patrick.net

HydroCabron says

'm delighted that you brought up acid rain.

Acid rain didn't morph into a nightmare because it was cleaned up by ... drum roll ... government action: you know, that thing you hate so much you would change your name, reverse any principle you hold, renounce all your personal possessions and earthly ties, and saw your own arms and legs off to avoid.

False, despite the fact that I am not against regulating real pollutants. Even trees constantly fumigated with acidity were thriving:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290345/sp4-083-5-1-e-e.pdf

There were negative effects, but they were utterly insignificant, and the forests never died in Germany, the UK or anywhere else with or without government intervention. All of this doesn't mean that protecting the environment is not desired, but with limited resources you have to focus on what gets you the best results, i.e. the worst offenders. CO2 is certainly not one of them.

mell says

i.e. the worst offenders. CO2 is certainly not one of them.

Your sources including The Daily Mail.

I give you credit for sticking with it.

Since global warming scientists are quoted in the Daily Mail, they must all be wrong.

Call it Crazy says

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll post them again:

You are not actually asking anything. You've made up your mind to the correct answers to these already.
I'll play though. Your last question is where you are horribly mistaken. You have decided low concentration changes always have little impact. That's beyond false. Here ya go ... in order ...

Call it Crazy says

So, there's been an average 0.6 degree rise C in 115 years! Does that sound extreme to you? Should we all put on scuba equipment so we don't drown from all the melting glaciers and ice caps?

The amount the temperature has risen cannot be defined as "extreme". No. We only need to continue the trend to experience extremeness in the actual temperature.

There are other weather events and phenomena that might be considered extreme. Here are the things climatologists have observed right now:
- hottest decade on record
- tree lines moving north and to higher elevations
- the rate of warming higher than past 11,000 years
- arctic sea ice lowest ever seen, and losing 13% per decade
- Greenland loosing 300 giga-tons of ice a year
- Antarctica, also an ice looser
- Ocean temperatures warming, ocean becoming more acidic
- sea level rising
- more extreme weather events ('weather throws the punches, climate trains the boxer')

As to if we should put on scuba gear, my house is at high enough elevation I won't need to do that. Estimates are that I'll be dead, as well, by the time we see a 10-20ft rise in ocean level.

Call it Crazy says

Tell me something, how much did the temperature rise at your house today between 6 AM and 2 PM? Did you see any melting icebergs pass by along the coast?

- Atmospheric temperature probably rose and fell around 20-30 degrees total yesterday.
- Icebergs melt long before they reach me.

Call it Crazy says

Yep, which makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere... Do you really think a few ppm makes a difference??

Absolutely! A few ppm changes the physical properties of solutions and gases. A few ppm can kill you, if we are talking a toxin.

Rew,
The consolation prize for arguing with denialists is that I will get to see them watch their loved ones suffer as the earth reaches the boiling point.
Sociopaths don't care about anything but themselves.

HEY YOU says

The consolation prize for arguing with denialists is that I will get to see them watch their loved ones suffer as the earth reaches the boiling point.

Sociopaths don't care about anything but themselves.

I think the attitudes of denial will be extinct long before climate change, outright, kills a denier. They are a dying breed.

Hey 99% of the tea I drank was tannic acid and H20.

The 1% is arsenic. That trace amount isn't gonna kill me.

Call it Crazy says

Oh no... You're going to die!!!

Try reading the whole sentence, the whole thought. I know you can do it CiC ... I believe in you!

CIC says..."So, there's been an average 0.6 degree rise C in 115 years! Does that sound extreme to you? Should we all put on scuba equipment so we don't drown from all the melting glaciers and ice caps?"

That sounds very extreme. As you point out, the temperature varies by >10C every day. But what you don't mention is that 10C global average temperature change is the difference between the coldest ice age and the warmest period on record. Also, 100 years is a very short time period.

CO2 toxicity to humans is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming. No one ever said it was a problem. Might as well discuss the price of tea in China.

Unfortunately, common sense is useless in this discussion.

