World may not be warming, say scientists

[Munky]

WTF? Think about what you're typing.

I did, and it happens to be outside the usual box where you think.

 

[Throckmorton]

That still doesn't prove that the CO2 caused the warming, or the destruction of dinosaurs. Also, there were higher CO2 levels during the last few thousand years, long after the dinosaurs went extinct, and we survived just fine.

CO2 was responsible for the exact amount of heat retention that CO2 causes. You slept under a blanket last night I assume. Are you going to tell me "that still doesn't prove the blanket kept me warm". It's a blanket, that's what it does!!

CO2 had nothing to do with the dinosaur extinction. I said they liked it.

You're wrong about CO2 being higher during the last few thousand years. It hasn't been this high in at least 800,000 years

 

[Munky]

CO2 was responsible for the exact amount of heat retention that CO2 causes. You slept under a blanket last night I assume. Are you going to tell me "that still doesn't prove the blanket kept me warm". It's a blanket, that's what it does!!

CO2 had nothing to do with the dinosaur extinction. I said they liked it.

You're wrong about CO2 being higher during the last few thousand years. It hasn't been this high in at least 800,000 years

You're forgetting that:
1. The changes in CO2 levels trail the changes in temperature, not the other way around. If I got warmer before I put a blanket on, then I can't attribute the warming to the blanket.
2. In the 1800's atmospheric CO2 levels were measured chemically and recorded to be well above 300ppm, but the "scientists" chose to reject those measurements.

 

[Throckmorton]

You're forgetting that:
1. The changes in CO2 levels trail the changes in temperature, not the other way around. If I got warmer before I put a blanket on, then I can't attribute the warming to the blanket.
2. In the 1800's atmospheric CO2 levels were measured chemically and recorded to be well above 300ppm, but the "scientists" chose to reject those measurements.

1. Climatologists and those of us who have studied this stuff already know that. All it means is CO2 used to be a dependent variable. Of course it was... because humans weren't burning all these fossil fuels!! That's exactly the point.

The climate would warm because of the Milankovitch cycle, solar output variation, etc.... And that would cause more CO2 to be released from soil, oceans, etc. It retained more heat back then too, and acted as a positive feedback, causing more and more heating, until the cycle was forced the other way by the Milankovitch cycle or solar variation. Unfortunately that won't happen now, because we've increased CO2 far beyond the normal high points.

2. CO2 concentration can be observed in ice cores.

 

[Munky]

1. Climatologists and those of us who have studied this stuff already know that. All it means is CO2 used to be a dependent variable. Of course it was... because humans weren't burning all these fossil fuels!! That's exactly the point.

The climate would warm because of the Milankovitch cycle, solar output variation, etc.... And that would cause more CO2 to be released from soil, oceans, etc. It retained more heat back then too, and acted as a positive feedback, causing more and more heating, until the cycle was forced the other way by the Milankovitch cycle or solar variation. Unfortunately that won't happen now, because we've increased CO2 far beyond the normal high points.

2. CO2 concentration can be observed in ice cores.

The ice core measurements are proxy data. There were actual chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 carried out according to standard accepted methods in the 1800's and early 1900's, which show fluctuations in CO2 levels reaching well above the the IPCC claims.
You can get the basic intro here:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

 

[Throckmorton]

The ice core measurements are proxy data. There were actual chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 carried out according to standard accepted methods in the 1800's and early 1900's, which show fluctuations in CO2 levels reaching well above the the IPCC claims.
You can get the basic intro here:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

It's not proxy data. It's bubbles in the ice http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/283/5408/1712

Look at the graph on page 4 of your PDF. The ice core data matches the curve of the Mauna Loa readings. The "historic" data points are all over the place. It's plain as day that they're not accurate all.

 

[Munky]

It's not proxy data. It's bubbles in the ice http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/283/5408/1712

Look at the graph on page 4 of your PDF. The ice core data matches the curve of the Mauna Loa readings. The "historic" data points are all over the place. It's plain as day that they're not accurate all.

Their accuracy has been verified to be within 3%. Just because they don't agree with ice core data doesn't mean they're inaccurate and that the ice core data is.

 

[monovillage]

"Americans may be forced to pay $7 a gallon for gas to meet Pres. Obamas greenhouse gas emissions."
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/

I'd really look forward to paying this kind of money for gas along with all the other related costs that will be passed on to consumers. There are astronomical costs do we really know why we're going to be spending this money? Do we know if it will make any difference?

