Thread: Climate Change/Global Warming

Originally Posted by guerilla

what the hell does that have to do with earth? or any of your other sources?

Oh I don't know... what the hell DO these organizations have to do with Earth and climate?
the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council;
the American Meteorological Society;
UK's Royal Meteorological Society;
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO);
The American Geophysical Union;
the National Center for Atmospheric Research;
the American Association for the Advancement of Science;
Geological Society of America;
the Federation of American Scientists;
the Canadian and Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Societies;
the European Geosciences Union;
the International Union of Geological Sciences;
the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London;

I'm still waiting to hear from you or anyone what respected scientific organizations we should be listening to.

Originally Posted by guerilla

It's just funny how skysaw is so fond of the ICCP, meanwhile the vice president of the ICCP himself said co2 did not cause the temp increase.

I have yet to see your evidence that that is in fact his position. Hint, you have to supply it first.

I have yet to see you acknowledge that the ICCP represented only one of 21 organizations I cited that maintain that global warming is real.

I have yet to get the sense that you understand I've barely brought up C02. Or that you understand that "meteorological society" means an organization that studies weather.

I have yet to see the names of the "two scientists" you promised me many days ago.

I have yet to hear you respond to the retraction that your source gave, which very clearly demonstrated that there IS indeed evidence that human produced C02 contributes greatly to climate change.

By the way, welcome back to the thread. It missed you for several minutes.

talk about a triple flame post.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Oh I don't know... what the hell DO these organizations have to do with Earth and climate?
the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council;
the American Meteorological Society;
UK's Royal Meteorological Society;
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO);
The American Geophysical Union;
the National Center for Atmospheric Research;
the American Association for the Advancement of Science;
Geological Society of America;
the Federation of American Scientists;
the Canadian and Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Societies;
the European Geosciences Union;
the International Union of Geological Sciences;
the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London;

I'm still waiting to hear from you or anyone what respected scientific organizations we should be listening to.

The fundamental of your argument, C02 and gases are responsible for the Globe Warming, and higher temperatures is fallacious. In that pretty chart Al Gore showed us, there is a 100 year separation in between temperature and C02 levels, and it showed C02 came in affect 100 years after temperature. Destroying the whole fundamental aspect of that side of the argument. Tempature cause C02 levels not the other way around.

Explain this please.

And give me some damn links or something, I'am not searching all of those on google. I have posted my links several times. I searched some of them, and they research, but don't give a verdict.

Global warming is real yes, but it is not carbon, and humans have little affect. Water vaper has more greenhouse gases. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

The fundamental of your argument, C02 and gases are responsible for the Globe Warming, and higher temperatures is fallacious. In that pretty chart Al Gore showed us, there is a 100 year separation in between temperature and C02 levels, and it showed C02 came in affect 100 years after temperature. Destroying the whole fundamental aspect of that side of the argument. Tempature cause C02 levels not the other way around.

Explain this please.

Thank you for the opportunity, I would be happy to. Actually, I linked this and quoted it extensively already, but I understand it was probably easy to miss with the low signal-to-noise ratio in this thread.

Here is a solid link for you :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

This was written in 2007 by Eric Steig, an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary areas of research include core records, geological history of ice sheets, ice sheet dynamics, statistical climate analysis, and atmospheric chemistry. He is an editor of the journal Quaternary Research and has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals.

Sections pertinent to your question:

What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

But the calculations can only be done well when the temperature change is large, notably at glacial terminations (the gradual change from cold glacial climate to warm interglacial climate). Importantly, it takes more than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I'm aware of suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested.

In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.

Additional link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2-in-ice-cores

Where we hear it in another form (from 2004):

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

Please tell me if you need more on this subject. Happy to oblige.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Thank you for the opportunity, I would be happy to. Actually, I linked this and quoted it extensively already, but I understand it was probably easy to miss with the low signal-to-noise ratio in this thread.

Here is a solid link for you :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

This was written in 2007 by Eric Steig, an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary areas of research include core records, geological history of ice sheets, ice sheet dynamics, statistical climate analysis, and atmospheric chemistry. He is an editor of the journal Quaternary Research and has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals.

