Further rebuting paranoid propagandistic 'climate change' rhetoric:

[BeecherVol]

Yeah. That too. Toeing the party line in science is unfortunately the only way those guys get grants. Step off the reservation or question accepted dogmas/philosophies... and you get nada.

Kinda like the news business.

 

[sjt18]

Nah, MSM is having a much tougher time hanging on to their power. That's why Obama gets so aggravated with talk radio, FoxNews, and blogs.

 

[BeecherVol]

Or maybe a fire dept. that sets their own fire.

 

[IPorange]

It's amazing how all these threads proceed exactly the same.

Yep, this that part where I point that out.

 

[IPorange]

Nah, MSM is having a much tougher time hanging on to their power. That's why Obama gets so aggravated with talk radio, FoxNews, and blogs.

If Fox News said that there was likely global climate change, and it was greatly influenced by human activities, would you believe them? Just curious.

 

[BeecherVol]

If Fox News said that there was likely global climate change, and it was greatly influenced by human activities, would you believe them? Just curious.

If they reported it. Or had that opinion?

 

[gsvol]

Why do your numbers differ so much from Fox News' numbers?

I mean, FOX NEWS.

Because I used numbers direct from the factory!!

You've never heard me praise Fox, one of my kids once worked for them, they are a bunch of cruds imo.

The claims of ACLG and company that Fox is extreme right wing are much overblown.

Anyone who employs peta advocate Pamela Anderson is no friend of mine.

 

[sjt18]

If Fox News said that there was likely global climate change, and it was greatly influenced by human activities, would you believe them? Just curious.

You are kidding, right?

I don't accept statements of these types from ANYONE uncritically... not even people who agree with my conclusions.

 

[gsvol]

You are kidding, right?

I don't accept statements of these types from ANYONE uncritically... not even people who agree with my conclusions.

He's just trying to stir the pot.

BTW, my numbers weren't that different from the FOX soundbite, I just examined them in more detail and put them in context as well as going to the actual source for more detail.

The big problem is that it seems many of us (especially younger citizens) are programmed to only take in information on a sound bite level and that is how the frauds and hoaxers behind AGW are able to sell such a ludicrous idea. (and an even more ludicrous solution to the problem.)

Sadly there are many who still believe in AGW as if it is some sort of religion. (Praise Gaia!)

 

[TennTradition]

Picking up on half-truths an soundbites is something that many people that fall on both sides of this issue fall victim to, unfortunately.

e.g.,

AGW: 30 ft. sea level rises!!!

No-AGW: CO2 lags temperature, not the other way around.

 

[gsvol]

Picking up on half-truths an soundbites is something that many people that fall on both sides of this issue fall victim to, unfortunately.

e.g.,

AGW: 30 ft. sea level rises!!!

No-AGW: CO2 lags temperature, not the other way around.

30 ft sea level rises too absurd for comment.

The Vostok ice core analysis of the past 400,000 years confirms that CO2 rise lags temperature rise in the long term.

There is no data to support the theory that increasing CO2 levels will lead and indicate furture temperature unless you take a minescule bit of time like twenty or thirty years (leaving out any mention of sunspot activity which is an accurate indicator of short term Earth temperature,) and as a matter of fact all predictions based on that theory have proven to be inaccurate.

Remember Hanson's famous alarmist prediction in 1989??
Guess what, didn't happen, his theory didn't hold water.
(no pun, honest)

That isn't to say CO2 doesn't have a warming effect but to say it is the driver of Earth temperature is rather ignorant.

In the short term almost anything can happen, what makes CO2 even more irrevelent is the knowledge of long term temperature cycles of which we know some of the causes.

There are two overriding factors, neither over which we any control whatsoever.

Solar activity (or lack of activity) and variables in Earth's orbit around the sun.

The main changes to the earth's orbit are; the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape and the earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23° but this tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° plus the fact that the Earth wobbles in it's rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes.

During warming periods CO2 is released from the oceans.

