Arctic Wetlands: The Doomsday Bomb?

[westwall]

Now Mr. Westwall, if you know so much more than all the working scientists, why were you not up on the podium in New Orleans, demostrating to all the scientists there from all over the world, that the current information is wrong? I can tell you why easily. You are the same type of genius that our present President is. LOL

No, the reason why I don't present is because I am a ethical scientist and report FACT, not fiction. They only allow fiction presenters these days. That's alright though, all frauds get found out in the end. Hows your buddy mann doing with his lawsuit?

I would only add that in reference to the prior mentioned Climategate, even if all their worries are true, their being found out as having been fudging the data to their favor to get the outcome they desire much like how the DOJ and FBI fudged the Clinton investigation to get the outcome they wanted (keep her in the election), has destroyed credibility and confidence in BOTH institutions. So when the world turns a deaf ear to the climate alarmists, all I can say is "Look in the mirror and thank yourselves!"

Second, when the Old Rock claims all the institutions agree (with him) about climate change, not only are there many who disagree, I would only point back to what the "Technologist" (I believe) said to me in an earlier post: it was something like: "I'm glad you don't work in my field or you would be dead!" Going into high-school, I had long aspired to be an astronomer / astrophysicist but for one thing, they don't pay well enough, second, you have to move to a university far from (my home) and work off of grants on approved projects (which may or may not be your real interest). Third, just ask the likes of Peter Higgs who proposed the Higgs Boson-- -- -- and was laughed at, until many years later the LHC proved him right. Do you know that if not for ONE MAN who broke down and read Einstein's first paper on Special Relativity, Albert might have spent his life in anonymity as a clerk? He had been so blackballed by the industry as a fool that no one would hire him much less read his work, except one respected scientist, who upon reading it, saw the import of what it said and brought others to read it as well. And from that unraveled the 20th century. If not for that ONE MAN, we might still be living in a 1930's world. Point being, I decided that was not for me.

FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE, as much in politics as in the world of science are entirely so close-minded and intolerant to new ideas or ideas that differ from their own that they miss them, ignore them, ridicule therm, even go so far as to ruin careers and destroy lives, until as the Rock and Technologist have said, they are left with nobody that doesn't think and agree like them. A human trait that goes back far before Homo Sapiens, still alive and well in all the universities of the world.

Yes, in my own field it was Alfred Wegener who was reviled for his plate tectonics theory. It wasn't until thirty years later that Harry Hess was able to re present it, and even then only as a poem. The scientific world is full of frauds, and imbeciles who rest on their laurels and woe be to the person who endangers their reputations.

I used to keep a list of people who went through similar things. I believe the same thing happened with Darwin, there was another man, working independently and not as a professional along the same ideas of the nature of species who traveled the world making observations and actually kept in touch with Darwin sending him notes and things. He was actually AHEAD of Darwin and was only looking to make contributions, while Darwin was looking for fame, money and notoriety, much as Edison did with Tesla, so at one point, Darwin realized that he was at risk of being beaten to the punchline by this other fellow and raced to cut him off and take all of the credit. The other man remains virtually unknown today (even I cannot recall his name). If you ever caught the second 'Cosmos' TV series, many episodes uncover remarkable people who made major contributions who, for one reason or another, the history books ignored or scorned because they did the worst of all possible things, dared to think outside the box independently and look truthfully at the phenomenal world around them.

You fucking dumb ass liar, the name was Wallace, an the Origin of the Species carried his name on as well as that of Darwin. Darwin aided Wallace in getting recognition for his work, and aided him in furthering his career. Why you have to lie about a great man who was also a gentleman, I don't know. What the hell do you get out of lying like that?

Now who's lying, Here is a copy of the original title page of the Origin. As you can plainly see, though maybe not you, considering you're a liar and everything, Wallace's name is nowhere to be seen. Darwin DID acknowledge Wallace as a co discoverer of the theory however. The first publication about natural selection as the mechanism for evolution was the simultaneous publication of BOTH of their papers by the Linnean Society in 1858. The Society published both Authors works under the same Heading.

However Darwin then went on to publish his masterwork in which he did name, on page one, that Wallace was a codiscoverer, but not coauthor of the work. And that is why he is most noted for the theory. Even Wallace agreed that Darwin was the first among equals.

 

[westwall]

Oddly enough, all of Earth's hottest inter-glacial periods, such as the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic and the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) all occurred long ago before man and long before industry or any ability to blame climate change on man's industrial activity. Life came, it grew, it evolved and changed as the climate evolved and changed. Of course, man could not survive losing modern industrial activity without going back to an agrarian culture of the 18th century and giving up 2/3rds of its population. But the climate-fear-mongers never want to come to grips with that. Modern human civilization has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global climate stability. As always, the Earth moves on, indifferent to our needs but rather than adapt to meet the Earth, the modern liberal dreams of controlling/changing the Earth to meet HIM.

Maybe the problem isn't the climate but US. If Earth has a problem, maybe it is that it has 7.4 BILLION people on it now, and it is merely making a course correction to re-balance us as it does everything, back to maybe a more reasonable 3 billion. That should be about right. If that happens, it might be survival of the fittest, and my observation has always been that liberals and leftists are usually the WEAKEST.