Sections pertinent to your question:




Additional link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2-in-ice-cores

Where we hear it in another form (from 2004):


Please tell me if you need more on this subject. Happy to oblige.

I didn't get anything you posted. Could you explain me in your terms?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

I didn't get anything you posted. Could you explain me in your terms?

Cliff notes version:
C02 causes warming, and warming causes C02. They are expected to go hand-in-hand, and they do according to the famous and controversial chart.

Your question was why temperature change preceded C02 level change by 100 years (actually closer to 200), and the answer is that ice-core samples (the basis of the historical temperature data) have a natural built-in delay factor of thousands of years. (This is the ice-core scientist talking here).

Another take on this is that if warmth caused C02 change without the opposite also being true, that delay you are looking at should have been closer to 5000 years, not 200.

Really though, these articles should not be that hard to understand. If you are having trouble with them, I don't know how to regard the science you have already picked up on the subject. Are you uncomfortable with reading and interpreting scientific writing?

Originally Posted by skysaw

Cliff notes version:
C02 causes warming, and warming causes C02. They are expected to go hand-in-hand, and they do according to the famous and controversial chart.

Your question was why temperature change preceded C02 level change by 100 years (actually closer to 200), and the answer is that ice-core samples (the basis of the historical temperature data) have a natural built-in delay factor of thousands of years. (This is the ice-core scientist talking here).

Another take on this is that if warmth caused C02 change without the opposite also being true, that delay you are looking at should have been closer to 5000 years, not 200.

Really though, these articles should not be that hard to understand. If you are having trouble with them, I don't know how to regard the science you have already picked up on the subject. Are you uncomfortable with reading and interpreting scientific writing?

So the Al Gore chart is wrong? Why didn't he put the right one from the fixed date the ice core records gave? Did he forget?

And you ignored the studies on water vapor which even the IPCC stated. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa...viewpoint.html
Check the sources. C02 has a trivial amount of green house gases.

The chart rise begins decades before cars or planes were in use, at a time when the global economy was struggling under war and economic depression. Industry, and with it, CO2 emissions, didn't really take off until the post-war period. Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're being asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction?

The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.

That is, not if you trust the ice core records that Gore speaks so highly of in his Oscar-winning Powerpoint presentation. The Antarctic melting during the third glacial termination (210-225 thousand years ago) show that the CO2 rise lagged behind the temperature increase by about 800 years. An article by Fischer in Science reported a lag of 400-1000 years during all three glacial interglacial transitions on record. A later analysis using argon - which has been shown to correlate with temperature as well as the standard oxygen isotopes and would be less prone to inaccuracies in timing - confirmed the previously reported findings. That kind of a lag is easy to miss in charts covering hundreds of millennia, but it is hard to dismiss as insignificant on a practical level. The Fischer article states that the generally observed correlation between CO2 and temperature rise and fall is "connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere". In other words, the ocean acts as an enormous organism that exhales carbon dioxide during warming periods of earth's history, and absorbs it during periods of cooling. Caillon et al report that "this confirms that CO2 is not the forcing [that is, the causative factor] that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation". (Caillon, N. et al, Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731; Fischer, H et al, Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714).

http://www.oism.org/news/index.htm

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

So the Al Gore chart is wrong? Why didn't he put the right one from the fixed date the ice core records gave? Did he forget?

The chart is not wrong, only your interpretation of it. Could be Gore's was too, I don't speak for him. The chart shows two pieces of data plotted against time: 1. C02 levels found in the ice cores; 2. Temperature.

C02 takes a long time to get from the air until it is embedded in arctic ice. This is the lag I was talking about. The chart could not measure the C02 in the air, because it was only preserved in the ice. Any excess in the air takes time before the record shows it. This is simple science.

And you ignored the studies on water vapor which even the IPCC stated. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa...viewpoint.html

I haven't ignored water vapor, just no one has brought it up with me. Pound for pound, water vapor has the biggest impact as a greenhouse gas. Never denied that or ignored it. But there will always be water vapor, and we actually need it.

What's more, the Earth can stay in pretty good balance with that amount of greenhouse gas. It can't necessarily with more.

Originally Posted by skysaw

The chart is not wrong, only your interpretation of it. Could be Gore's was too, I don't speak for him. The chart shows two pieces of data plotted against time: 1. C02 levels found in the ice cores; 2. Temperature.

