253 replies to this topic

[JLL]

[mikeinnaples]

Oh thats a fun graph JLL ...lets look at it from a different perspective with the same data, including more recent years. You know, since the graph data you showed didnt represent anything remotely close to including relatively recent data. That was a nice convenient graph btw, omitting all the recent data ...lmao.




Riddle me this: Why was 2006 CO2 concentrations a shade more than 25% higher than at any time in the history of the planet?

Edited by mikeinnaples, 28 January 2011 - 01:56 PM.

[maxwatt]

....

Riddle me this: where did the increases in CO2 come from when there was no industrial revolution?

Which CO2 increase are you talking about? Take the Permian for instance:

"The Greatest Extinction event in Earth’s history, “The Great Dying” that killed almost every living creature some 250 million years ago, was a greenhouse event, brought on by volcanic eruptions that burned thru great deposits of coal, and created a perfect storm of toxic clouds and warming gases."

Watch a presentation here: Video URL
or read a synopsis of the paper in the science press:
World's Biggest Extinction Event: Massive Volcanic Eruption, Burning Coal and Accelerated Greenhouse Gas Choked out Life

ScienceDaily (Jan. 25, 2011) — About 250 million years about 95 per cent of life was wiped out in the sea and 70 per cent on land. Researchers at the University of Calgary believe they have discovered evidence to support massive volcanic eruptions burnt significant volumes of coal. . . .

"Our research is the first to show direct evidence that massive volcanic eruptions -- the largest the world has ever witnessed -caused massive coal combustion thus supporting models for significant generation of greenhouse gases at this time," . . .

Other warming periods in geologic time correspond with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The only plausible explanation for the current CO2 increase and concomitant observed warming is human generate CO2 from industrial processes.

Only the Republican party and assorted cranks deny AWG att his point. Even the conservative European political parties are not in denial, and the make our Democrats proposals look mild indeed. Try listening to this:

Edited by maxwatt, 28 January 2011 - 03:02 PM.
html fix

[maxwatt]

[graph]

I see by the graph you were referring to the Pleistocene - This period is fairly well understood.

We emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and, lo and behold, there is more CO2 in the air. Surely it is not so difficult to believe that the CO2 rise is our fault. But if simple common sense is not enough, there is more to the case. (It is worth noting that investigation of this issue by the climate science community is a good indication that they are not taking things for granted or making any assumptions -- not even the reasonable ones!)

It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.

By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years! Check this plot for a dramatic juxtaposition of the slow glacial termination versus the industrial revolution.

There is still more to the case. By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.

For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate's article on how we know the CO2 is ours.

[JLL]

Other warming periods in geologic time correspond with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

And by correspond, you mean that first temperature went up and then CO2 went up.

The only plausible explanation for the current CO2 increase and concomitant observed warming is human generate CO2 from industrial processes.

Wrong.

Funny how the increase in CO2 is happening at the exact time of when you'd expect it to, if it were a natural cycle. If it was in the middle of that cycle then you might actually have a point.

[JLL]

Oh thats a fun graph JLL ...lets look at it from a different perspective with the same data, including more recent years. You know, since the graph data you showed didnt represent anything remotely close to including relatively recent data. That was a nice convenient graph btw, omitting all the recent data ...lmao.




Riddle me this: Why was 2006 CO2 concentrations a shade more than 25% higher than at any time in the history of the planet?

Because different measurements were used?

[JLL]

What happened to Occam's Razor btw? When you see a lag of ~1,000 years between temperature increase and CO2 increase, you somehow deduct that CO2 causes temperatures to increase? Where else would you apply that "logic"?

A man was diagnosed with cancer. Several years later he went to chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy causes cancer.

[mikeinnaples]

Because different measurements were used?

Same data ...your graph and mine represent exactly the same data. Just reversed as one goes forward to back and the other from the back forwards. Your graph just doesn't include recent data. That is pretty evident to me from comparing the two.