Good God, that is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. The Hadean interglacial? You dumb ass, that was when our planet was forming and under bombardment.

Hadean Eon | geochronology

Hadean Eon, informal division of Precambrian time occurring between about 4.5 billion and about 4.0 billion years ago. The Hadean Eon is characterized by Earth’s initial formation—from the accretion of dust and gases and the frequent collisions of larger planetesimals—and by the stabilization of its core and crust and the development of its atmosphere and oceans. Throughout part of the eon, impacts from extraterrestrial bodies released enormous amounts of heat that likely prevented much of the rock from solidifying at the surface. As such, the name of the interval is a reference to Hades, a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for hell.

Yep, nothing like a little bit of knowledge from Google to make Old Rocks an overnight expert on geologic time! Yes, you are quite right, I was referring to HOT periods in the past that occurred without man and his horrible industry and these occurred between the ice ages, but since the Hadeon was the first of four eons, an informal period-- -- there obviously wasn't an ice age before that and I could have been more clear about that had I known I had to write a thesis to make my simple point to the more ignominious of this forum such as yourself. But your cellphone browser mislead you, Rock, the Earth FORMED 4.5 billion years ago, it didn't START forming then, and began the early Hadeon. Still, water and the earliest life was already forming or formed half way through the Hadeon, and your junior encyclopedia you referenced is simply misleading you. Still, I meant to refer to the Hadeon as one of three key hottest periods of the Earth and the Hadeon-Archean (early Precambrian) indeed made up the interval leading up to Earth's first major cooling period. But then, none of this changes a thing about the thread other than to show further what a pompous ass you really are.-- -- --

"Again, a dumb fuck flaps his ignorant yap. We are currently in the down cycle of the Milankovic Cycles. The sun is putting out less TSI than it has previously. We should be cooling, instead, we are rapidly warming. The only thing that is forcing in that direction is the Anthropogenic increase in GHGs."

Well put, Rockhead! Considering that you haven't a clue of what you speak. It just so happens that the Milankovic Cycles you refer to, which I myself discussed here months ago have nothing to do with the Sun and its solar output! They are the combination of the Earth's orbital shape, axis and precession leftover from its formation which combine in endless ways of very slow changes measured over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, NOT decades, to be the greatest influence on our climate, NOT the Sun, and certainly not your fantasies about man and his tiny impact from 100 years of industry. The shit-talking pseudo-climatologist jackass is busted again.

But thanks for showing once again that despite all of the techno-babble about cycles, solar impact upon the Earth, methane, CO2 and whatever else you spew, that, as you say, we ought to be cooling, we WILL be cooling, so that means that either you fail to account for the real reason for our mini-warming or we really aren't warming at all, and the Earth and its climate is simply more complex than the small mind of man and his few decades of climate study. A false warming. Better pray for all the warming we can get, while we can get it.

Once again, you are broadcasting your ignorance for all to see.

Solar activity is declining—what to expect?

Even as the article you point to says this right in its second paragraph: "the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation." Look fool, I'll save you a little more embarrassment by telling you in advance that I almost went into the field of astronomy before deciding on engineering as my main career but have and still do teach it on the side. I know all about the Sun so stop right here and quite trying to tell us something about it that neither you nor any one else knows. I love it when people post these maps of climate models as proving this or that when there are clearly flaws to all of them. Sure the Sun's cycles affect us, but not only are they poorly understood, whatever their effect, IT ONLY GOES BACK TO PROVE MY ORIGINAL POINT!

You clearly have an agenda to want to prove that MAN is the cause of climate change when only two things matter:
1). We have no control over the external forces that drive our climate.
2). Whatever man's influence, we are bound to the very GHGs you fear so much for another century until technology evolves to replace them. Without industry, we cannot sustain the world population.
And I would add a third point (again), removed from the system (the positive FB of mankind), the Earth is a self-correcting system that routinely self-corrects all of the time from far larger pressures!

Which makes the entire climate scare and its faux, self-serving industry of climate alarmists irrelevant to the outcome, observers at best and if I had my way, I would put all of you on the breadline, or to work doing something more useful, like delivering bread.

I might point out that I never said that the Milankovic Cycles had anything to do with the sun. And the TSI is a bit less than it has been.

Don't try to run from what you said, we all read it. When I was a kid, the talk was we were heading into an ice age. Now 50 years later, it is thermal runaway leading us to Venus-like conditions. I am embarrassed for you that you would even suggest that the periodicity and wobble, etc., of the Earth happening over tens of thousands of years is even a factor in explaining that change; that is akin to watching a tree grow in the forest, then coming back in 5 minutes to ask if anything has changed. Neither you nor I know for sure what the future of the Earth shall be, but whatever it is, whatever is going to happen IS going to happen and the draconian changes needed to kill man's carbon footyprint (if needed) are unaffordable and as bad or worse than what they might prevent. So once again, enjoy the ride.

1. We have no control over the external factors that drive our climate.

You are correct. We have no control over tectonics, the sun, or large volcanic eruptions. But we do have control over the fact that we have put a vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, and that is the reason that we went from a slow cooling to a very rapid warming. We have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. And the CH4 from about 700 to 800 ppb to over 1850 ppb. And that is rapidly warming the atmosphere and oceans.