C02 takes a long time to get from the air until it is embedded in arctic ice. This is the lag I was talking about. The chart could not measure the C02 in the air, because it was only preserved in the ice. Any excess in the air takes time before the record shows it. This is simple science.


I haven't ignored water vapor, just no one has brought it up with me. Pound for pound, water vapor has the biggest impact as a greenhouse gas. Never denied that or ignored it. But there will always be water vapor, and we actually need it.

What's more, the Earth can stay in pretty good balance with that amount of greenhouse gas. It can't necessarily with more.

That is, not if you trust the ice core records that Gore speaks so highly of in his Oscar-winning Powerpoint presentation. The Antarctic melting during the third glacial termination (210-225 thousand years ago) show that the CO2 rise lagged behind the temperature increase by about 800 years. An article by Fischer in Science reported a lag of 400-1000 years during all three glacial interglacial transitions on record. A later analysis using argon - which has been shown to correlate with temperature as well as the standard oxygen isotopes and would be less prone to inaccuracies in timing - confirmed the previously reported findings. That kind of a lag is easy to miss in charts covering hundreds of millennia, but it is hard to dismiss as insignificant on a practical level. The Fischer article states that the generally observed correlation between CO2 and temperature rise and fall is "connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere". In other words, the ocean acts as an enormous organism that exhales carbon dioxide during warming periods of earth's history, and absorbs it during periods of cooling. Caillon et al report that "this confirms that CO2 is not the forcing [that is, the causative factor] that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation". (Caillon, N. et al, Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731; Fischer, H et al, Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714).

We have had higher Carbon levels is the past.

Originally Posted by guerilla

talk about a triple flame post.

Talk about ignoring every single point he's made. Every post of yours is just ad hominen after ad hominen with little substance in between. "You don't agree with me, therefore you're a fool/idiot/moron and I'm right". Would I be right in guessing you're voting for McCain in November?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Talk about ignoring every single point he's made. Every post of yours is just ad hominen after ad hominen with little substance in between. "You don't agree with me, therefore you're a fool/idiot/moron and I'm right". Would I be right in guessing you're voting for McCain in November?

Why don't you start arguing with me? I clearly had a response for what he said.

The Fischer article states that the generally observed correlation between CO2 and temperature rise and fall is "connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere". In other words, the ocean acts as an enormous organism that exhales carbon dioxide during warming periods of earth's history, and absorbs it during periods of cooling. Caillon et al report that "this confirms that CO2 is not the forcing [that is, the causative factor] that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation".

Actually, I don't disagree with this, and if you read closely, you'll see that this generally agrees with the quotes I recently added. But you may be missing a key point of what Fischer said, namely "...initially drives the climatic system..." This is not in conflict, since we're not talking about the initial factor, rather ongoing factors.

Originally Posted by Eric Steig

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

As you can see, warming causes C02 and C02 causes warming.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

We have had higher Carbon levels is the past.

Yes we have.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Why don't you start arguing with me? I clearly had a response for what he said.

Yes you did. Debating with someone who actually brings relevant material to bear is a relative joy in this thread.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Why don't you start arguing with me? I clearly had a response for what he said.

Because you're actually being civil in this debate, which I and other readers can appreciate. He isn't and it's irritating me.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Talk about ignoring every single point he's made. Every post of yours is just ad hominen after ad hominen with little substance in between. "You don't agree with me, therefore you're a fool/idiot/moron and I'm right". Would I be right in guessing you're voting for McCain in November?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

mccain? your joking right? he can drop dead for all i care, mccain is for carbon taxes and all this other 'green' stuff, so he's definately not someone i'd vote for, plus he's a lying sack of shit.

I'm voting for Ron Paul instead, because he doesn't get lulled into this whole farse of co2 causing the warming, he tells the honest truth, like no other politician can.


Honestly dude, I don't care about what your opinion on climate change is, I don't really care about wether I can talk sense into you people or not.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is, I don't care, because I know your wrong, and contrary to what the ICCP or gore says, the debate is not fucking over.

Originally Posted by guerilla

I'm voting for Ron Paul instead, because he doesn't get lulled into this whole farse of co2 causing the warming, he tells the honest truth, like no other politician can.