[mikeinnaples]

What happened to Occam's Razor btw? When you see a lag of ~1,000 years between temperature increase and CO2 increase, you somehow deduct that CO2 causes temperatures to increase? Where else would you apply that "logic"?

A man was diagnosed with cancer. Several years later he went to chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy causes cancer.

Claiming Occam's Razor by oversimplifying the issue and ignoring the other factors that influence climate change.... really, that is very weak.

Pulling this from the site where you obtained your data:
http://www.realclima...n-temp-and-co2/

Edited by mikeinnaples, 28 January 2011 - 04:25 PM.

[maxwatt]

Other warming periods in geologic time correspond with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

And by correspond, you mean that first temperature went up and then CO2 went up.

The only plausible explanation for the current CO2 increase and concomitant observed warming is human generate CO2 from industrial processes.

Wrong.

Funny how the increase in CO2 is happening at the exact time of when you'd expect it to, if it were a natural cycle. If it was in the middle of that cycle then you might actually have a point.

You are wrong and not reading any material I link to.

Past warming-triggered CO2 release was due to the cyclic variations in earths tilt and orbit, increasing summer temperatures int eh northern hemisphere. That is not happening now, The CO2 we are generating, the CO2 in the atmosphere that bears the isotropic footprint of human generated coal burned CO2, is causing the warming. It is true that CO2 has gone up on its own in the past, most notably during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During this time, CO2 rose and fell by over 100 ppm, ranging between around 180 to 300ppm. But these rises, though they look steep over a 400Kyr timeframe, took 5K to 20Kyrs, depending on the glacial cycle.

By contrast, we have seen an equivalent rise of 100ppm in just 150 years!

No denialist argument has been more thoroughly disproved than the one you are claiming.

[JLL]

Because different measurements were used?

Same data ...your graph and mine represent exactly the same data. Just reversed as one goes forward to back and the other from the back forwards. Your graph just doesn't include recent data. That is pretty evident to me from comparing the two.

Eh, take a good look at your graph. Different measurements are combined into one graph.

[JLL]

What happened to Occam's Razor btw? When you see a lag of ~1,000 years between temperature increase and CO2 increase, you somehow deduct that CO2 causes temperatures to increase? Where else would you apply that "logic"?

A man was diagnosed with cancer. Several years later he went to chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy causes cancer.

Claiming Occam's Razor by oversimplifying the issue and ignoring the other factors that influence climate change.... really, that is very weak.

Pulling this from the site where you obtained your data:
http://www.realclima...n-temp-and-co2/

Well it is you who is claiming man causes global warming. Who's ignoring other factors?

[mikeinnaples]

Because different measurements were used?

Same data ...your graph and mine represent exactly the same data. Just reversed as one goes forward to back and the other from the back forwards. Your graph just doesn't include recent data. That is pretty evident to me from comparing the two.

Eh, take a good look at your graph. Different measurements are combined into one graph.

That isn't relevant to the arguement I am making. I am stating that the main graph I showed matches the data from the graph you showed. I thought it was pretty clear, but apparently not. Hope that clears it up for you.

[mikeinnaples]

Well it is you who is claiming man causes global warming. Who's ignoring other factors?

I'm sorry, can you point out where I made strictly the arguement that only man causes global warming? No, you cannot.

There are numerous things that influence global climate. Sun cycles, earth orbit, volcanic activity ...to name a few. It is my examination of the data and influence attributed to it all that has led me see that the recent warming period has obviously been greatly influenced by man. Is it the only factor, no. I never made that claim.

Nice try though.

[mikeinnaples]

C02 ppm

2010: 390
2009: 387
2008: 385

Put that up against your graph, can you explain to me why it is 30% higher than the highest record level prior to modern times?

How come every year since the 1950's have been above the highest ever recorded in the history of the planet?