Common sense did not tell us the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun. It did not tell us about molecules, atoms, chemistry, or any of that. It did not even tell us about gravity. All of these things and any other interesting scientific discovery took deep theoretical thinking and high level math.

The common sense and follow the money skeptic arguments are quite silly. There is plenty of money available to disprove global warming as well. Oil companies have been funding skeptic science for decades despite pretty much knowing it was bullshit.

Gee, here is another report from some of y'alls favorite news source Huffinton Post about the upcoming mini-ice age.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/12/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-will-hit-in-15-years/21208356/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-1115257387?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&

YesYNot says

CO2 toxicity to humans is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming.

You're talking about someone who would wave a rock around, screaming "Why isn't this a tree yet? Checkmate, liberal evolutionists!"

Call it Crazy says

CO2 increases in the atmosphere is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming.

Call it Crazy says

*

Do you really think you're on to something here? That the fact that the CO2 percentage of air is small means it has a small effect on global warming?

I mean, honestly, in all of the global warming literature (both pro-warming and anti-warming) have you seen any scientist make this inane argument?

Hey, this Paint is only 1% Lead. Think I will lick it, after all, it's only a trace amount.

July the 4th at around 4:15pm the tide at Hollywood beach was so low people were wadding out over 3/4 of a mile from shore with the water level not even reaching their knees.
I've been living here now for going on 30 years, I've never seen the tide so low. From the tide line to the level of where our beach chair was had to have been over 15 to 20 feet high. I've never seen it over 8.

I thought the Sea level was rising globally or this a regional thing where the Ocean knows who's in on the scam?

Call it Crazy says

CO2 increases in the atmosphere is irrelevant to a discussion on global warming.

So says CiC on the Pnet forums, and thus, the international scientific community was rendered nullified.

You seem to willfully pride yourself on ignorance.

The fact that you have to keep redefining your terms at the very minimum suggests a serious weakness in your science.

"Global warming is making the Earth warmer. We're all gunna die if we don't raise money quickly."

Oh wait, how do we explain regional cooling and record breaking winters?

"Climate change is making the Earth warmer. Don't you know that when the Earth gets warmer that we have bigger winters? We're all gunna die if we don't raise money quickly."

Oh wait, we're about to enter into a mini-ice age?

"Don't you know the difference between global weather and solar weather? What happens on the sun has nothing to do with the fact that if none of that were happening, we'd be right."

What?

It's bad science when you have to keep changing your reasoning in order to make your conclusions stand amidst changing facts. Why didn't they consider the solar cycle when they made their warming conclusions in the first place? Is the solar cycle something new? They are going to be right no matter how much of the story they have to rewrite. Personally, I find that a little suspicious. It reminds me of when kids who are sore losers changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game so they can still stand a chance at winning the game.

Call it Crazy says

Ignorance is what's being shown by the Libbie/alarmists

You have a closed system (a bottle with some air and water in it)
you apply heat from a light source for 12 hours at a steady rate into the bottle
followed by no heat (darkness) for 12 hours
bottle is in a temperature controlled room

You repeat this process 200 times and your findings would be relatively steady. If all things are held in constant for this system as described above, you would have a bottle which heated up, condensed water on the inside of the bottle, and was extremely steady in behavior. Correct? It would reach peak temperature and cooling, provided the room temperature was held constant.

However, if you increased the C02 content of the air inside the bottle, holding all other factors steady, the bottle would exhibit hotter temperatures. This is factual. Can be proven. This is because of greenhouse effect where more light is reflected multiple times back into the bottle, as it bounces off CO2. (excuse my simplified explanation, I know actual light physicists and science can do it better, but that's my abbreviated version above, and would generally be given a nod.)

Water vapor is the leading cause of the greenhouse effect on Earth, correct, but that doesn't mean CO2 doesn't play a role.

Would the added heat caused by the CO2 cause more or less water vapor, the leading cause of the greenhouse effect, to form?
Yes. Yes it would. More heat, would mean more evaporation which would mean more water vapor.

This is where you claim that more water vapor automatically means more clouds, and that would keep things in balance by reflection. Current science says it isn't that simple at all. Clouds can actually heat or cool depending on how much they are reflecting or trapping heat. Additionally, just because there is a bunch of water vapor in the air, doesn't mean it condenses into cloud.