So he wants to continue Bush's war on science?

Originally Posted by guerilla

ron paul.

That's really all I needed to hear. I was just trying to confirm my suspicion that you were a Republican supporter, and I was being 'nice' by suggesting McCain (if that comes anywhere close to nice). It's all about the legal marijuana aye?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

That's really all I needed to hear. I was just trying to confirm my suspicion that you were a Republican supporter, and I was being 'nice' by suggesting McCain (if that comes anywhere close to nice). It's all about the legal marijuana aye?

I think this might be a bit of a distraction here. Most republicans are pretty much on board at this point as well. The only place where there are a few stragglers who are still holding their hands over their ears and going "La, la, la, la!" seems to be the internet. And big polluters in business.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

So he wants to continue Bush's war on science?

what's that even supposed to imply? he isn't against science.

would you rather have obama/hillary/mccain continue bush's war on terror which is a lie?

and alex, it has NOTHING to do with legal cannabis, its about restoring democracy here, and ending these retarted wars and occupations of 136 countries. thats why im voting for him.

I find Ron Paul a good candidate as well, but it's doubtful he'll be on the ballot.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I find Ron Paul a good candidate as well, but it's doubtful he'll be on the ballot.

I'm not worried about the 2008 election anymore, the other remaining 3 candidates are terrible choices.

His goal now is to take back the Republican party, back to its roots, and he's doing a good job so far. Look for his book called the revolution a manifesto, #1 best seller on amazon and #7 on new york times best seller.

Everyone needs to read this book, or I will kill you.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I think this might be a bit of a distraction here. Most republicans are pretty much on board at this point as well. The only place where there are a few stragglers who are still holding their hands over their ears and going "La, la, la, la!" seems to be the internet. And big polluters in business.

I wasn't trying to say all Republicans are evolution/global warming deniers, I was just saying it confirmed my guess that he was a Republican.

Originally Posted by guerilla

would you rather have obama/hillary/mccain continue bush's war on terror which is a lie?

Obama? Really?

Obama was an early opponent of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq. On October 2, 2002, the day Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza, speaking out against it.

On March 16, 2003, the day President Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Obama addressed the largest Chicago anti-Iraq War rally to date in Daley Plaza and told the crowd "It's not too late" to stop the war.

Obama sought to make his early public opposition to the Iraq War before it started a major issue in his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign to distinguish himself from his Democratic primary rivals who supported the resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and in his 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, to distinguish himself from four Democratic primary rivals who voted for the resolution authorizing the war (Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd).

Speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, Obama called for a "phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq" and an opening of diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran.

You'd be lucky to have this man as your president.

And in a somewhat half assed attempt to get this thread back on track, I decided to read the first post again:

there are two theories as to what REALLY, causes the warming

#1 the earth's core is warming

What. the. hell. is this? The heat of the Earth's core is caused by pressure, radioactive decay and heat trapped beneath the crust from the formation of the planet 4.7 billion years ago. To get HOTTER it would need to have an INFLUX of energy. Where is this energy coming from? And how is it penetrating the 50km thick crust without blasting a hole in it? Do you have any scientific basis for it at all or was this too pulled out of the aether?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

You'd be lucky to have this man as your president.

Agreed. He has my vote.

obama continues to fund the war, therefore he is a liar, he wants to end the war, meanwhile he votes to send funds to the war which are NON-ESSENTIAL funds which don't even end up going to the troops. He claims to want to end the war but im not buying it. He would keep soldiers in iraq, reduced numbers yes...but there will still be americans dying.


And btw, just because I support ron doesn't mean im a republican, I'm actually a registered democrat but im leaning towards libertarian, and no i don't deny evolution....creationism is the biggest lie in history.

I just deny co2 being the cause of warming, global warming is real...its a threat and its not too pretty...but thinking your going to save the world by shutting off a few tv's and taking a bike instead of a car is just insane. You are not going to reverse climate change....it is not something we can control.

Climate change will continue on, and there is nothing we can do but adapt. We must learn how to grow food in drought conditions, we must learn to build better levy's for low altitude level cities like new orleans, we must change and adapt....we must NOT waste our time with carbon taxes which will cripple our economy more then it already has been by war.