OK, I'm convinced! Climate Change IS a hoax!

Non-science major I take it?

 

Or a non-history buff. Short term global changes are usually from natural events, but on continental levels, you have the dust storms of the depression, same present day situation in mainland China. A noticeable drop in CO2 levels occurred during the Genghis Khan era. It is possible for man to really screw up on a localized level. On a global level, it's harder to prove, probably in the same way it's hard to prove that a sore toe can cause a headache.

 

It's been over 100F around here for the past many, many days. Yesterday was 108. Very oppressive.

 

guess I will opine (need some eggs thrown at me to make an omelet) .

I remember reading/hearing somewhere that a Volcano in Central America erupted and placed more green house gases in the air than MAN has in the past 200 years (at time of the event)

Also I remember hearing/reading that Avg Temp on Mars was up too... and out near Saturn.. hum.. what do they have in common??

Are Humans a cause of the current events.. heck if I can prove/disprove (and any statistician can skew the data to meet a desired outcome) or even could guess..

But we should change, and would be very good for everybody... but I do know this if we don't get China/India/ect... in line... I think we need a world and 1/2 to compensate...

Two last things... Nature will correct the problem.. World Pandemic and 2/3 of the pop. will be laid to rest... are we do for a mass extinction that looks to comes every 62 million years..

Did we not have this warming thing happen just before 1550 AD?

but I sure have enjoyed reading all the opines so far... keep them coming.. somebody is bound to be correct... and being 51 I am sure I will be long dead when we find out first hand..

But one thing I do really believe is that if we keep destroying the rain forest around the world we are toast... see ya... dead...

so off to read more on a Fav subject... Prii just one stupid Texas (as I have been reading we all are in this thread )

 

Google is your friend. "volcano co2 emissions" leads directly to
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?
Answer: human industrial activities now put more than 100 times as much non-biological CO2 into the air as do volcanoes.

 

Are we 'due'? No, this time, we're *causing* the mass extinction.

 

I agree with you.
>>On 26-Aug-2011 world population will hit 7 Billion people.

Exploding population is causing various sustainability issues.
Deforestation, global warming, etc. So yes it is a little bit of a conservative assumption to think controlling CO2 is the key to the survival of the human race.

 

Couldn't quickly find any references on Saturn global warming, but here's the quick rebuttal to "But Mars is warming, too!"

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

 

Depends on what your definition of long term is. If it is billions of years, then all the inner planets are experiencing long term warming. When the sun engulfs us all it will be quite toasty.

But the debate is not whether or not the sun is hot, but is man contributing to the curve making it hotter than if there was no man. And that is scientifically proven, but not accepted by the crazies yet.

 

A little help for your confussion. Saying climate change is a scientifically proven fact is a fact is like saying Carbon is a scientifically proven fact. I think No, there is no hypothesis, you can't prove that. Its just a name. Now I think what you mean is man burning fossil fuels contributes to the current climate change. That is an hypothesis that is supported by the evidence. In other words a theory that is supported by data, but not a proven fact. Now in order to get somewhere with this you need to state which climate change you are talking about. If you are talking about increasing air and sst (sea surface temperature) there is broad scientific consensus. If you saying ghg will cause the melting of the himalyan ice caps or 100 foot rise of sea level in the next century, there is strong scientific evidence against the likelihood. If someone says global temperatures have been cooling for the last 100 years, they are simply wrong. When Imhoff says belching huge clouds of ghg will do no harm that is polics, but it is also politics when someone that says the cap and trade bill that went through the house than died would have prevented climate change.

I would too.

But, people need to think. When there have been statements about global warming causing mass extinction these have included all those likely extinctions that would happen without warming. Loss of species is overwhelmingly through loss of habitat, pollutions, movement of invasive species, and hunting. The idea of ghg caused mass extinction sounds quite biblical, and similar to the rapture stories being put out. What did IPCC say, 20% of ghg are being put forth from deforestation. That not only hurt the ability to sequester carbon, but is one of the major drivers of species loss and changes in the anthrocene.

 

I agree that AGW is a political tool,but not in the way you see it.
The IPCC is a political organization .They foster faux science to implement a political goal.
Which is to finance their organization with a carbon tax or cap and trade to the tune of multitrillions per year.
Its no accident they are sister organizations with IAEA.Making the world accepting of nuclear power,by taxing carbon.

