50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Slam NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change

[pspr]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

That's fine but how does that bolster your claim mankind is responsible for the measured effects?

Surely you are not claiming industrial production and the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the time period discussed.

It was a bad paper making many assumptions. Here are the problems with it.

The paper is based on many assumptions without supporting data. Here are a few examples:

1. They assume that CO2 is capable of causing climate changes, even though 95% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect is from water vapor. In order to seriously consider CO2 as a causal mechanism, you first need to prove that very tiny increases in CO2 do indeed increase atmospheric water vapor. However, during recent warming, purported to be caused by increased CO2, atmospheric water vapor has not gone up, it has decreased slightly. CO2 by itself cannot cause significant warming because there is little of it in the atmosphere (0.038%) and CO2 accounts for only a few percent of the GHG effect.

2. They assume that the AMOC is the only driver of climate change, totally ignoring the influence of the Pacific Ocean, which covers almost half of the Earth’s surface and we can see in the modern data a strong influence of ENSO as a driver of climate changes (actually a closer correlation than the AMOC). They offer no evidence that the AMOC is the main and only driver of climate change.

3. They assume a hemispheric ‘see-saw’ of climate changes in which the North and South Hemispheres are out of phase, despite strong evidence in both hemisphere that climate changes were closely simultaneous, not out of phase with one another (Easterbrook, 2011).

4. They dismiss all other causal mechanisms by simply stating that they are only of ‘regional importance’, similar to the tactic of dismissing the MWP and Little Ice Age as only regional climate changes, not global. They also totally ignore the complete lack of correlation of CO2 with Holocene climate changes. They don’t even mention the very strong correlation of variation in 10Be and 14C with climate changes, suggesting a solar cause.

 

[pspr]

Quote from jem:

"The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear"

Now that is what a scientist with a point of view should write.

So now you have an argument based on science for the first time... are you going to apologize for all the b.s. you have been spewing on this subject.

You were the idiot were you not?

Say what? I think you have me confused with 'futurecurrents'. What I posted were some of the problems with the paper he posted promoting the "CO2 leads to global waming" theory.

 

[jem]

Sorry... I thought I did click on futurecurrents.
You may have been the first person who pointed out to me that the ice cores show temperature rises before CO2.

 

[jem]

So now you understand that until now, you and the other et atheists and all the man made AGW assholes like bill maher had no science? And now maybe with a bit of guesswork... for the first time you have an argument... that CO2 buildup may have some causal relationship on warming?

Quote from futurecurrents:

This study is new but......


Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received 16 September 2011 Accepted 01 February 2012 Published online 04 April 2012

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

 

[futurecurrents]

So Co2 is greenhouse gas (there is absolutely no question about this) and it has lead to higher temperatures in the past when it goes up just as now it is raising temperatures as it hits the highest levels seen in two million years.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

So now you understand that until now, you and the other et atheists and all the man made AGW assholes like bill maher had no science? And now maybe with a bit of guesswork... for the first time you have an argument... that CO2 buildup may have some causal relationship on warming?

No, you see, we have always had brains, common sense and science behind us. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In the past there was not the sudden huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere like we have today. The fact that, in the past, CO2 may not have always been the initial cause of temperatures rising does mean that is not happening today.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from futurecurrents:

No, you see, we have always had brains, common sense and science behind us. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In the past there was not the sudden huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere like we have today. The fact that, in the past, CO2 may not have always been the initial cause of temperatures rising does mean that is not happening today.

Latest weekly report shows a 1% year over year increase. What's a year in geologic time equivalent to? Like, a millisecond?
"Sudden huge release" is almost a euphemism. Explosion would be more descriptive, I think. What's left after the explosion? Not a lot.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

No, you see, we have always had brains, common sense and science behind us. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In the past there was not the sudden huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere like we have today. The fact that, in the past, CO2 may not have always been the initial cause of temperatures rising does mean that is not happening today.

Again... show the fricken data... you have none.
Really, your last paper was just sort guessing. Would they be guessing if they had the data or the science.

So now you may say the release of CO2 is alarming... but you do not know it is causing temperatures to rise. Besides, since we know temperatures went up and down in the past... does it matter if we reach the peak early?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

Again... show the fricken data... you have none.
Really, your last paper was just sort guessing. Would they be guessing if they had the data or the science.

So now you may say the release of CO2 is alarming... but you do not know it is causing temperatures to rise. Besides, since we know temperatures went up and down in the past... does it matter if we reach the peak early?

You're hopeless. The only one guessing is you. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that would change your mind. I'm quite convinced of that now. Your intransigent ideological stupidity is stunning. Thanks for playing - you lose. I mean your great-grandchildren lose.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from trefoil:

Latest weekly report shows a 1% year over year increase. What's a year in geologic time equivalent to? Like, a millisecond?
"Sudden huge release" is almost a euphemism. Explosion would be more descriptive, I think. What's left after the explosion? Not a lot.

Yes, and it's the rapidity with which it is rising that makes it so injurious to ecological systems. There is no time to adapt. The rate is an order of magnitude greater than it was during the Paleo- Eocene thermal maximum. Future geologists will see a layer in the rocks here that will denote the Anthropocene Epoch. I wonder how thin it will be.