Hilarious...and that was just on this page alone.
You don't say?
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans dominant cause of warming climate
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
Hilarious...and that was just on this page alone.
You don't say?
Naturally occurring sourcing and sinking of CO2 is between two and three orders greater than the magnitude of anthro- CO2 produced. [When Hansen made his original conjectures he didn't have a good estimate of natural sourcing and sinking. That came much later.] The atmosphere is a buffered mix of gasses and when we put more CO2 into the atmosphere, some sinking occurs and the atmospheric concentration does not go up as much as would be expected if there were no buffering. Its like a magic bowl of a hundred marbles to which we add ten more, but when we count them we find only 103. We naively thought that by taking the Anthro CO2 and comparing it to the Atmospheric concentration we could get a reasonable estimate of what part of the atmospheric is anthro but we found that the atmosphere was no where near a closed system. Our simple arithmetic failed us. Then we thought we could follow anthro CO2 via C-13. That failed as well! It turns out there are lots of natural sources of CO2 that are also lower in C-13. Foiled again
The early papers on global warming are becoming a graveyard of highly-convincing, misinterpreted data, wrong assumptions and too-simple explanations. But once the wrong conclusions reach the public and become politicized it is too late for reasonable people to hold sway. The reasonable people are now the idiots. Why can't they see what everyone else sees? It is so obvious! Man is putting more and more CO2 into the air and the temperature is going up right along with the CO2. We already know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so what can be more obvious than that! We are making our planet hotter, the polar ice caps are melting, the oceans are rising, and its all our fault!
So now, having concluded that those like Moore and myself are idiots for thinking we haven't yet resolved the issue of whether man's production of CO2 is changing the Earth's climate, lets go to the two graphs you posted. The NOAA ice core data that goes back multiples of 10<sup>5</sup> years with marks 10,000 years apart on the x-axis. [Very nice chart by the way! For our purposes it doesn't even matter if the numbers are right so long as the pattern is right.] It shows pretty convincingly that we should right now be somewhere near a naturally occurring peak in temperature and CO2 concentration, plus or minus about 1000 years. The industrial age is no more than a blink of the eye relative to the scale of the NOAA chart. We seem to be observing temperature and CO2 concentrations consistent with that NOAA chart.
Now lets go to the pretty, but useless, chart showing CO2 rise since industrialization correlating very nicely with Anthro- produced carbon. Naturally any non-scientist's first reaction is to say, "wow, anthro- carbon production and CO2 in the atmosphere are beautifully correlated, we must be causing the atmospheric CO2 to rise." Unfortunately, this kind of chart is irresponsible, precisely because it will produce exactly that uninformed reaction; yet there is no way from that chart to tell anything about cause and effect. The chart is useless for that purpose. For convenience, I'll hereafter refer to this bad chart as the "Gee Whiz" chart. I'll refer to the good chart as the NOAA chart. The "good" chart has limitations as well.
Note the Gee whiz chart has magnified the anthro carbon contribution by giving it it own independent scale. It therefore looks big. It's small when compared to atmospheric carbon and tiny compared to the total sourcing and sinking of CO2 on Earth.
It is logical to expect the rise in anthro produced carbon to mirror industrial development from the late 19th century on. That agrees with our instincts.
Let's assume the anthro-amounts are 100% accurate. Here is the problem in a nutshell. We have insufficient data at this point to rule out that the rise in atmospheric CO2 we see since industrialization isn't almost entirely due to the natural cyclical nature of CO2 concentration as illustrated by the good chart. The dramatic correlation between anthro carbon and rising atmospheric CO2 may be entirely fortuitous! In fact: 1) lack of resolution in the good chart; 2) knowledge that anthro CO2 is negligible compared to the total sourcing and sinking of CO2; 3) cyclical changes in temperature and CO2 shown by the good chart, and 4) recent evidence that CO2 concentration is driven by temperature and not the other way around, all should give us pause. Any hypotheses of what the effect of anthro CO2 is on climate must be consistent with all observations, not just some of them.
At this point we don't really understand with any certainty what is driving our climate change, but we do know for certain that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Whether we Homo sapiens are having a significant effect on our climate is yet to be determined. The buffering capacity of the atmosphere is so great that it may be that on a macroscale our influence is insignificant. That remains to be seen.
We need answers, but we are far from having them. The commonly shown graphs of anthro CO2 rising in seeming synchronization with atmospheric CO2 are of no help in sorting out this scientific mystery, in realty, they may have led the politicized world on a wild goose chase. If the amateur scientists/politicians should turn out to be right via some, as yet to be discovered, mechanism, it will be a fortuitous accident. Thank goodness we have climate experts that are capable of ignoring this nonsense and working hard to sort things out. Eventually they will, but perhaps not before a few of the questioning tongues get resected.
Yes, but I don't repeat juvenile lies about people like you have on multiple occasions merely repeating untruths that others have said. Like some weak-willed parrot. You've done it with me repeating the lie that I am gay and you did it with BA saying what Max said about BA was true. Like he said, it seems like you just want to be one of the idiot boys.
"Bigarrow = low iq, low skill hillbilly who lives in a camper"
Besides, when I call someone that denies AGW an idiot I'm merely calling a spade a spade. I'm saying the truth. I do that. So sue me.
Ah, so when you insult, it's telling the truth, but when any of us does it, it's repeating lies. I got it.
What a complete and total fucking jackwagon you are.
Truth or lie? How about we hold a vote?
If anyone but a progressive said that, they'd be called a racist by a progressive like you.
Still waiting for your answers regarding the bust by Noaa Climate Prediction this year (we know why, just want to see you admit why models can be wrong), and your list of personal sacrifices to reduce your carbon footprint. Show that you are not a hypocrite.
Give me a fucking break. Yeah CO2 levels and temps just happened to go up 40% right around the time when man started burning fossil fuels. What are you stupid? Forget the fact that isotope analysis DOES show the extra CO2 is from man, regardless of what denier propaganda you have read.
"At this point we don't really understand with any certainty what is driving our climate change, but we do know for certain that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Whether we Homo sapiens are having a significant effect on our climate is yet to be determined. "
You also, like jerm, are confusing your ignorance with the facts. The fact is we DO know what is causing the jump in temps. It's man's release of GHG's. That's why 97% of all climatologists and all the world's science organizations say so. Idiot.
I'm not answering because it is the usual irrelevant red herring bullshit put up by the denier crowd when they have lost the real argument. If you don't understand the difference between weather and climate you are simply too stupid to intelligently discuss anything with.
Predicting future rising temperature is a simple matter of knowing the linear relationship between CO2 levels and forcing. Temperature and CO2 are directly correlated....because CO2 is GHG. It's much more simple than determining the chaos that is weather.
Umm yes. You brainlessly repeat what you know are lies. I tell it like it is. You are a brainless parrot with no backbone.
It forces you to cherry pick because it proves models can be wrong, but for you to admit that would destroy your argument.
It's you who doesn't understand the role of weather in confirming climate prediction, and the role of climate in predicting weather. You also apparently believe climate prediction is a mastered art, though as in meteorology, there are millions, if not billions of variables. It is not, and will never be an exact science, not in our lifetimes anyway. Now get off your fucking high horse. I'm well aware of the differences, more so than you.
I'll say this much about you...I would wager that if you were smart enough to model climate, and you obviously are not, you would leave out all data that disputes your belief.