 

Chogan you werent around during a previous thread.I wonder if you can explain the points I raised.
Because if you cant ,your theory is wrong.
"Theres is no real proof that CO2 causes much change in temperature.
A doubling of CO2 will raise temps by a little over 1 degree.(Then further concentrations have a much lesser effect)
The "FORCING" theory is purely hypothetical.Surely you can not claim otherwise.
Without the forcing component of AGW theory you have nothing to stand on.
I think I can prove that forcing as Richard Alley explains it,is false.
Correct me if Im mistaken but Alley says its like interest on a credit card.
From ice age ,temp rise is initiated by an unknown event.
That temp rise ,raises CO2 which adds interest to the temp and raises it higher.
Observing Vostok ice core data of interglacial warming periods and CO2 levels.
The temp rises until it peaks.This is where I believe I can prove Alley is full of BULL S.
After the 15,000 year rise the temp dives back into ice age.
For up to 800 years the temp dives ,WHILE CO2 IS STILL RISING!!!
(why the 800 year delay?It takes that long for the oceans to react to absorb or release CO2)
Its impossible for CO2 to have much effect on the dropping temperatures.Obviously CO2 has next to zero effect on diving temperatures.This is while CO2 is still climbing.
If CO2 doesnt affect diving temps,it doesnt have effect to rising temps in the way Alley suggests.
As the temp continues to dive toward ice age, atmospheric CO2 begins to react to the lower temps by decreasing(being absorbed into the oceans).
(Obviously CO2 levels are a result of temperature,not that there is any dispute to that fact)
CO2 does cause a minor warming ,but CO2 cant possibly cause climate change in the past or the present or the future."

 

The last time mojo brought up this issue, I suggested that the timing accuracy looked like an important factor. That is, that the ice bubbles (containing the CO2 record) may not be in exactly the same ice-core stratum as the water (containing the O and/or H isotope paleotemperature record). That was based on some limited reading, not any vast personal knowledge of paleoclimatology.

I see no evidence that mojo looked into that possibility, and here we are again. So I took another wander through google scholar. I saw at least two studies arguing against the above-mentioned mismatch, involving argon and deuterium isotopes. At least, that they did not make 800 years go to 1 or 0 years.

I saw several other studies suggesting that the major cause was thermal inertia (both mixing and thermodynamic), with implications for CO2 equilibria at all ocean depths. This may not be altogether different from the ENSO-driven changes that we see now in partitioning energy between air & sea. Different in time scales surely; but ENSO is a phenomenon of the top 100 m of a 3400 m ocean.

Another group of studies suggesting that there would (should? could?) have been large differences in continental dust transport to oceans at glacial and interglacial initiations. From that, differences in iron (+silica one would hope) fertilization, and differences in marine CO2 sink strength out of phase with atmospheric temperature.

In other words, this looks subtle and multidimensional. and I'm not able to take the lead in simplifying. Either to my satisfaction or to that of others here.

but I would be very interested if a paleoclimatologist (mainstream or otherwise) wrote a review of factors contributing to this apparent timing mismatch. If one appears it is sure to get some 'press' so I shan't fail to bring it to PC.

But does it mean that the sensitivity of earth energy balance to CO2 (and other IR absorbers) is low? Well you could hope so I suppose. But then, wouldn't you feel the least bit interested in what other factors might have caused paleotemperature variation?

Perhaps something other than solar energy output and galactic cosmic rays? Both of them have 'timing errors' much larger than the 800 years in discussion here.

 

Around here, this whole year, it has been 80F or higher for 78 minutes.

 

My basic premise is sound.CO2 cant cause forcing only when temperatures rise and have no forcing when entering ice age.
Cyclotronic and yourself are trying to fault the ice core data.
Its generally accepted as being accurate.Im tempted to call that ice core data "settled science".
But the data may be flawed.In which case Alleys forcing theory is shakier than ever.
How can Alley use the data to hypothesize geologic climate change,but I cant use the same data to prove him wrong?
Thats not exactly a level playing field.

 

I don't think you understand what alley has been saying, the forgings go both way. When it gets colder, more co2 is sequestered, and co2 changes make it get colder. I think he can explain it better himself

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NQPolcYoIc"]‪Richard Alley Dances to Explain Ice Ages, CO2 and Global Warming‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

 

I do understand and you are misinterpreting Alley.
CO2 rise in the atmosphere lags temp rise by about 800 years.
Im referring to a specific period to examine,
when interglacial temperatures PEAK and then drop into to ice age .CO2 levels LAG BY 800 YEARS.
At the end of an interglacial period ,CO2 LEVELS CONTINUE TO RISE FOR 800 YEARS WHILE TEMPS DROP INTO ICE AGE.
CO2 cannot prevent temp drop even though CO2 levels are rising.Basically CO2 has little effect on diving temps.

 

Tohachitu said he would email Alley.
No response. Im not surprised.Because Alley has no explanation because there is no explanation.
Unless Chogan comes up with one.

 

Clown shoes would befit Alley.
Come on this is actually the crux of AGW science?
"CO2 must be the cause of global warming ,because we cant explain it any other way."
That is the stupidest thing ever spoken by a supposed SCIENTIST.Alley is a FOOL.