2. We can change over from the fossil fuels to renewables in a generation, should we choose to. If we fail to do that, then the cost is going to be very high, including the loss of many of our coastal cities.

The earth is a self correcting system. Why yes, it is. Warmer oceans, warmer atmosphere, and a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Easily corrected, dump 56" of rain on Houston and surrounding areas. Those corrections do not give a damn about man or his works.

Now, Toob, stop being an asshole, and putting words into my mouth. I have never claimed thermal runaway as the result of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. That may be possible, but I doubt it. However, we are creating a much poorer world for our children. And people like you don't give a damn as long as you have yours.

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult. And reading scientific literature. And most of the scientific literature of the time stated that warming was a danger. Some thought that the industrial air pollution would continue to increase to the point that it would create a long term cooling. However, they were soon disabused of that notion, both by the readily apparent warming, and by the fact that the then industrial nations cleaned up their act. Much to the chagrin of people like you. Plus there was a PNAS paper in 1975 that stated at that time we really did not have enough data to determine whether there we were were in for cooling or warming in the long term, from the actions of man. And the majority of papers published in peer reviewed journals stated the evidence at that time pointed more towards warming;

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your first claim is not supported by factual observation. CO2 is the only gas that we actually produce in any quantity and that is less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Furthermore hard evidence shows that CO2 lags warmth. That is now not even remotely questioned save by those with a monetary dependence on the "theories" continued survival.

 

[toobfreak]

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult.

I never said I was a child in the '70's. I was in college in 1975.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm

BOTTOM LINE: The Holocene is an inter-glacial period. If patterns over the past 450,000 years hold true, then we are nearing or at the end of that warmer period. At every such instance, there were wild fluctuations in temperature right before the precipitous fall back into glaciation with no help from man. That seems to be what we are doing now. Even if we ARE adding to that warming, when the Earth decides to cool off again, it is going to cool off no matter what we do.

 

[toobfreak]

Now Mr. Westwall, if you know so much more than all the working scientists, why were you not up on the podium in New Orleans, demostrating to all the scientists there from all over the world, that the current information is wrong? I can tell you why easily. You are the same type of genius that our present President is. LOL

No, the reason why I don't present is because I am a ethical scientist and report FACT, not fiction. They only allow fiction presenters these days. That's alright though, all frauds get found out in the end. Hows your buddy mann doing with his lawsuit?

I would only add that in reference to the prior mentioned Climategate, even if all their worries are true, their being found out as having been fudging the data to their favor to get the outcome they desire much like how the DOJ and FBI fudged the Clinton investigation to get the outcome they wanted (keep her in the election), has destroyed credibility and confidence in BOTH institutions. So when the world turns a deaf ear to the climate alarmists, all I can say is "Look in the mirror and thank yourselves!"

Second, when the Old Rock claims all the institutions agree (with him) about climate change, not only are there many who disagree, I would only point back to what the "Technologist" (I believe) said to me in an earlier post: it was something like: "I'm glad you don't work in my field or you would be dead!" Going into high-school, I had long aspired to be an astronomer / astrophysicist but for one thing, they don't pay well enough, second, you have to move to a university far from (my home) and work off of grants on approved projects (which may or may not be your real interest). Third, just ask the likes of Peter Higgs who proposed the Higgs Boson-- -- -- and was laughed at, until many years later the LHC proved him right. Do you know that if not for ONE MAN who broke down and read Einstein's first paper on Special Relativity, Albert might have spent his life in anonymity as a clerk? He had been so blackballed by the industry as a fool that no one would hire him much less read his work, except one respected scientist, who upon reading it, saw the import of what it said and brought others to read it as well. And from that unraveled the 20th century. If not for that ONE MAN, we might still be living in a 1930's world. Point being, I decided that was not for me.

FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE, as much in politics as in the world of science are entirely so close-minded and intolerant to new ideas or ideas that differ from their own that they miss them, ignore them, ridicule therm, even go so far as to ruin careers and destroy lives, until as the Rock and Technologist have said, they are left with nobody that doesn't think and agree like them. A human trait that goes back far before Homo Sapiens, still alive and well in all the universities of the world.

Yes, in my own field it was Alfred Wegener who was reviled for his plate tectonics theory. It wasn't until thirty years later that Harry Hess was able to re present it, and even then only as a poem. The scientific world is full of frauds, and imbeciles who rest on their laurels and woe be to the person who endangers their reputations.

I used to keep a list of people who went through similar things. I believe the same thing happened with Darwin, there was another man, working independently and not as a professional along the same ideas of the nature of species who traveled the world making observations and actually kept in touch with Darwin sending him notes and things. He was actually AHEAD of Darwin and was only looking to make contributions, while Darwin was looking for fame, money and notoriety, much as Edison did with Tesla, so at one point, Darwin realized that he was at risk of being beaten to the punchline by this other fellow and raced to cut him off and take all of the credit. The other man remains virtually unknown today (even I cannot recall his name). If you ever caught the second 'Cosmos' TV series, many episodes uncover remarkable people who made major contributions who, for one reason or another, the history books ignored or scorned because they did the worst of all possible things, dared to think outside the box independently and look truthfully at the phenomenal world around them.