Naturally occuring levels of CO2 in our atmosphere dwarf all CO2 ever released by human activity.

In chess there is a thing called "Bronstein's Rule."

ie; one blunder usually leads to an even worse blunder.

Kerry is talking about introducing his c&t bill in the near future. Passing that after the disastrous ethanol mandates would be an excellent demonstration of Bronstein's Rule.

What we should do is rescind the ethanol mandates.

 

[IPorange]

Naturally occurring CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago, back before the dinosaurs when the whole world was a hot house with 3 foot amphibians hanging out with giant dragon flies and sea scorpions. Yes, that atmospheric CO2, at a time of completely ice free poles, dwarfed our current anthropogenically augmented CO2 levels.

Seems like that doesn't really support the point you were making...

What are we both doing up so early?

 

[gsvol]

Naturally occurring CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago, back before the dinosaurs when the whole world was a hot house with 3 foot amphibians hanging out with giant dragon flies and sea scorpions. Yes, that atmospheric CO2, at a time of completely ice free poles, dwarfed our current anthropogenically augmented CO2 levels.

Seems like that doesn't really support the point you were making...

What are we both doing up so early?

I'm going to bed here in a minute.

Thanks for helping me make my case.

I'm not sure your giant dragon flies and sea scorpions might not be the fig newtons of someones imagination but wasn't Earth great then will all that greenery??

During the Ordovician ice age 444 million years ago, CO2 levels were about 12 times higher than CO2 levels today!!!!

New Research Documents Extremely High Atmospheric Carbon 14 During Last Ice Age | UANews.org

A team of American and British scientists report that radiocarbon levels in Earth's atmosphere during the last Ice Age were more than twice as high as today, ...........................

The radiocarbon peak Beck and his colleagues found correlates to other peaks for other radioactive isotopes - beryllium 10 and chlorine 36 - found in polar ice cores and lake sediments.

All three isotopes are produced when cosmic rays bombard Earth's upper atmosphere.

Beck says this suggests much higher levels of cosmic rays were striking the atmosphere during the Ice Age.

Game, set, match. Nighty night.

 

[IPorange]

Haha gs, I don't think you understood the article. Radiocarbon is referring to a specific isotope, which they are saying was quite high. Basically, the findings suggest that the atmosphere was being exposed to more radiation than previously thought. Also, it implies that the carbon cycle itself was in some way behaving more sluggishly than it is now.

The findings are completely in line with the current thinking of global climate change: The carbon cycle slowed, causing an increase of CO2 during the ice age. This buildup eventually contributed to the end of the ice age. This is that "lag" that you like to talk about. The "lag" is from a feedback loop that helps knock us out of (and in, I suppose) ice ages.

The implications of this are that we could be disrupting the carbon cycle in some way, that could lead to unpredictable climatic ramifications, as the authors of the study concluded and you conveniently left out:

While the cause of implied changes in ocean mixing rates or carbonate sedimentation rates is unknown, the authors conclude, the observation that the carbon cycle was significantly more sluggish in the recent past "may have profound implications regarding the oceans capacity to take up anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.

"We should take this as a warning that climate changes may affect the carbon cycle in previously unexpected ways," Beck said.

Why do you ignore the conclusions of the authors of the study? That's kind of disingenuous.

 

[gsvol]

Haha gs, I don't think you understood the article. Radiocarbon is referring to a specific isotope, which they are saying was quite high. Basically, the findings suggest that the atmosphere was being exposed to more radiation than previously thought. Also, it implies that the carbon cycle itself was in some way behaving more sluggishly than it is now.

On the contrary, I understand exactly what I'm talking about.

Did you miss the part about "high-energy 'galactic' radiation coming from beyond the solar system?"

Hudson Institute > What Seashells Say About Global Warming

For those of us who value information derived from the planet itself more than we value theories and computer models, Veizer/Shaviv projection from seashells matches the modest rate of global temperature change recorded by weather satellites and high-altitude balloons over the past 22 years. (The satellites and balloons are the most accurate measurements ever taken of the temperatures in the bulk of the atmosphere, far from urban heat islands.)