 

[NeoV]

Munky - now you are just making stuff up

I used the CO2 numbers to show how far off the statement of "99 percent of CO2 comes from ocean evaporation" - I wasn't saying that the entire discussion of global warming was as simple as that paragraph.

Your discussion on CO2 levels in the past few thousand years? Not even close - the 'at least' 800,000 thousand years number is said by some to be as high as 15 million years

You are like a talking points memo on anti-GW BS - CO2 trails heat rise, CO2 levels have been higher than they are now recently, blah blah blah - all discredited, all nothing but a bunch of misinformation

and Mono - more scare tactics - the Evil anti-christ Obama is going to have us paying $7 per gallon for gas - just like he was going to take away health benefits for veterans, just like he was going to raise everyone's taxes, just like he was going to make a federal gay marriage law, just like ....see a pattern yet?

not everyone who agrees with the science that says global warming is real believes that the Day After Tomorrow is going to happen in a few years if we don't do anything - but there really is no downside to - lowering the amount of pollution we produce - and selling that technology to the world - reducing our dependence on foreign fuel sources - again - what are the downsides to those things - regardless of how you feel about man's impact on our climate?

 

[monovillage]

"More scare tactics" from the ultra right wing NY Times? No one buys a house, a car or a computer without knowing what the price tag is, how many trillions of dollars are you talking for this greenhouse gas clean-up?
You can also look at these dissenting peer reviewed papers about whether CO2 is causing GW>

Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
- Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
- Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens
CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate: Comment (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp. 18–18, July 2004)
- Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Chemical Innovation, Volume 31, Number 5, pp 44-46, May 2001)
- Robert H. Essenhigh

Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- Craig D. Idso

Knock yourself out.

 

[monovillage]

Non-scientific graph
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/files/2010/02/AGW_hockey_stick_graph_big.gif

 

[Atheus]

There were actual chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 carried out according to standard accepted methods in the 1800's and early 1900's, which show fluctuations in CO2 levels reaching well above the the IPCC claims.[/url]

LOL - why don't you to carry out the rest of your life according to standard accepted methods of the 1800s if they're so great? You can start by turning off that computer and getting yourself some carrier pigeons and a quill pen.

 

[monovillage]

Non-peer reviewed article "Where has all the carbon gone"

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/where-has-all-the-carbon-gone/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

commondreamer, if you're really a geophysicist, why do you lack any understanding of the carbon cycle? Did you skip those classes or something?

...says that man who claims to be "in the field" and doesn't know the difference between galacitic cosmic rays and solar irradience.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The rate we are experiencing now is way higher than usual. Just because you see a spike on a graph doesn't mean it's the same rate.

CO2 and other GGs are the only things that would cause the current spike. The sun hasn't gotten brighter. The earth isn't at a point in its orbit that would cause this warming.

Meanwhile, the GG increase we have caused DOES explain the current warming. In fact it would be physically impossible for it NOT to cause this warming.

I don't know how many times I have to explain it.

OK show me your proof that rate of change is unprecedented as the graph I presented clearly shows otherwise.

I can understand your frustration...I don't know how many times I need to point you to GCR theory...yet you continue to babble about solar irradience and show zero understanding of what I'm talking about.

 

[Munky]

LOL - why don't you to carry out the rest of your life according to standard accepted methods of the 1800s if they're so great? You can start by turning off that computer and getting yourself some carrier pigeons and a quill pen.

Better get some yourself, before the green police confiscates your computer and forces you into a pre-industrial lifestyle.

 

[Munky]

Munky - now you are just making stuff up

I used the CO2 numbers to show how far off the statement of "99 percent of CO2 comes from ocean evaporation" - I wasn't saying that the entire discussion of global warming was as simple as that paragraph.

You got a reliable source for those numbers?

Your discussion on CO2 levels in the past few thousand years? Not even close - the 'at least' 800,000 thousand years number is said by some to be as high as 15 million years

Which part of my discussion? All you've said is that nobody can agree on a number anywhere between 800000 and 15million years.

You are like a talking points memo on anti-GW BS - CO2 trails heat rise, CO2 levels have been higher than they are now recently, blah blah blah - all discredited, all nothing but a bunch of misinformation

Better check your facts again. This time using other sources than pro-GW BS.

not everyone who agrees with the science that says global warming is real believes that the Day After Tomorrow is going to happen in a few years if we don't do anything - but there really is no downside to - lowering the amount of pollution we produce - and selling that technology to the world - reducing our dependence on foreign fuel sources - again - what are the downsides to those things - regardless of how you feel about man's impact on our climate?