You fucking dumb ass liar, the name was Wallace, an the Origin of the Species carried his name on as well as that of Darwin. Darwin aided Wallace in getting recognition for his work, and aided him in furthering his career. Why you have to lie about a great man who was also a gentleman, I don't know. What the hell do you get out of lying like that?

My, my, is all of your recollection so off? What does that say of your research? You don't speak like you are a very intelligent man. Yes, Wallace was the fellow, and I believe Darwin sped up his publication a year ahead of his planned date at the recommendation of friends, out of fear that Wallace might publish before him. Wallace greatly revered Darwin as an idol but to Darwin, Wallace was just a curious novice. He may have credited him in some ways, but after the fact, the science community over the years has largely forgotten Wallace in favor of Darwin much as they credited Marconi with the radio when in fact, Nikola Tesla was the true inventor of radio. Recently, some group of people fought hard to finally get a statue built of Wallace formally acknowledging his work in the origin of the species for all time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Charles Darwin is often credited with discovering evolution through natural selection, but the idea was not his alone. The naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, working independently, saw the same process at work in the natural world and elaborated much the same theory. Their important scientific contributions made both men famous in their lifetimes, but Wallace slipped into obscurity after his death, while Darwin’s renown grew. Dispelling the misperceptions that continue to paint Wallace as a secondary figure, James Costa reveals the two naturalists as true equals in advancing one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time.

Analyzing Wallace’s “Species Notebook,” Costa shows how Wallace’s methods and thought processes paralleled Darwin’s, yet inspired insights uniquely his own. Kept during his Southeast Asian expeditions of the 1850s, the notebook is a window into Wallace’s early evolutionary ideas. It records his evidence-gathering, critiques of anti-evolutionary arguments, and plans for a book on “transmutation.” Most important, it demonstrates conclusively that natural selection was not some idea Wallace stumbled upon, as is sometimes assumed, but was the culmination of a decade-long quest to solve the mystery of the origin of species.

Wallace, Darwin, and the Origin of Species also reexamines the pivotal episode in 1858 when Wallace sent Darwin a manuscript announcing his discovery of natural selection, prompting a joint public reading of the two men’s papers on the subject. Costa’s analysis of the “Species Notebook” shines a new light on these readings, further illuminating the independent nature of Wallace’s discoveries.
Wallace, Darwin, and the Origin of Species — James T. Costa | Harvard University Press

He jointly came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection, corresponded with the great and good of society, and was given the highest honour possible from a British monarch.

His correspondents included David Lloyd George, William Gladstone, Rudyard Kipling, George Bernard Shaw and Arthur Conan Doyle.

And on his death 100 years ago, obituaries were effusive in their praise, calling him the last of the great Victorians.

You would be forgiven for the name Charles Darwin popping into your head - but you would be wrong.

The theory of evolution by natural selection was published jointly between Darwin and Monmouthshire-born Alfred Russel Wallace, whose interest in natural history developed when he moved to Neath and worked as a land surveyor with his brother.

But while today Darwin is a household name synonymous with the theory, Wallace struggles to gain anywhere near the recognition of his friend.

Why does Darwin eclipse Wallace?

You are correct. It was the theory of evolution by natural selection that was jointly published, not 'The Origin'. Mea Culpa. But both were famous in their day, and were friends for as long as Darwin was alive. And Darwin never treated Wallace as other than an equal, and someone to be respected. Where this bullshit about Darwin trying to steal information and glory from Wallace comes from are the creationists that try to discredit both of these great scientists work.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good God, that is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. The Hadean interglacial? You dumb ass, that was when our planet was forming and under bombardment.

Hadean Eon | geochronology

Hadean Eon, informal division of Precambrian time occurring between about 4.5 billion and about 4.0 billion years ago. The Hadean Eon is characterized by Earth’s initial formation—from the accretion of dust and gases and the frequent collisions of larger planetesimals—and by the stabilization of its core and crust and the development of its atmosphere and oceans. Throughout part of the eon, impacts from extraterrestrial bodies released enormous amounts of heat that likely prevented much of the rock from solidifying at the surface. As such, the name of the interval is a reference to Hades, a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for hell.

Yep, nothing like a little bit of knowledge from Google to make Old Rocks an overnight expert on geologic time! Yes, you are quite right, I was referring to HOT periods in the past that occurred without man and his horrible industry and these occurred between the ice ages, but since the Hadeon was the first of four eons, an informal period-- -- there obviously wasn't an ice age before that and I could have been more clear about that had I known I had to write a thesis to make my simple point to the more ignominious of this forum such as yourself. But your cellphone browser mislead you, Rock, the Earth FORMED 4.5 billion years ago, it didn't START forming then, and began the early Hadeon. Still, water and the earliest life was already forming or formed half way through the Hadeon, and your junior encyclopedia you referenced is simply misleading you. Still, I meant to refer to the Hadeon as one of three key hottest periods of the Earth and the Hadeon-Archean (early Precambrian) indeed made up the interval leading up to Earth's first major cooling period. But then, none of this changes a thing about the thread other than to show further what a pompous ass you really are.-- -- --

"Again, a dumb fuck flaps his ignorant yap. We are currently in the down cycle of the Milankovic Cycles. The sun is putting out less TSI than it has previously. We should be cooling, instead, we are rapidly warming. The only thing that is forcing in that direction is the Anthropogenic increase in GHGs."