Iceberg debris from the floor of the North Atlantic says we've had nine moderate global warmings and coolings over the last 12,000 years, in a 1,500 year cycle that coincides exactly with a cycle in the magnetic activity of the sun. Veizer and Shaviv say three-fourths of the earth's temperature change is driven by cosmic rays from around the galaxy.
Neither study finds much impact on the earth's temperatures from CO2 changes.

Further:

Then Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the University of Toronto, told him that cosmic rays striking the earth cycle up and down over 135 million years as our solar system passes through one of the bright arms of the Milky Way. The Milky Way has intense levels of cosmic rays that tend to cool the earth, stimulating the formation of low-level clouds that reflect heat back into space. (High-level clouds tend to trap heat and warm the planet.)

The findings are completely in line with the current thinking of global climate change: The carbon cycle slowed, causing an increase of CO2 during the ice age. This buildup eventually contributed to the end of the ice age. This is that "lag" that you like to talk about. The "lag" is from a feedback loop that helps knock us out of (and in, I suppose) ice ages.

That's just a wrong assumption, review post # 36.

(particularly

There are two overriding factors, neither over which we any control whatsoever.

Solar activity (or lack of activity) and variables in Earth's orbit around the sun.

The main changes to the earth's orbit are; the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape and the earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23° but this tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° plus the fact that the Earth wobbles in it's rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes.

During warming periods CO2 is released from the oceans.

Naturally occuring levels of CO2 in our atmosphere dwarf all CO2 ever released by human activity.

FURTHER, FROM LINK ABOVE IN THIS REPLY:

Then Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the University of Toronto, told him that cosmic rays striking the earth cycle up and down over 135 million years as our solar system passes through one of the bright arms of the Milky Way. The Milky Way has intense levels of cosmic rays that tend to cool the earth, stimulating the formation of low-level clouds that reflect heat back into space. (High-level clouds tend to trap heat and warm the planet.)...................

In a unique, cross-disciplinary study recently published by the Geophysical Society of America, Veizer and Shaviv conclude that 75 percent of the earth's temperature variability in the past 500 million years is due to changes in our bombardment by cosmic rays as we pass in and out of galactic spiral arms. (They note that the sun continued to brighten during the 20th century. It may have accounted for about one-third of the observed warming since 1900.)

Veizer and Shaviv conclude that a doubling of today's CO2 levels would only increase global temperatures a modest 1.4 degree Fahrenheit. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in dramatic contrast, estimates two to seven times as much warming from such a CO2 increase (2.7 to 9.9F).

The two scientists warn that the billion-dollar Global Circulation computer models that predict dangerous global warming from CO2 increases are particularly weak at modeling changes in clouds that matter vitally to Earth's temperatures. Cosmic rays stimulate low-lying clouds, by electrically charging tiny particles (aerosols) so they collect more water droplets from the atmosphere. More low clouds mean a cooler planet.

Increased solar activity, in contrast, tends to reduce cloud cover and stimulate heating. In addition, a more active sun also emits more solar wind. Dr. Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist at Canada's Carleton University, says solar wind is a stream of very high-speed charged particles that deflect the galactic cosmic rays that would otherwise strike the earth and cool it. Thus, says Dr. Patterson, the warming from the sun and the cooling from galactic cosmic rays are in a constant competition to dominate Earth's temperature.

A 1.4f increase would be great for life on Earth and increased CO2 levels would also lead to more plant growth.

The implications of this are that we could be disrupting the carbon cycle in some way, that could lead to unpredictable climatic ramifications, as the authors of the study concluded and you conveniently left out:

Implications "Could be" is a rather vague phrase upon which to place Trillion $$$ legislations. Agreed??

First you say AGW is real (therefore predictable)

Then you say 'unpredictable climate ramificantions', which idea are you promoting?