Two things come to mind as possible explanations:

1. We are grossly inaccurate (by 30% or more) at measuring historic CO2 level.

2. Man has infact influenced CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

3. The last 60 years have been been unprecedented in volcanic activity.


#3 can be ruled out for sure.

[mikeinnaples]

http://www.thecypres...YEAR_EVER/39469


One word: kook

Edited by mikeinnaples, 28 January 2011 - 05:13 PM.

[JLL]

C02 ppm

2010: 390
2009: 387
2008: 385

Put that up against your graph, can you explain to me why it is 30% higher than the highest record level prior to modern times?

How come every year since the 1950's have been above the highest ever recorded in the history of the planet?

Two things come to mind as possible explanations:

1. We are grossly inaccurate (by 30% or more) at measuring historic CO2 level.

2. Man has infact influenced CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

3. The last 60 years have been been unprecedented in volcanic activity.


#3 can be ruled out for sure.

I'm voting for #1. Of course man has influenced CO2 levels, but not by 30%.

What's more, I claim that the increase man has caused is not causing global warming.

[mikeinnaples]

What's more, I claim that the increase man has caused is not causing global warming.

So you are admitting that the earth is warming ....but believe that man isn't the cause?

[mikeinnaples]

I suppose it could be the sun ....but for the last 30 years or so the solar activity has been trending down while the temperature and C02 levels continue to rise.

So while the sun is a huge influence on global temperature, arguably the biggest... the sun cannot be blamed for the last 30 years of temperature increase. If anything, the temperature should have been trending downwards.

So now we've ruled out the sun.



What is left that could raise temps naturally?

Edited by mikeinnaples, 28 January 2011 - 05:50 PM.

[JLL]

What's more, I claim that the increase man has caused is not causing global warming.

So you are admitting that the earth is warming ....but believe that man isn't the cause?

Yes. I also don't believe that the earth is warming at an unusual rate. Not that it's really a question of believing, I think it's a fact. AGW proponents say the real increases are yet to come... I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Brafarality]

If it is really true that snow and ice coverage overall has been decreasing over the last 30 years, then the energy is being stored in the oceans and will rise up like leviathan one day, perhaps, very soon.
Whereas temperature stats can be affected by bias, imho (correcting for heat island and heat radiating sources, eg), snow and ice and other reflective surface coverage can be empirically measured, with near unerring accuracy (seems like even Photoshop could even do it with some satellite pics from 4x/year over 30 years and a white balance measure or something: seems really easy, I guess, is what I mean)..

I know there are measurements of arctic sea ice and glaciers in the Andes, etc etc., but, again ADHD afflicted, must ask: does anyone know offhand if there is any source of overall planetary reflective surface coverage?
Unless an increase in aerosols and other atmospheric particles is offsetting the decrease in ice and snow coverage by reflecting solar energy before it ever reaches the surface to be absorbed, we are undeniably growing a monstrosity of excess energy in the oceans, lakes, damp earth, etc., to be unleashed, I think, in an abrupt way. Could be like punctuated equlibrium or whatever its called when things seem stable for a while but slow underlying changes cause sudden visible change.

For reasons I dont understand, this heat energy could still be being stored while the climate is temporarily cooling, so, it is possible to go from a very slight cooling to a mega burst of warming once excess energy springs forth.

Edited by Brafarality, 28 January 2011 - 09:44 PM.

[maxwatt]

If it is really true that snow and ice coverage overall has been decreasing over the last 30 years, then the energy is being stored in the oceans and will rise up like leviathan one day, perhaps, very soon.
Whereas temperature stats can be affected by bias, imho (correcting for heat island and heat radiating sources, eg), snow and ice and other reflective surface coverage can be empirically measured, with near unerring accuracy (seems like even Photoshop could even do it with some satellite pics from 4x/year over 30 years and a white balance measure or something: seems really easy, I guess, is what I mean)..

