patrick.net

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.

HydroCabron says

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.

Well said.

HydroCabron says

You're kidding right??? Have you been asleep the last decade with all the hype of Global Warming, er.. Climate Change (just keep moving the goal posts) and the claims that the coast will be under water in a few years, all due to the rise in man made CO2??

Contrary to your belief, Science isn't saying Humans are the sole responsible factor for global warming trends. What is being said is that we are a key factor and one we should pay attention to and do something about.

Please link me credible studies claiming it will take just a few years to raise ocean levels and impact the majority of costal populations? Everything I have seen says that science isn't able to pin things down very close at all, with a range of 2-23 feet in a hundred years.

Call it Crazy says

Is there CO2 in the atmosphere that can add to the warming?? Sure... But it's percentage is dwarfed by the percentage of water vapor.

The amount of water vapor in the global atmosphere oscillates around an equilibrium which is dependent on temperature.

If there is more than x% humidity at a given temperature, it will rain, precipitating water out of the atmosphere.

That is a signal difference between water and carbon: if you put more carbon into the atmosphere, biological processes are required to remove it. For water, the removal is fairly prompt once the dew point is reached for a given humidity.

That's why humans have a limited ability to influence the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Lots of irrigation and evaporating ponds and new dams with lakes behind them and boiling kettles can pump lots of water vapor into the air, but it falls back to earth immediately.

Call it Crazy says

It becomes a feedback loop that roller coasters every day.

With more carbon, the feedback loop oscillates around a higher mean.

Call it Crazy says

The most simplistic example would be, take a night with a lot of cloud cover versus a night with a clear sky. Which nighttime temperature drops less? The reason, the clouds (water vapor), which holds in the temps. Does CO2 have any effect on those two nighttime scenarios?

Carbon makes the atmosphere more opaque to infrared, which is the wavelength in which Earth's surface radiates heat. By preventing infrared radiation from leaving the earth through the atmosphere, extra carbon traps more heat. The effect is present both day and night.

(As an aside, it wouldn't matter if carbon had an effect during the day but made jack squat difference at night: the net effect would still be warming.)

Call it Crazy says

There haven't been any to support YOUR belief...

My belief is that CO2 emissions are increasing global warming and we need to do something about it. To be clear, is that the belief that you think there are no credible studies to support?

Call it Crazy says

Is that credible?? That water had to go somewhere. He is a member of the Blue team!

Yes, definitely an exaggeration and he misspoke. He does play for the "blue" team. He isn;t a scientist. He probably meant Arctic sea ice, and not the polar cap itself, but even that claim would be way inflated.

Rew says

Please link me credible studies claiming it will take just a few years to raise ocean levels and impact the majority of costal populations? Everything I have seen says that science isn't able to pin things down very close at all, with a range of 2-23 feet in a hundred years.

Per above, a politician misspeaking isn't a credible representation of what current climatologists are saying.

What source is the chart taken from?

You are going to claim factual superiority? Are you sure you want to make that claim?

Gore is super passionate about climate change. Yes. Do you know how frustrating it must be for the scientific community to have an almost 95% agreed on and vetted climate change understanding, denied simply because media outlets attacked it?

If you believe science has a political agenda, I don't think this argument goes anyplace with you.

You seem very certain, irregardless of not being a scientist yourself ... I assume?

I'll put my faith with the experts here. I'm in overwhelmingly good company.

Call it Crazy says

*

Is that credible?? That water had to go somewhere. He is a member of the Blue team!

Call it Crazy says

Al Gore ISN'T just another politician... He has spent YEARS railing on Global Warming, I mean Climate Change and has invested heavily on promoting the hoax. He doesn't get a pass on "misspeaking"...

I hate to break this to you, but 99.9% of the crap on those stupid poster is BS. Here is what Al Gore actually said:

"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations

Call it Crazy says

Yes, CO2 is up while temps are moving sideways... That doesn't match the trend of thousands of years ago. IF CO2 truly was a big of a factor as you claim, our current temp readings should be at least 25 degrees warmer then they currently are to match the rise in CO2! Why isn't that happening?