Well put, Rockhead! Considering that you haven't a clue of what you speak. It just so happens that the Milankovic Cycles you refer to, which I myself discussed here months ago have nothing to do with the Sun and its solar output! They are the combination of the Earth's orbital shape, axis and precession leftover from its formation which combine in endless ways of very slow changes measured over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, NOT decades, to be the greatest influence on our climate, NOT the Sun, and certainly not your fantasies about man and his tiny impact from 100 years of industry. The shit-talking pseudo-climatologist jackass is busted again.

But thanks for showing once again that despite all of the techno-babble about cycles, solar impact upon the Earth, methane, CO2 and whatever else you spew, that, as you say, we ought to be cooling, we WILL be cooling, so that means that either you fail to account for the real reason for our mini-warming or we really aren't warming at all, and the Earth and its climate is simply more complex than the small mind of man and his few decades of climate study. A false warming. Better pray for all the warming we can get, while we can get it.

Once again, you are broadcasting your ignorance for all to see.

Solar activity is declining—what to expect?

Even as the article you point to says this right in its second paragraph: "the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation." Look fool, I'll save you a little more embarrassment by telling you in advance that I almost went into the field of astronomy before deciding on engineering as my main career but have and still do teach it on the side. I know all about the Sun so stop right here and quite trying to tell us something about it that neither you nor any one else knows. I love it when people post these maps of climate models as proving this or that when there are clearly flaws to all of them. Sure the Sun's cycles affect us, but not only are they poorly understood, whatever their effect, IT ONLY GOES BACK TO PROVE MY ORIGINAL POINT!

You clearly have an agenda to want to prove that MAN is the cause of climate change when only two things matter:
1). We have no control over the external forces that drive our climate.
2). Whatever man's influence, we are bound to the very GHGs you fear so much for another century until technology evolves to replace them. Without industry, we cannot sustain the world population.
And I would add a third point (again), removed from the system (the positive FB of mankind), the Earth is a self-correcting system that routinely self-corrects all of the time from far larger pressures!

Which makes the entire climate scare and its faux, self-serving industry of climate alarmists irrelevant to the outcome, observers at best and if I had my way, I would put all of you on the breadline, or to work doing something more useful, like delivering bread.

I might point out that I never said that the Milankovic Cycles had anything to do with the sun. And the TSI is a bit less than it has been.

Don't try to run from what you said, we all read it. When I was a kid, the talk was we were heading into an ice age. Now 50 years later, it is thermal runaway leading us to Venus-like conditions. I am embarrassed for you that you would even suggest that the periodicity and wobble, etc., of the Earth happening over tens of thousands of years is even a factor in explaining that change; that is akin to watching a tree grow in the forest, then coming back in 5 minutes to ask if anything has changed. Neither you nor I know for sure what the future of the Earth shall be, but whatever it is, whatever is going to happen IS going to happen and the draconian changes needed to kill man's carbon footyprint (if needed) are unaffordable and as bad or worse than what they might prevent. So once again, enjoy the ride.

1. We have no control over the external factors that drive our climate.

You are correct. We have no control over tectonics, the sun, or large volcanic eruptions. But we do have control over the fact that we have put a vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, and that is the reason that we went from a slow cooling to a very rapid warming. We have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. And the CH4 from about 700 to 800 ppb to over 1850 ppb. And that is rapidly warming the atmosphere and oceans.

2. We can change over from the fossil fuels to renewables in a generation, should we choose to. If we fail to do that, then the cost is going to be very high, including the loss of many of our coastal cities.

The earth is a self correcting system. Why yes, it is. Warmer oceans, warmer atmosphere, and a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Easily corrected, dump 56" of rain on Houston and surrounding areas. Those corrections do not give a damn about man or his works.

Now, Toob, stop being an asshole, and putting words into my mouth. I have never claimed thermal runaway as the result of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. That may be possible, but I doubt it. However, we are creating a much poorer world for our children. And people like you don't give a damn as long as you have yours.

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult. And reading scientific literature. And most of the scientific literature of the time stated that warming was a danger. Some thought that the industrial air pollution would continue to increase to the point that it would create a long term cooling. However, they were soon disabused of that notion, both by the readily apparent warming, and by the fact that the then industrial nations cleaned up their act. Much to the chagrin of people like you. Plus there was a PNAS paper in 1975 that stated at that time we really did not have enough data to determine whether there we were were in for cooling or warming in the long term, from the actions of man. And the majority of papers published in peer reviewed journals stated the evidence at that time pointed more towards warming;

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your first claim is not supported by factual observation. CO2 is the only gas that we actually produce in any quantity and that is less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Furthermore hard evidence shows that CO2 lags warmth. That is now not even remotely questioned save by those with a monetary dependence on the "theories" continued survival.