Hotter temperatures are however contributors to larger more high energy storms.

Call it Crazy says

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Good source CiC ...

The Recent Role of the Greenhouse Effect

Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth’s surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

The Main Greenhouse Gases

The most important GHGs directly emitted by humans include CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), and several others. The sources and recent trends of these gases are detailed below.

Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change. CO2 is absorbed and emitted naturally as part of the carbon cycle, through animal and plant respiration, volcanic eruptions, and ocean-atmosphere exchange. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, causing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to rise.

CIC your ignorance would be astounding if we were not used to it by now.

YesYNot says

Unfortunately, your scientists want to blame the CO2 for the temperature rises when it is in fact the warming of the sun and the increase of water vapor that holds in the majority of the heat.

Which is why Climatologists show high levels of CO2, measured in ice cores and other places, throughout the historical record coincide with high Earth temperatures. There is causation and relation.

That bit of ignorance was CIC, not me

You should look in the mirror before posting gifs. You cast the first "ignorant" stone. It is quite ironic because you keep posting well known facts that do not refute gw theory as if they do.

I've posted why your thought that 0.6 oC is meaningless is incorrect. Also posted why co2 toxicity is meaningless. The water thing is a canard. The natural fluxes are large but balance out. So the small imbalance is important. It is also important for the co2 balance bc co2 from fossil fuels is small versus the natural co2 fluxes. I'm surprised you didn't bring that up. The thing is that the small additional emissions are cumulative and have resulted in a huge increase in the atmospheric concentration of co2. I'm not going to bother googling these things and providing links. This stuff is pretty obvious to those of us who have a high level of math and science training and have been following this issue for a long time.

Call it Crazy says

How could that be if the ramp up in burning of fossil fuel has only been over the last 50+ years. How do you explain the CO2 levels in those historic ice cores?

Historical CO2 levels have to do with volcanism, CO2 burial in sediments, and release from rock weathering. It also has to do with animal and plant gaseous exchange with the environment.

The last time CO2 was measured at this high of a level was before Human life ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

CiC: How old do you think the Earth is? Where did humans come from?

CiC, I like how you just say "wrong answer" with nothing to back that up but statements. Burden of proof is with you. I'm representing the majority of current science. My answer above is what they would say.

Maybe since also the GOP position, and right, is scared by so much these days ... (ebola, the gays, socialism, government concentration camps, Muslims, "coming to take your guns", graying culture wars, decline of Christian married families, the "browning of America", government elite world control, white minority status, unions ...) ...

... you know what. I change my mind. You poor scared little guy. You are right. Don't worry about CO2 emissions. Take your meds, have a whiskey, and watch The Golden Girls.

It's ok. We will take care of you.

I think I see Dolly in there!

Call it Crazy says

If anything, the increased use of water (irrigation by the population) leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, so you can blame people for the increase in warming, but not because they drive cars and burn gas, but because they water their lawns and farmers grow food...

Now that's really funny even for you. So the .0001% of the earth's surface being irrigated for a few months seasonally increases warming. The 71% of the earths surface that is actually water doesn't. You have some really weird thoughts.

turtledove says

It's bad science when you have to keep changing your reasoning in order to make your conclusions stand amidst changing facts. Why didn't they consider the solar cycle when they made their warming conclusions in the first place? Is the solar cycle something new? They are going to be right no matter how much of the story they have to rewrite.

Wow.

Or maybe global warming is a little complicated.

Of course it would be a million times more complicated if somehow global warming could trump weather in such a way that it caused temperatures to go up evenly all over the world, instead of what it does, causing average temperatures to increase. And if it somehow it were so complex that AGW could negate all other factors affecting global temperature changes. That would be impressive. Truly an act of God.

"Me likes me facts to be super simple, otherwise they can't be true. Here let me try out this really stupid argument and see if it holds up. After all, I have to be a good republican"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/08/west-saw-record-warm-start-to-year-northeast-record-cold-noaa-says/

"gawwwleee jethro ! All in the same country. Isn't that sumpin !"