It's not happening, because the ocean and earth are huge heat sinks. If you put a pot of water on a gas stove, and turn up the heat, the temperature of the water will be correlated with the size of the flame. However, in the 5 seconds after you turn up the heat, the water at the top of the pot will not be noticeably warmer.
Call it Crazy says

Plus, when the sun heats up the earth surface, the evaporation produces water vapor, which holds in heat and the temp rises, causing more water vapor, etc. It becomes a feedback loop

Yes, both the amount of water vapor and co2 released from the ocean increase when the ocean heats up. The water vapor pressure increases, and gas solubilities decrease as temperatures rise. Both of these have positive feedbacks. If there were no other things affecting temperature, it would rise to infinity. However, the radiation of heat from a hot body goes with the 4th power with temperature (Kelvin). So, if the earth were to double in temperature, the amount of heat radiating away would go up 16 times. This strong relationship is a non-linear affect which overwhelms the positive feedback loops of CO2 and water vapor when the temperature gets high enough

CIC said

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...

As others have mentioned, water has a short residence time in the atmosphere. It drops down after a few days. CO2 stays up for hundreds of years. That means that when we add CO2 to the atmosphere, it increases the concentration (PPM) in the atmosphere. When we add water vapor through irrigation, and such, it doesn't increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. In fact, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is the most effective way for us to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is explained here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=44

Call it Crazy says

I don't disagree with that. My argument is that you need to look at the SOURCE of the heat. If you don't have a heat source to start with, there will be no conversion. The key is the "percentages", and that's where the current discussion on climate change go off the rails.

This is also silly. These are not facts that were missed as people developed and tested global warming models. These facts are included in the models. Here, you can see that the model includes the effects of water vapor, and that the models showed the effect before it could be accurately measured. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
It is ironic, but the water feedback effect amplifies the effect of CO2, and works against you in this argument.

I'm sure I missed a few of your arguing points, as I didn't want to go through post by post. But it's clear that your points are not getting to the heart of the matter, as they are quite easily explained by people who understand the science. These points are simply factual tidbits that seem to be convincing to some people who are ignorant of science. These people overestimate the applicability of their 'common sense,' feelings on the matter.

Oh, the one argument that you have made that was most convincing in my opinion was that the temperatures seem to lead the CO2. That one nearly convinced me about 15 years ago, and before spending any time studying non-linear systems with complex responses. By the way, these cyclic behaviors are quite common. For example, predator-prey populations, business cycles, housing markets, etc. follow cycles. There are chicken and egg questions about which came first. Was it CO2 driving temperature or vice versa? Did house prices start going up and that made people want to buy more, or did people want to buy more, and then prices went up? Well, it doesn't matter. Once something tips things a little bit in one direction, there are positive feedback loops that drive it further. At some point, some other force becomes more important, and the momentum changes. Waves approaching the beach also follow some similar non-linear behavior as the water approaches the shore.

Call it Crazy says

YesYNot says

as I didn't want to go through post by post.

Maybe you should go through all the posts, it would help prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth.

This sample was good enough. If you were able to make a post that succinctly made your case, it would be worth people's time to go through point by point.

Call it Crazy says

YesYNot says

Call it Crazy says

Yes, CO2 is up while temps are moving sideways... That doesn't match the trend of thousands of years ago. IF CO2 truly was a big of a factor as you claim, our current temp readings should be at least 25 degrees warmer then they currently are to match the rise in CO2! Why isn't that happening?

It's not happening,

So, the past ice core data is incorrect?

I never refuted ice core data. I just stated that your conclusion about what should be happening is wrong. I gave you a perfectly good reason, but you avoided quoting that part. I even gave you a perfectly good example (water boiling on stove), because you probably don't know what a 'heat sink,' is much less things like how heat flows (radiative forcing) are related to temperature through heat capacity and mass.

Call it Crazy says

YesYNot says

Oh, the one argument that you have made that was most convincing in my opinion was that the temperatures seem to lead the CO2.

So, which is it, you're on both sides of the argument?

If you couldn't figure it out by my use of the words 'most convincing,' I believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and a significant threat. Your most convincing argument falls apart if you understand how non-linear dynamics work.

Call it Crazy says

YesYNot says

Was it CO2 driving temperature or vice versa?

Facts and past data answer that question. It's YOUR choice if you choose to accept it or not.

You do not have the experience to interpret the facts. It is your hubris to think that you do, even if the arguments are spoon fed on various conspiracy theory web sites. And the global warming deniers are conspiracy theorists. You are basically on the same team as bgaml or whatever his handle is.

Call it Crazy says

Nope, none of the current models, predictions or IPCC reports have included solar cycles and water vapor as the main source/reason for global warming/cooling. Their whole agenda has been focused on CO2 as the source. Anyone who pointed out that water vapor was the largest GHG and solar cycles causing warming/cooling was called a denier.