LOL Mr. Westwall, there is now over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 120 ppm more than at the beginning of the industrial age. That 120 ppm is greater than the difference between the glacial and interglacial periods. CH4 varied between 400 ppb and 800 ppm glacial to interglacial. CH4 is now above 1850 ppb. That is an increase of over 1000 ppb. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. And increased the amount of CH4 by almost 250%. So your 5% figure is an outright lie, and you know it.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult.

I never said I was a child in the '70's. I was in college in 1975.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm

BOTTOM LINE: The Holocene is an inter-glacial period. If patterns over the past 450,000 years hold true, then we are nearing or at the end of that warmer period. At every such instance, there were wild fluctuations in temperature right before the precipitous fall back into glaciation with no help from man. That seems to be what we are doing now. Even if we ARE adding to that warming, when the Earth decides to cool off again, it is going to cool off no matter what we do.

It is the warm up to interglacial that is precipitous, not the cool down to glacial, as one can see from the chart.

 

[westwall]

Yep, nothing like a little bit of knowledge from Google to make Old Rocks an overnight expert on geologic time! Yes, you are quite right, I was referring to HOT periods in the past that occurred without man and his horrible industry and these occurred between the ice ages, but since the Hadeon was the first of four eons, an informal period-- -- there obviously wasn't an ice age before that and I could have been more clear about that had I known I had to write a thesis to make my simple point to the more ignominious of this forum such as yourself. But your cellphone browser mislead you, Rock, the Earth FORMED 4.5 billion years ago, it didn't START forming then, and began the early Hadeon. Still, water and the earliest life was already forming or formed half way through the Hadeon, and your junior encyclopedia you referenced is simply misleading you. Still, I meant to refer to the Hadeon as one of three key hottest periods of the Earth and the Hadeon-Archean (early Precambrian) indeed made up the interval leading up to Earth's first major cooling period. But then, none of this changes a thing about the thread other than to show further what a pompous ass you really are.-- -- --

"Again, a dumb fuck flaps his ignorant yap. We are currently in the down cycle of the Milankovic Cycles. The sun is putting out less TSI than it has previously. We should be cooling, instead, we are rapidly warming. The only thing that is forcing in that direction is the Anthropogenic increase in GHGs."

Well put, Rockhead! Considering that you haven't a clue of what you speak. It just so happens that the Milankovic Cycles you refer to, which I myself discussed here months ago have nothing to do with the Sun and its solar output! They are the combination of the Earth's orbital shape, axis and precession leftover from its formation which combine in endless ways of very slow changes measured over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, NOT decades, to be the greatest influence on our climate, NOT the Sun, and certainly not your fantasies about man and his tiny impact from 100 years of industry. The shit-talking pseudo-climatologist jackass is busted again.

But thanks for showing once again that despite all of the techno-babble about cycles, solar impact upon the Earth, methane, CO2 and whatever else you spew, that, as you say, we ought to be cooling, we WILL be cooling, so that means that either you fail to account for the real reason for our mini-warming or we really aren't warming at all, and the Earth and its climate is simply more complex than the small mind of man and his few decades of climate study. A false warming. Better pray for all the warming we can get, while we can get it.

Once again, you are broadcasting your ignorance for all to see.

Solar activity is declining—what to expect?

Even as the article you point to says this right in its second paragraph: "the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation." Look fool, I'll save you a little more embarrassment by telling you in advance that I almost went into the field of astronomy before deciding on engineering as my main career but have and still do teach it on the side. I know all about the Sun so stop right here and quite trying to tell us something about it that neither you nor any one else knows. I love it when people post these maps of climate models as proving this or that when there are clearly flaws to all of them. Sure the Sun's cycles affect us, but not only are they poorly understood, whatever their effect, IT ONLY GOES BACK TO PROVE MY ORIGINAL POINT!

You clearly have an agenda to want to prove that MAN is the cause of climate change when only two things matter:
1). We have no control over the external forces that drive our climate.
2). Whatever man's influence, we are bound to the very GHGs you fear so much for another century until technology evolves to replace them. Without industry, we cannot sustain the world population.
And I would add a third point (again), removed from the system (the positive FB of mankind), the Earth is a self-correcting system that routinely self-corrects all of the time from far larger pressures!

Which makes the entire climate scare and its faux, self-serving industry of climate alarmists irrelevant to the outcome, observers at best and if I had my way, I would put all of you on the breadline, or to work doing something more useful, like delivering bread.

I might point out that I never said that the Milankovic Cycles had anything to do with the sun. And the TSI is a bit less than it has been.

Don't try to run from what you said, we all read it. When I was a kid, the talk was we were heading into an ice age. Now 50 years later, it is thermal runaway leading us to Venus-like conditions. I am embarrassed for you that you would even suggest that the periodicity and wobble, etc., of the Earth happening over tens of thousands of years is even a factor in explaining that change; that is akin to watching a tree grow in the forest, then coming back in 5 minutes to ask if anything has changed. Neither you nor I know for sure what the future of the Earth shall be, but whatever it is, whatever is going to happen IS going to happen and the draconian changes needed to kill man's carbon footyprint (if needed) are unaffordable and as bad or worse than what they might prevent. So once again, enjoy the ride.