You should tell that to the politicians pushing stories like "polar ice caps could melt as soon as 2035" and "sea levels could rise as much as 12m in next century." Doom and gloom alarmism is exactly what they're using to push monstrous legislation like cap'n'trade, which brings a lot of economic downsides and does nothing to reduce pollution or dependence on foreign oil.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Looks like ice extent is improving lately.

 

[werepossum]

1. Climatologists and those of us who have studied this stuff already know that. All it means is CO2 used to be a dependent variable. Of course it was... because humans weren't burning all these fossil fuels!! That's exactly the point.

The climate would warm because of the Milankovitch cycle, solar output variation, etc.... And that would cause more CO2 to be released from soil, oceans, etc. It retained more heat back then too, and acted as a positive feedback, causing more and more heating, until the cycle was forced the other way by the Milankovitch cycle or solar variation. Unfortunately that won't happen now, because we've increased CO2 far beyond the normal high points.

2. CO2 concentration can be observed in ice cores.

In other words, Mother Gaia knows if CO2 is caused by humans or nature, and she's not using the CO2 from your stinking SUV. (Apparently she will however use CO2 from Algore's SUVs and private jets, because they are BFF. It's just Republican SUVs and private jets that are killing the world.) So even though CO2 has been higher and temperatures have been higher, that's okay because that was all part of Mother Gaia's mystical magic plan. Now however we're producing CO2 that Mother Gaia had locked away forever, so we're destroying the world, killing Mother Gaia, and making Baby Jesus cry. Since we all know this, it's okay if science has to fudge a few numbers or use some pretend formulas to make reality agree with what we all know to be true.

 

[Throckmorton]

Edit: thought you quoted another post.

werepossum, that CO2 came from the ground and oceans as a result of warming, not the other way around. It had the same effects, but it never got to the point we are at now. Did you look at the graph?
It would take a huge drop in solar irradiation to cause the CO2 out there now to be re-sequestered much less what we will spew in the future.

There's no such thing as Gaia. There's no such thing as a "powerful planet that can handle anything blah blah hippy nonsense". We are POWERFUL and we have changed the atmosphere.

 

[Throckmorton]

The ice core measurements are proxy data. There were actual chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 carried out according to standard accepted methods in the 1800's and early 1900's, which show fluctuations in CO2 levels reaching well above the the IPCC claims.
You can get the basic intro here:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

Look at the graph man. No matter who assigns a "%" accuracy to 1800s chemical analysis, they don't match up with the Mauna Loa line while the ice cores do. You think that's a coincidence?

 

[Throckmorton]

...says that man who claims to be "in the field" and doesn't know the difference between galacitic cosmic rays and solar irradience.

I'm not in the astronomy field, but I DO know that galactic cosmic rays are specific types of solar radiation that affect cloud formation, and solar irradience is the total amount of energy hitting the earth.

 

[gingermeggs]

Edit: thought you quoted another post.

werepossum, that CO2 came from the ground and oceans as a result of warming, not the other way around. It had the same effects, but it never got to the point we are at now. Did you look at the graph?
It would take a huge drop in solar irradiation to cause the CO2 out there now to be re-sequestered much less what we will spew in the future.

There's no such thing as Gaia. There's no such thing as a "powerful planet that can handle anything blah blah hippy nonsense". We are POWERFUL and we have changed the atmosphere.

Tell me that when hiv goes airbourne!

 

[NeoV]

doc - keep grasping for straws, your arctic sea ice stuff has also been explained - you guys are downright comical in how you jump at every little 'theory' that you think disproves something, when in fact it's already been debunked and/or proven wrong - or in fact is a symptom of the very thing you are arguing against.

Munky -you said there was more co2 in the air quite recently - I said it hasn't been this high for at least 800,000 thousand years - and possibly as long as 15 million years - and you are claiming some kind of victory over this? Really?

werepossum - this time the CO2 isn't coming from natural sources - hence the clear and obvious rise in CO2 levels

 

[Lemon law]

The big news is now on methane levels, that are bubbling out of arctic permafrosts at record levels. Even as lack of many recent sunspots is perhaps very temporarily cooled the planet, its still failed to refreeze the permafrosts.

Leaving atmospheric methane levels at the highest level in 400,000 years. And as a greenhouse gas, methane is about 17 times more effective than C02. And if the planet warms enough to thaw underwater methane hydrates at both poles, there is no telling how many degrees C that planet could rapidly warm. And the effects would likely take hundreds of thousands of years to absorb before such a warming trend would abate.

Its very unlikely that the current 2-3 years of minimal sunspot activity will continue much longer, but if sunspot activity picks up, global warming may return with a vengeance riding on unchecked methane. .