The general circulation models that describe global climate change do include solar cycles and water vapor. The IPCC doesn't list solar cycles or anthropogenic emissions of water vapor as the main reasons for global warming, because they are not. However, these are included in the models, and the report describes these perfectly well.

Call it Crazy says

Strawman argument... It's not the "time" it remains in the atmosphere, it's the percentage/volume as compared to the percentage/volume of CO2. Go back up and look at the pie chart above.

I looked at your pie chart. The time it stays in the atmosphere does affect the concentration. In fact, you can easily write an equation for based on mass conservation. In chemical engineering, there is a simplified model called a CSTR (continuously stirred tank reactor) based on a simple mass balance. If you assume that mass is conserved and apply some moth, the differential equation is d/dt(M) = flux in - flux out + reaction. Here, M is mass, and d/dt is differential with respect to time. If you want concentration, you simply divide by the volume. Thus, d/dt(C) = (flux in - flux out + reaction) / V. You can integrate this over time to see what happens to the concentration. With water vapor, whatever you put in goes back out over two days. So over a 100 year time period, flux in - flux out is zero. With CO2, that is not the case. It doesn't fall out of the sky over short periods. So, C increases over time.

Call it Crazy says

Not sure how that relates to global warming, but you're wrong on that assumption too. Prices went up because of loose and easy financing. Period.

Prices of houses are cyclical and have always been cyclical. It doesn't matter what happens first, but there are positive feedbacks. That is all.

I know that h2o is a byproduct of combustion of HYDROCARBONS, because hydrocarbons are made up of hydrogen and carbon. Thus, when burned they produce CO2 and H2O, the two stable oxidized versions of C and H.

Call it Crazy says

YesYNot says

With water vapor, whatever you put in goes back out over two days.

How much of those fossil fuels are burned every day, which adds a constant stream of water vapor into the atmosphere?

A real fucking lot. And the residence time being two days, means that the same amount of water comes right back down in the form of precipitation. The amount that can stay up is limited by the dew point. CO2 has no such limit. I've explained all of this to you, but you simply don't have the background to understand it, because you are not scientifically literate. You would know this if you could understand the implications of the things that YOU post. Namely, that the warmer it gets, the more water is in the atmosphere.

Your mind is open, but you are listening to the wrong sources and do not have the tools to think critically on this subject. My mind was open 15 years ago, but due to the preponderance of evidence, I have decided that anthropogenic GW is likely real.

Call it Crazy says

So, then that still doesn't explain the divergence of the temps and CO2 levels in the ice core data. If, as you claim, the CO2 stays in the atmosphere and has a direct relation to warming, why the divergence where the temps aren't changing in conjunction with the rise?

CO2 in the atmosphere causes more heat to be trapped. This is a heat flux, or energy per unit time. Thus, as CO2 concentrations go up, the amount of heat retained goes up. But it takes a long time for this heat to change the temperature. You have to multiply this heat flux over time to get a significant amount of energy. I gave you the analogy of a pot of water, right after someone turns up the heat. You don't get it, because you have not personal experience with how long it takes to heat a pot of water the size of the earth. The good thing is that we do not need to figure this out ourselves, because loads of smart people have already done it. The models show how quickly or slowly the global temperatures rise.

You are assuming that 'history repeats itself' or some other such nonsense, and that you should be able to read a temperature off of that graph of historic temperature / CO2 concentrations. This is not what scientists are saying at all. The models are more complicated than that.

You are looking at past data, and you have no way in which to interpret it. You might as well be trying to read Chinese. Your intuition is useless here.

So, you find something unusual, and draw all sorts of conclusions from it with no regard to statistics. You seem as bad as the people who cry foul when they find an unusual cancer cluster or a few people get brain cancer after using a cell phone. Total disregard for science.

Call it Crazy says

In over 100 years (double the CO2 chart), the average rise in temps has been 0.6 degrees C. Why hasn't the temps risen 25% to follow the CO2 data

You seem to be expecting a one to one ratio, of % increase in CO2 to % increase in temperature. I do not believe that would be expected at all. It's not like this is an engine primed for 1:1 efficiency. This is a natural system so, as you are showing, yes it will take much much more CO2 to net degrees changed.

Call it Crazy says

See... FACTS matter more than predictions...

The facts are overwhelmingly in:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bf837f55a49745a5ae13049d132ba7cd/scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air
... which climatologists say : this study wasn't really needed, as it was kind of like proving gravity exists with a falling rock.