They didn't research solar cycles, because the effect was already understood: 0.18C oscillation through each 11-year cycle, plus other effects due to longer-term oscillations.

It would be like researching whether your trip to work is uphill or downhill for purposes of the effect on your gas mileage: the trip home will cancel any effect of the trip to work.

This solar contribution like the dingbat stuff about cold weather in winter, or at night, is the background set of natural parameters which causes all the short-term oscillation (even for 75-year Maunder Minimum events). They're the oscillations of a child's swing. Carbon, however, is like moving the swing to higher elevation, or like moving your home and workplace from 5300 feet to 6000 feet.

When winter comes, the right wing will put the solar cycle theories to rest and go back to claiming that Earth isn't warming anyway.

Smarter conservatives, please.

Call it Crazy says

Oh, I didn't realize that the Southern states and Southern countries only use their irrigation "a few months seasonally"! Thanks for that info!!!

Of the 2, 379, 964, 800 acres in the US 61,150,000 or about 2.5% are irrigated. California, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana account for 50% of this, then arkansa, texas, nebraska, oregon, arizona, utah,wyoming. Did they move all those states to the south and I didn't get the memo? India and china, southern countries?, irrigate about twice as much land as the US. Pakistan and the EU, more southern countries?, about half as much. Everyone after that doesn't irrigate all that much.

So 3 million acres of land in irrigation, yes it is only part of the year, vs 360 million acres of ocean all year round. I'll take 99 to 1 any day. Except of course if we are using CIC's version of math, then all bets are off.

Not to worry, we already have a documentary about the mission plan to reignite a cooling sun:

Plus, it involves exploding BIGASS NOOKULAR BOMBS, so Republicans will have no problem coming up with the money for it.

Call it Crazy says

Temps and CO2 levels ran parallel and the rising temps preceded the rises in CO2, which means temps rise first...

Your argument also applies to water vapor, which oscillates around an equilibrium determined by global temperature. So if you're going to claim this is true for carbon, you must toss out your own arguments about water.

The oscillations over the past few hundred thousand years involved no forced introduction of carbon, so of course carbon followed temperature.

Call it Crazy says

But, if as alarmist claim, that forced introduction of carbon is causing warming, why isn't it shown in the ice core data?

Because in the vast majority of prehistoric warming events, carbon was not a first, driving cause: it was a following indicator of warming driven by other factors.

You have consistently claimed that we should worry about water, and that irrigation would be a problem if carbon were.

Call it Crazy says

Then what was?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Call it Crazy says

Well, wouldn't that be your first clue that man isn't totally responsible for the rise in temps and CO2?

That's correct. Humans are not the sole factor in the planet's climate. Nor has any case above, or made by scientists, ever represented it as such.

CiC, your scientific literacy seems a little low. Is that due to religious or other world beliefs?

Call it Crazy says

HydroCabron says

carbon was not a first, driving cause:

Then what was?

Usually orbital and solar fluctuations, both of which change far more gradually than on the time scale of a few dozen years, as your graph shows.

There are also past examples of carbon upticks/downticks driving temperature changes, but the only ones I have heard of involved large temperature changes which then drove carbon releases, which in turn drove temperatures higher. That is, carbon was not the initial cause, but then drove temperature higher. Google "hyperthermals" - the most recent was 40M years ago.

Call it Crazy says

and how long has the planet been subjected to these fluctuations?

Billions of years. But this is Irrelevant. It wouldn't matter to the truth/falsity of the effects of carbon forcing.

Call it Crazy says

Data, charts and links please.