1. We have no control over the external factors that drive our climate.

You are correct. We have no control over tectonics, the sun, or large volcanic eruptions. But we do have control over the fact that we have put a vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, and that is the reason that we went from a slow cooling to a very rapid warming. We have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. And the CH4 from about 700 to 800 ppb to over 1850 ppb. And that is rapidly warming the atmosphere and oceans.

2. We can change over from the fossil fuels to renewables in a generation, should we choose to. If we fail to do that, then the cost is going to be very high, including the loss of many of our coastal cities.

The earth is a self correcting system. Why yes, it is. Warmer oceans, warmer atmosphere, and a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Easily corrected, dump 56" of rain on Houston and surrounding areas. Those corrections do not give a damn about man or his works.

Now, Toob, stop being an asshole, and putting words into my mouth. I have never claimed thermal runaway as the result of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. That may be possible, but I doubt it. However, we are creating a much poorer world for our children. And people like you don't give a damn as long as you have yours.

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult. And reading scientific literature. And most of the scientific literature of the time stated that warming was a danger. Some thought that the industrial air pollution would continue to increase to the point that it would create a long term cooling. However, they were soon disabused of that notion, both by the readily apparent warming, and by the fact that the then industrial nations cleaned up their act. Much to the chagrin of people like you. Plus there was a PNAS paper in 1975 that stated at that time we really did not have enough data to determine whether there we were were in for cooling or warming in the long term, from the actions of man. And the majority of papers published in peer reviewed journals stated the evidence at that time pointed more towards warming;

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your first claim is not supported by factual observation. CO2 is the only gas that we actually produce in any quantity and that is less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Furthermore hard evidence shows that CO2 lags warmth. That is now not even remotely questioned save by those with a monetary dependence on the "theories" continued survival.

LOL Mr. Westwall, there is now over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 120 ppm more than at the beginning of the industrial age. That 120 ppm is greater than the difference between the glacial and interglacial periods. CH4 varied between 400 ppb and 800 ppm glacial to interglacial. CH4 is now above 1850 ppb. That is an increase of over 1000 ppb. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. And increased the amount of CH4 by almost 250%. So your 5% figure is an outright lie, and you know it.

Big whoop. There is more evidence supporting the supposition that the increase in CO2 is from the warming of the MWP which was 800 years ago which corollates very nicely with the Vostock ice core samples which show a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 increase after a period of warming. That is called science. What you are pushing is called science fiction.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult.

I never said I was a child in the '70's. I was in college in 1975.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm

BOTTOM LINE: The Holocene is an inter-glacial period. If patterns over the past 450,000 years hold true, then we are nearing or at the end of that warmer period. At every such instance, there were wild fluctuations in temperature right before the precipitous fall back into glaciation with no help from man. That seems to be what we are doing now. Even if we ARE adding to that warming, when the Earth decides to cool off again, it is going to cool off no matter what we do.

If you were in college in 1975, why did you not read the PNAS paper on the subject of warming or cooling when it was published then?

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, you are broadcasting your ignorance for all to see.

Solar activity is declining—what to expect?

Even as the article you point to says this right in its second paragraph: "the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation." Look fool, I'll save you a little more embarrassment by telling you in advance that I almost went into the field of astronomy before deciding on engineering as my main career but have and still do teach it on the side. I know all about the Sun so stop right here and quite trying to tell us something about it that neither you nor any one else knows. I love it when people post these maps of climate models as proving this or that when there are clearly flaws to all of them. Sure the Sun's cycles affect us, but not only are they poorly understood, whatever their effect, IT ONLY GOES BACK TO PROVE MY ORIGINAL POINT!

You clearly have an agenda to want to prove that MAN is the cause of climate change when only two things matter:
1). We have no control over the external forces that drive our climate.
2). Whatever man's influence, we are bound to the very GHGs you fear so much for another century until technology evolves to replace them. Without industry, we cannot sustain the world population.
And I would add a third point (again), removed from the system (the positive FB of mankind), the Earth is a self-correcting system that routinely self-corrects all of the time from far larger pressures!

Which makes the entire climate scare and its faux, self-serving industry of climate alarmists irrelevant to the outcome, observers at best and if I had my way, I would put all of you on the breadline, or to work doing something more useful, like delivering bread.

I might point out that I never said that the Milankovic Cycles had anything to do with the sun. And the TSI is a bit less than it has been.

Don't try to run from what you said, we all read it. When I was a kid, the talk was we were heading into an ice age. Now 50 years later, it is thermal runaway leading us to Venus-like conditions. I am embarrassed for you that you would even suggest that the periodicity and wobble, etc., of the Earth happening over tens of thousands of years is even a factor in explaining that change; that is akin to watching a tree grow in the forest, then coming back in 5 minutes to ask if anything has changed. Neither you nor I know for sure what the future of the Earth shall be, but whatever it is, whatever is going to happen IS going to happen and the draconian changes needed to kill man's carbon footyprint (if needed) are unaffordable and as bad or worse than what they might prevent. So once again, enjoy the ride.

