Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans dominant cause of warming climate

jem · Mar 3, 2014

since the troll jackwagon does nothing but repeat his lies...

I will repeat the study which really counters his b.s.

co2 and temps are not rising concurrently...
The data shows temperature leads co2.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Highlights
âº Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11â12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. âº Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5â10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. âº Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. âº Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. âº Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.[/QUOTE]

futurecurrents · Mar 3, 2014

wjk said:
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.

You STILL don't get it! You are comparing apples and oranges. Predicting temperature will rise as GHG's increase is simple math and logic. It's climate science 101. It's predicting only the long term rate of increase.

From NASA.......

Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. It differs from the house thermostat in that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. It is this sustained warming that enables water vapor and clouds to maintain their atmospheric distributions as the so-called feedback effects that amplify the initial warming provided by the non-condensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

piezoe · Mar 3, 2014

futurecurrents said:
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.

Ahem, young man. Check out your nice NOAA chart again. How are you going to explain all those similar peaks, in cyclical pattern, of temperature and CO2 hundreds of thousands of years ago? Oh, I see. it is industrialization now, but back then it was something else.

wjk · Mar 3, 2014

futurecurrents said:
You STILL don't get it! You are comparing apples and oranges. Predicting temperature will rise as GHG's increase is simple math and logic. It's climate science 101. It's predicting only the long term rate of increase.

From NASA.......

Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. It differs from the house thermostat in that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. It is this sustained warming that enables water vapor and clouds to maintain their atmospheric distributions as the so-called feedback effects that amplify the initial warming provided by the non-condensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

I do get it, dude. Seriously. What I don't get is the fact that you fail to accept that reduced solar activity currently under way is going to change the outcome of the predictions. You and others refuse to accept that. Warming will still occur, but not at the predicted amounts in the original models. I mentioned that to you months ago and you (as well as others in other forums) claim it will not make a difference. That is what I fail to understand. Reduced solar can NOT be removed from the equation by any reasonable climate scientist who wants to be respected.

Like you said, it's real simple when you take out all the variables. Unfortunately for your argument, the variables, including solar, have other ideas that were not thought of when the initial modeling was under way. Go do some research. I did. It's amazing how big a difference just a small amount of change in solar output makes regarding the planet.

futurecurrents · Mar 3, 2014

piezoe said:
Ahem, young man. Check out your nice NOAA chart again. How are you going to explain all those similar peaks, in cyclical pattern, of temperature and CO2 hundreds of thousands of years ago? Oh, I see. it is industrialization now, but back then it was something else.

What's scary is to see those huge swings which occurred due to very slight long term changes in orbit/solar. The forcing effects due to current CO2 increases is a much stronger force and temps are rising much faster.

futurecurrents · Mar 3, 2014

wjk said:
I do get it, dude. Seriously. What I don't get is the fact that you fail to accept that reduced solar activity currently under way is going to change the outcome of the predictions. You and others refuse to accept that. Warming will still occur, but not at the predicted amounts in the original models. I mentioned that to you months ago and you (as well as others in other forums) claim it will not make a difference. That is what I fail to understand. Reduced solar can NOT be removed from the equation by any reasonable climate scientist who wants to be respected.

Like you said, it's real simple when you take out all the variables. Unfortunately for your argument, the variables, including solar, have other ideas that were not thought of when the initial modeling was under way. Go do some research. I did. It's amazing how big a difference just a small amount of change in solar output makes regarding the planet.

So now you're depending on the sun to magically cool down at a far greater rate than it ever did in history with no reason to believe that it will? LOL. Sun output changes have NEVER been the thing to cause the ice age cycles. It was subtle orbital changes.

And yes, there has been a drop in solar output, and temps are rising anyhow. The forcing effect of CO2 is far greater than any possible solar reduction.

wjk · Mar 4, 2014

futurecurrents said:
So now you're depending on the sun to magically cool down at a far greater rate than it ever did in history with no reason to believe that it will? LOL. Sun output changes have NEVER been the thing to cause the ice age cycles. It was subtle orbital changes.

And yes, there has been a drop in solar output, and temps are rising anyhow. The forcing effect of CO2 is far greater than any possible solar reduction.

You sure have a way of altering what people's intent in their statements are. Your comprehension, or perhaps inability to finish reading a comment is absent. I never said anything regarding an ice age in my last post, but since you did:

Reduced solar has never been a factor in ice ages? You know that? Right. It has been involved with mini ice ages. That has been correlated.

Regarding orbit: I didn't mention orbit because I wasn't discussing an ice age, I merely suggested reduced solar and resulting cooling possibilities, but since you mentioned it in your re-created account of my statement, your crowd has also said that orbit won't matter, either, regarding future ice ages.

It's funny watching people who think they are smarter than everyone else say stupid shit like you just did. Time to end discussion with you yet again.

Tsing Tao · Mar 4, 2014

piezoe said:
Ahem, young man. Check out your nice NOAA chart again. How are you going to explain all those similar peaks, in cyclical pattern, of temperature and CO2 hundreds of thousands of years ago? Oh, I see. it is industrialization now, but back then it was something else.

I asked him this question several times. All I got in response is that I was an "idiot" and "stupid".

JamesL · Mar 4, 2014

Tsing Tao said:
I asked him this question several times. All I got in response is that I was an "idiot" and "stupid".

It's easier to denigrate another than to engage in proper, thoughtful debate/discussion.

gwb-trading · Mar 4, 2014

futurecurrents said:
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.