While the cause of implied changes in ocean mixing rates or carbonate sedimentation rates is unknown, the authors conclude, the observation that the carbon cycle was significantly more sluggish in the recent past "may have profound implications regarding the oceans capacity to take up anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.

Another unknown factor is how much does sub-ocean volcanic activity have to do with the CO2 cycles.

Do volcanoes occur in the ocean?

Global warming may be caused by underwater volcanoes

“The rise in land temperatures, the study states, can be tied directly to increased heat and humidity coming from warmer oceans, which in turn, the study admits, may be caused solely by natural forces.

Arctic ocean volcano blew its top – even under pressure - environment - 25 June 2008 - New Scientist

Ocean Floor Geysers Warming The Seas

"We should take this as a warning that climate changes may affect the carbon cycle in previously unexpected ways," Beck said.

Why do you ignore the conclusions of the authors of the study? That's kind of disingenuous.

AGW proponents ignore more science than you can shake a stick at.

So he concludes that further funding for his scientific studies is a good thing?? Of course, so would I if I were him.

Does 'previously unsuspected' ring a bell, certainly doesn't support the settled science claim.

Meanwhile, the computer modelers and "researchers" willing to scare us about CO2 now divvy up more than $4 billion per year in government grants. The eco-activist organizations probably reap at least that much per year from CO2 scaring in memberships, subscriptions, and foundation grants from the frightened.
............

In fact, CO2 levels have been as much as 18 times higher than today during the Veizer temperature record. The earth's CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today's during the frigid Ordovician glacial period about 440 million years ago. Human CO2 releases, moreover, make up only about 3 percent of the natural carbon cycle.

And the people who stand to profit the most from CO2 regulations and the people who disapprove or approve scientific study grants are one in the same.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that little equation.

 

[gsvol]

I am just old enough to remember the scare of the 1970's... industrial pollution was going to cause global cooling, lock up mass amounts of water, and destroy the earth...

Of course the vain alarmists are much more intelligent now than then.

Me too and when I first heard about the impending ice age I investigated.

As they say, if you really want to know something then ask someone who knows.

I inquired in a lot of places and found that what the alarmists were saying was hogwash for the most part, that's one reason I was in at the ground floor level when the AGW scare movement first began.

Knowledge is power, ignorance is it's own reward.

IIRC, a "real" warming pattern occurred after an extended cool spell about 1000 years ago... it helped bring Europe out of the Dark Ages.

By and large, the warm cycles free water, increase growing seasons, and reduce drought. It is historically true... and true now. Unfortunately we are likely headed into a cooling cycle... and some predict a longer than usual one. If so, we will probably see widespread crop failure and famine... and war.

The earth has been self-regulating to equillibrium throughout its history. Solar activity is MUCH more significant than anything man has done or ever could do short of something like a mass nuclear war.

Thanks for the intelligent, informed posts.

You are a breath of fresh air amongst the stale, stagnant rants of hot air issued by those who ignorantly buy into the AGW propaganda.

fyp

What class of people worldwide stand to profit the most???

Politicians the world over will see huge amounts of money to direct where they wish and even the most moronic of fools should be able to understand a good portion of that money will be directed into those same politician's bank accounts one way or the other.

Yeah. That too. Toeing the party line in science is unfortunately the only way those guys get grants. Step off the reservation or question accepted dogmas/philosophies... and you get nada.

The modern academic science establishment bears a striking resemblance to the heavy handed flat-earthers of a bygone era. Anyone who dares question basic presuppositions will get summararily excommunicated as a heretic.

And that's a fact Jack!! k:

 

[IPorange]

You posted an article gs, and I quoted the authors' conclusions. There is no getting around that by quoting yet another article that you have not completely digested. The same concepts from your first article are in play in your second. The reason for the increased CO2 was due to a greatly slowed carbon cycle. That's your "lagging" that you think is so damning. No one has claimed that past warming events were due to higher CO2. That's just what skeptics throw out there, thinking it is somehow damaging to modern GCC theory. It's not.