I know there are measurements of arctic sea ice and glaciers in the Andes, etc etc., but, again ADHD afflicted, must ask: does anyone know offhand if there is any source of overall planetary reflective surface coverage?
Unless an increase in aerosols and other atmospheric particles is offsetting the decrease in ice and snow coverage by reflecting solar energy before it ever reaches the surface to be absorbed, we are undeniably growing a monstrosity of excess energy in the oceans, lakes, damp earth, etc., to be unleashed, I think, in an abrupt way. Could be like punctuated equlibrium or whatever its called when things seem stable for a while but slow underlying changes cause sudden visible change.

For reasons I dont understand, this heat energy could still be being stored while the climate is temporarily cooling, so, it is possible to go from a very slight cooling to a mega burst of warming once excess energy springs forth.

I cannot understand how you can conclude the earth is actually cooling.;

[Brafarality]

If it is really true that snow and ice coverage overall has been decreasing over the last 30 years, then the energy is being stored in the oceans and will rise up like leviathan one day, perhaps, very soon.
Whereas temperature stats can be affected by bias, imho (correcting for heat island and heat radiating sources, eg), snow and ice and other reflective surface coverage can be empirically measured, with near unerring accuracy (seems like even Photoshop could even do it with some satellite pics from 4x/year over 30 years and a white balance measure or something: seems really easy, I guess, is what I mean)..

I know there are measurements of arctic sea ice and glaciers in the Andes, etc etc., but, again ADHD afflicted, must ask: does anyone know offhand if there is any source of overall planetary reflective surface coverage?
Unless an increase in aerosols and other atmospheric particles is offsetting the decrease in ice and snow coverage by reflecting solar energy before it ever reaches the surface to be absorbed, we are undeniably growing a monstrosity of excess energy in the oceans, lakes, damp earth, etc., to be unleashed, I think, in an abrupt way. Could be like punctuated equlibrium or whatever its called when things seem stable for a while but slow underlying changes cause sudden visible change.

For reasons I dont understand, this heat energy could still be being stored while the climate is temporarily cooling, so, it is possible to go from a very slight cooling to a mega burst of warming once excess energy springs forth.

I cannot understand how you can conclude the earth is actually cooling.;

At this point, I do not. I openly entertain the possibility after having supported global warming theories since 1985 or so, when I think I first remember hearing about them, but now am uncertain.
Guess just looking for something less debatable and more purely quantifiable (not that temps arent quantifiable). Just going for absolute simplicity, and reflective surface coverage could be it, for me, at least.

Greenhouse gases, aerosols, cloud coverage, water vapor, and many other atmospheric variables affect solar radiation before it reaches the earth, but if there is a measurable increase in exposed dark surface due to melting ice and snow, it is almost certain that heat, in some form, whether in ocean or atmosphere, trees or storms, is increasing and possibly being stored in mediums with high specific heat such as water.

[mikeinnaples]

For reasons I dont understand, this heat energy could still be being stored while the climate is temporarily cooling, so, it is possible to go from a very slight cooling to a mega burst of warming once excess energy springs forth.

Well first of all the climate isnt temporarily cooling.

On another note, without even taking the thickniess measurements into account ..which show shrinkage, the visible sat. pics show an extremely obvious decrease in surface area.

[maxwatt]

...
Well first of all the climate isnt temporarily cooling.

On another note, without even taking the thickniess measurements into account ..which show shrinkage, the visible sat. pics show an extremely obvious decrease in surface area.

It may be temporarily cooling seasonally in some locations, overshadowed by warming elsewhere. This may help to visualize current temperatures for January. (Blue is cooler, red is warmer compared to seasonal average.)
Source of map

Edited by maxwatt, 30 January 2011 - 05:34 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

I guess it depends on your definition of temporary and how literally you take it. A single month of a single season in a single region isn't overly applicable to the big picture in my eyes. One's boss/manager/director can walk in to a office and quite literally say that they caught their employee with their eyes shut, while literally correct ...in context, a simple blink isn't grounds for firing.