I hesitate, because I think the role of carbon as a greenhouse gas does not require any of this stuff for its proof, but knock yourself out.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/16/ancient-hyperthermals-aka-global-warming-more-frequent-than-previously-thought/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene_Thermal_Maximum_2
http://eesc.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/w4937/Readings/Sexton.etal.2011.pdf
http://people.earth.yale.edu/paleoceneeocene-thermal-maximum
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Nicolo_etal_2007.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X09007444

From the UCSC paper:

Because the five events have similar systemic responses in different environments, they
probably have a similar generic cause. All five CIEs appear to represent massive inputs of isotopically light carbon during a long-term warming trend. As evidenced by condensed clay layers at Walvis Ridge, the carbon inputs involved CO2 increases that led to dissolution of carbonate on the seafloor. As evidenced by expanded marl-
rich horizons in Clarence Valley, these carbon injections were associated with warming and an accelerated hydrologic cycle that increased continental erosion. If these inferences can be further substantiated, they constrain explanations for the PETM as well as early Paleogene climate and carbon cycling as a whole: a dynamic
source must have repeatedly injected large quantities of 13C-depleted carbon into the ocean or atmosphere. Further, the nominal 100 k.y. between carbon injection events (according to our age model) may indicate orbital pacing, as has been suggested for the PETM and HI CIEs

So they're claiming that something else drove carbon levels, which in turn drove warming.

The Columbia paper:

Several observations suggest that the source of CO2 fueling Eocene hyperthermals was the abyssal ocean. First, our dissolution records
provide clues to the location of CO2 storage in the exchangeable carbon reservoirs. Numerical modelling experiments indicate that CaCO3 dissolution should be most intense close to the source of carbon release In our estimates of CaCO3 dissolution, dissolution intensity appears to be consistently highest in the southern Atlantic (Fig. 3e) compared to other sites. This finding raises the possibility that the abyssal reservoir of carbon was located in the Southern Ocean. Second, all of our
hyperthermals have a duration of about 40 kyr (Fig. 1b, c, Fig. 2). The similarity of this period to the 41-kyr obliquity cycle suggests that the forcing for individual hyperthermal events had its origin at high latitudes. This observation is consistent with an obliquity pacing of high latitude surface ocean stratification controlling carbon ventilation (via oxygenation), as proposed for the last deglaciation 22

In all these events, there are changes in carbon deposits in multiple places, even though the initial warming seems to be tied to obliquity (which is an orbital characteristic). Since orbital obliquity does not change the total amount of solar energy reaching the Earth, the mechanism seems to be that the change in obliquity precipitated a release of carbon (or some other change) that in turn drove temperature change. I can't get around one thing: carbon is always involved in these events, and the more profound the change, the more profound the carbon release, independent of whether it is from permafrost (or other land-based sources) or the ocean depths.

Call it Crazy says

Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity.

So, in conclusion, the change in orbit caused the rise in temps from the sun, which resulted in the melting of the permafrost, allowing an increase and release in carbon in the atmosphere.. The release of additional carbon was only caused by first inducing heat (from the sun). The carbon wasn't the initial cause of the warming.

Correct. But obliquity and eccentricity require a mechanism to create warming (increase in the total energy of the planet) and that is carbon.

The change in obliquity and eccentricity do not directly cause the energy received by the earth from the sun to rise or fall. Eccentricity changes how pronounced the seasons are, making winters and summers more or less extreme, while obliquity affects the distribution of sunlight by latitude, meaning that different latitudes get more/less sunlight in summer and winter. Both change the distribution of solar radiation on the earth's surface, without changing its total amount.

There has to be some other intermediate factor which results in the warming/cooling we see when eccentricity and obliquity change. The papers I pointed to above all talk about releases or sequestration of carbon due to carbon-rich areas of the ocean receiving more or less energy thanks to these orbital changes, which in turn drives carbon releases into the atmosphere (or sequestration from it) and then warming (or cooling).

But this is all a dance around the fundamental, easily-verified fact that a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon, in a laboratory, will absorb more more ultraviolet light and convert it into heat, depending on how much of a percentage of carbon is in the mix. And this behavior is highly sensitive to the percentage of carbon in the mix.

So we have a causative explanation, not just a correlation.

If you're going to argue that this is not an extremely important process on the scale of planet earth, then you have to explain away the incredible correlation of carbon levels with temperature over hundreds of millions of years. It would be a hell of a thing if carbon always followed temperature so tightly without being the determining factor, particularly given the presence of the well-understood greenhouse effects determined by the presence of carbon.