You wave one missed prediction at a mountain of evidence, and say it discredits the whole thing. Fortunately, Science and the rest of the world tend not to make conclusions like that.

I think you are drawing really awful conclusions, from minor data, to support a belief that you hold dear for some reason.

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

You seem to pride yourself on not having the majority opinion on things. Here even when scientific fact, and opinion, is overwhelmingly stating climate change, CO2, is man made and a true threat, you take the opposite.

Why is that? Is it seriously because you distrust the majority of the scientific body? Where does the denial come from?

YesYNot says

So, you find something unusual, and draw all sorts of conclusions from it ...

YesYNot says

Total disregard for science.

I think that's the only avenue left for the minority who are holding the climate denying position. Even major oil and automotive companies have backed away from climate denying stances. Seems like Republican hardliners are left, and I think that says just awful things about the motivations for continuing to hold onto that position.

Are they really as bitter as some claim? Frightening.

I don't think it is caused by being bitter. They really believe this stuff. I have some relatives who are very catholic, and live in the conservative south. They said that they would be seriously disappointed in the pope if he said that global warming was a real issue. They are really convinced, and the deniers have apparently strung together a narrative (supported by non-sequitur facts) that is convincing to people who have no training. Frankly, I think they would rather die than admit that Al Gore was right about anything. I never watched Gore's movie, and he probably did get carried away and exaggerate things or misspeak. But, he picked an important issue to focus on, and I'm sure that chaps at the asses of conservatives.
Another issue that Gore was right on, but spoke very poorly about was social security. He wanted to take the Clinton surpluses and shore up social security. Unfortunately, he looked pretty stupid with his 'lock box' metaphor.

I think that anti-intellectualism is rooted in religion and lack of success in school. The theory of evolution fuels anti-intellectualism in the religious. But prior to that, it was astronomers who took the brunt of the anti-intellectual witch hunt. Lack of success in school combined with defensiveness makes another type of people anti-intellectual. I'm not sure which one CIC is. I guess straight up media brain washing by the Fox machine might be the problem.

In some ways, the fact that primarily people were tricked, versus holding onto some bitter "I must be right" stance, is a little more comforting. I honestly don't blame people for being fooled by what the current media environment is doing. It's very easy to be pulled in by the emotion buttons they are pushing and the "news-u-tainment" factor.

Call it KKKrazy says

Fox News.

I almost thought you were CiC replying with that. My eyes got big and I was thinking to myself, "Well, that does explain it. But I have no clue where to take the conversation now." LOL

YesYNot says

anti-intellectualism

This, more than any other belief I see in the current political landscape, scares the hell out of me. Mao and Pol Pot would be proud.
What an absolute disaster for any group of people to embrace.

Call it Crazy says

So, if the "majority" claims it's true, then there is no way the minority can question it? Is that how it works?

No. Question all you want. Science encourages it!
You just have to show some good reasons why you challenge experts in their field. You also have to be willing to grow in knowledge for the questioning done.

Holding a position, against all credible evidence, doesn't make you right or courageous. It can make one look really foolish.

Call it Crazy says

Obama received the majority of the popular vote in 2012. Does that automatically make him a good president because the majority picked him?

No. It means he actually won the popular vote.

Let's keep the politics out, and focus on the science, if you really want to debate. Deal?

Call it Crazy says

to dispute CiC's claims ...

And this is the problem. They are just claims. Even when asked for the source of your graphs, you do not disclose them. You also lift facts from sites and post them partially, from unknown origin. Are you afraid I might find your sources questionable or biased?

Scientific America
http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic/global-warming-and-climate-change/

The National Academy of Sciences
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

EPA
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.Vabra2a5OS0

Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming.htm

IPCC (video synopsis taken from : http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TrF042fGfQM

UN
http://www.un.org/climatechange/

United Nations Environment Program
http://www.unep.org/climatechange/

World Meteorological Organization
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/WMO_climatechange_en.html

Can you please list and link your counter sources? I'm sure they are as credible as these. Right?

And let's just take that one step further, at the end of the day, all this will be between you and I is a source war. The scientists know far more than you or I. Again, the experts in their field overwhelmingly agree at this point. Since Humanity moved past hunter and gatherers, we have been relying on individuals to become experts in other things, so that we can benefit from each others knowledge.

I defer to science, and I see no credible counter argument presented by you here on Pnet, or anywhere else.

If you would like to really debate this, we can go to debat.org. They do give points for conduct, so fair warning, watch your condescension and tone.

He's like the Iraqi information minister.