[mikeinnaples]

It is the complete opposite with winters. They have been relentlessly cooling, no doubt about it.
Global warming MAY produce pockets of coolness, but what are the chances I just happen to be living under one? And everyone else for that matter noting that the frenzy flies in the face of personal sensory experience?

This is for the crowd that believes local/regional weather disproves global warming.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
438 PM EST SAT FEB 05 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE TIED AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 87 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF 87 SET IN 1943.

This is Melbourne, Florida ....not Australia. I guess, by using your logic ...global warming is real.

[maxwatt]

It is the complete opposite with winters. They have been relentlessly cooling, no doubt about it.
Global warming MAY produce pockets of coolness, but what are the chances I just happen to be living under one? And everyone else for that matter noting that the frenzy flies in the face of personal sensory experience?

This is for the crowd that believes local/regional weather disproves global warming.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
438 PM EST SAT FEB 05 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE TIED AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 87 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF 87 SET IN 1943.

This is Melbourne, Florida ....not Australia. I guess, by using your logic ...global warming is real.

Don't tell me, let me guess:

No, I've a;ready decide it's not rule, this is just... a fluctuation. Right. Wait, I'll see what Rush says.... or Beck....

The new symbol for the Republican Party should be an OStrich, not an Elephant. I'd like to see a cartoon of on morphing into the other.... The Republicans in the House are under the control of the Koch brothers, whose immense fortune comes from oil and gas. Not surprisingly they are trying to weaken or reverse Obama's EPA regulations limiting CO2 emissions.

IPCC data indicates we have at most 10 years to turn things around if we want to maybe limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees C. Even at that temperature we risk massive release of methane clathrates as oceans warm. Not that this is a certainty, but it is a very real if uncertain risk whose consequences would be dire. All the more saddening when with sufficient investment (creating jobs, by the way) we could meet all the world's projected increased energy needs in twenty years with a combination of wind, solar and other renewables. LINK


The situation reminds me of Aesop's fable of the grasshopper and the ants. The deniers are like grasshoppers, not thought for the future. But I don't see any ants to counterbalance them, only Cassandras.

[mikeinnaples]

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
309 PM EST MON FEB 07 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 89 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THE OLD RECORD OF 87 WAS SET IN 2008.

Global Warming alert! Once again local weather proves GLOBAL WARMING.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 08 February 2011 - 03:48 PM.

[maxwatt]

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE
309 PM EST MON FEB 07 2011

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE AT MELBOURNE...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 89 DEGREES WAS SET AT MELBOURNE TODAY.
THE OLD RECORD OF 87 WAS SET IN 2008.

Global Warming alert! Once again local weather proves GLOBAL WARMING.

Such temperature fluctuations from the norm are exactly what is predicted in climate models, with increased energy input from heat trapped by increased atmospheric CO2.

The question is what are we going to do about it? Responses are blase, liek "onlyh a 3 foot rise in sea level, we can deal with it." At what expense, and certainly not world-wide. Maybe a few cities, or countries that have resources and plan, like the Dutch.

Worse that just a rising sea, is acidification of the ocean and changing circulation patterns creating hypoxic conditions, killing off most sea-life (spell food-shortage) and increased heat an drought creating further food shortages. There is a possibility - odds unknown: not unlikely, unknown. A 5 degree rise (or less, but more likely at 5 degrees) could trigger massive methane release from deepwater clathrates. This is somewhere we don't want to go, or even risk going, even a small risk. The last time this happened ont he scale we can bring about, was called the end-Permian extinction, which killed 98% of all life on earth; plants and animals, terrestrial and pelagic.

This is as much a threat to immortalists as death itself. Even were we to conquer death by aging, this looms as the next great threat to a lifespan of 10,000 years or more.

I do think LongeCity should have a group at least considering strategies to deal with the inevitable changes that are coming.