for greater methane adding to the problem due to higher human populations and agriculture - again - it still puts human activity as the cause.

And so on.


AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. Everything points in that direction for what is happening the 20th and 21st centuries.

Jim

[seer]

According to whom, you and your band of climate change deniers? You are living in a conspiracy theory.

The scientific community does not agree with your opinion. You are therefore making false claims to authority. That makes you a bad person. You might not like the conclusions from the world's scientific community, however, I don't like that I can't be an astronaut. I don't cry about it like a baby though. If you don't want this to destroy your economy, stop denying that there is a problem and change your behaviour to fit reality. You've had more than 30 years to do so, but failed. Because you are greedy more than anything else. At this stage, that is your failure in personal responsibility - which means you get what's coming to you.

Grow up.

Nice talking to you Jim...

[oxmixmudd]

Nice talking to you Jim...

??? - that was Zara.


My response is respectful and just lays out more data supporting what I believe is the correct conclusion. See above.


Jim