 

[gsvol]

..

 

[arTfuldodger]

Alright so a guy @ work swears they have proof that makes "GCChange" a "SCIENTIFIC FACT". Those are his exact words. I keep telling him I don't believe it because I'm not sold that its a unanimous acceptance in the scientific community. I'm new and clueless to this stuff and I just want to know what the ** he is talking about as his, so called, proof. Any help please?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

The whole AGW theory is based on the fact that we should expect global warming based on the fact that CO2 is presently increasing in our atmosphere and we humans are contributing 3% of that increase.

If past warming cycles weren't due to higher CO2 densities, why would we expect the future to be different than the past???

Seriously, GS? So, humans have only accounted for 3% of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial levels? Or, are you asserting something else?

Also, you are reciting the CO2 lags temperature, not the other way round stuff in different words in your last sentence. Just because a boot killed a spider yesterday doesn't man a fly swat can't today. Temperature increased caused by non-CO2 drivers caused the oceans to release more CO2, thus increasing its levels (CO2 lagging temperature). Man is burning fossil fuels, enhancing the greenhouse effect, increasing temperatures as a result (to some degree, at least), and this causes the oceans to release a bit more CO2. This would b CO2 leading temperature. Both are entirely plausible scenarios, even if you don't think the warming will be catastrophic.

 

[TennTradition]

Alright so a guy @ work swears they have proof that makes "GCChange" a "SCIENTIFIC FACT". Those are his exact words. I keep telling him I don't believe it because I'm not sold that its a unanimous acceptance in the scientific community. I'm new and clueless to this stuff and I just want to know what the ** he is talking about as his, so called, proof. Any help please?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

It's not proof in the sense that there is a smoking gun of evidence. The dynamic climatological community by a wide margin believes that they can attribute a healthy fraction of our observed warming to man's release of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are some that disagree, but it is a very serious minority (in that community). There are others in other fields that disagree with the conclusions, though. I certainly wouldn't call the current state of the science PROOF. Proof is a heavy burden to bear, and few aspects of science really meet it, IMO. With that said, I do believe (as do the vast majority of my colleagues) that man's CO2 emissions will lead to temperature increases. What the effects of that temperature increase will be and what we should do about it are things that I still put under the label, "debatable."

 

[arTfuldodger]

So the changes that would be brought about by, say Cap and trade, would/could be considered excessive?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

So the changes that would be brought about by, say Cap and trade, would/could be considered excessive?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Some think it necessary. But personally? We would be much better served if people willingly adjusted their lives. Unfortunately, many people are just hostile and distrustful of science in general, so that isn't happening.

Don't make the mistake of confusing not liking the bill and the reality of gcc, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

Lindzen is a natural-born contrarian (which is a quality I can respect).

But let's be honest. He's brilliant, but 70 years old and almost always takes the minority view. Did you know he is adamant that cigarette smoking is not really linked to lung cancer?

At 70 years old I can still probably whip your young ass and am willing to back that statement up in fact, in the ring, out of the ring, in gloves, bare knucks, brass knucks or whatever.

"The main reason to be opposed to political control of smoking is to keep power --even the smallest and silliest kind of power -- out of the hands of ... members of a dangerous class --the class that knows what´s good for us better than we do."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

Adolph Hitler was the leader of the eradicate tobacco use movement.

In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty"

Nazi Germany had the most stringent animal rights laws in the history of the world but when humans are placed on the level as animals then it is permissable to exterminate undesirable humans.

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable."

Likewise with disarming the people of a country, when only the police have guns, you have a police state.

You can't refute the science produced by Lindzen so you attack his character and add a putrid inplication that his age somehow lessens his intellect.

 

[IPorange]

Okay, gs. You whip my young ass.


I've been attacking the "science" for months over several threads. You just don't listen, and repeat the same pseudoscience and fringe science garbage, sprinkling in real studies that superficially say something you like, but ignoring the actual conclusions of the researchers.