1. We have no control over the external factors that drive our climate.

You are correct. We have no control over tectonics, the sun, or large volcanic eruptions. But we do have control over the fact that we have put a vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, and that is the reason that we went from a slow cooling to a very rapid warming. We have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. And the CH4 from about 700 to 800 ppb to over 1850 ppb. And that is rapidly warming the atmosphere and oceans.

2. We can change over from the fossil fuels to renewables in a generation, should we choose to. If we fail to do that, then the cost is going to be very high, including the loss of many of our coastal cities.

The earth is a self correcting system. Why yes, it is. Warmer oceans, warmer atmosphere, and a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Easily corrected, dump 56" of rain on Houston and surrounding areas. Those corrections do not give a damn about man or his works.

Now, Toob, stop being an asshole, and putting words into my mouth. I have never claimed thermal runaway as the result of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. That may be possible, but I doubt it. However, we are creating a much poorer world for our children. And people like you don't give a damn as long as you have yours.

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult. And reading scientific literature. And most of the scientific literature of the time stated that warming was a danger. Some thought that the industrial air pollution would continue to increase to the point that it would create a long term cooling. However, they were soon disabused of that notion, both by the readily apparent warming, and by the fact that the then industrial nations cleaned up their act. Much to the chagrin of people like you. Plus there was a PNAS paper in 1975 that stated at that time we really did not have enough data to determine whether there we were were in for cooling or warming in the long term, from the actions of man. And the majority of papers published in peer reviewed journals stated the evidence at that time pointed more towards warming;

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your first claim is not supported by factual observation. CO2 is the only gas that we actually produce in any quantity and that is less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Furthermore hard evidence shows that CO2 lags warmth. That is now not even remotely questioned save by those with a monetary dependence on the "theories" continued survival.

LOL Mr. Westwall, there is now over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 120 ppm more than at the beginning of the industrial age. That 120 ppm is greater than the difference between the glacial and interglacial periods. CH4 varied between 400 ppb and 800 ppm glacial to interglacial. CH4 is now above 1850 ppb. That is an increase of over 1000 ppb. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. And increased the amount of CH4 by almost 250%. So your 5% figure is an outright lie, and you know it.

Big whoop. There is more evidence supporting the supposition that the increase in CO2 is from the warming of the MWP which was 800 years ago which corollates very nicely with the Vostock ice core samples which show a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 increase after a period of warming. That is called science. What you are pushing is called science fiction.

How stupid can you get? There was a far greater warm up at 8000 years ago, and there was no such increase in CO2 and CH4. And that temperature lag is for the southern hemisphere.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

A popular myth amongst climate 'skeptics' is that historically atmospheric CO2 levels have risen after temperature increases began, and therefore it's actually temperature increases that cause CO2 increases, and not vice-versa as basic climate science and physics would have us believe. To this point, the standard response to this myth has been that initial temperature increases have historically been caused by the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles, which in turn warm the oceans, causing them to release CO2, which in turn amplify the global warming. Thus while the initial warming hasn't historically been caused by CO2, CO2 has amplified the warming for thousands of subsequent years, and thus is still the principal control knob governing Earth's temperature.

 

[westwall]

Even as the article you point to says this right in its second paragraph: "the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation." Look fool, I'll save you a little more embarrassment by telling you in advance that I almost went into the field of astronomy before deciding on engineering as my main career but have and still do teach it on the side. I know all about the Sun so stop right here and quite trying to tell us something about it that neither you nor any one else knows. I love it when people post these maps of climate models as proving this or that when there are clearly flaws to all of them. Sure the Sun's cycles affect us, but not only are they poorly understood, whatever their effect, IT ONLY GOES BACK TO PROVE MY ORIGINAL POINT!

You clearly have an agenda to want to prove that MAN is the cause of climate change when only two things matter:
1). We have no control over the external forces that drive our climate.
2). Whatever man's influence, we are bound to the very GHGs you fear so much for another century until technology evolves to replace them. Without industry, we cannot sustain the world population.
And I would add a third point (again), removed from the system (the positive FB of mankind), the Earth is a self-correcting system that routinely self-corrects all of the time from far larger pressures!

Which makes the entire climate scare and its faux, self-serving industry of climate alarmists irrelevant to the outcome, observers at best and if I had my way, I would put all of you on the breadline, or to work doing something more useful, like delivering bread.

Don't try to run from what you said, we all read it. When I was a kid, the talk was we were heading into an ice age. Now 50 years later, it is thermal runaway leading us to Venus-like conditions. I am embarrassed for you that you would even suggest that the periodicity and wobble, etc., of the Earth happening over tens of thousands of years is even a factor in explaining that change; that is akin to watching a tree grow in the forest, then coming back in 5 minutes to ask if anything has changed. Neither you nor I know for sure what the future of the Earth shall be, but whatever it is, whatever is going to happen IS going to happen and the draconian changes needed to kill man's carbon footyprint (if needed) are unaffordable and as bad or worse than what they might prevent. So once again, enjoy the ride.

1. We have no control over the external factors that drive our climate.

You are correct. We have no control over tectonics, the sun, or large volcanic eruptions. But we do have control over the fact that we have put a vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, and that is the reason that we went from a slow cooling to a very rapid warming. We have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. And the CH4 from about 700 to 800 ppb to over 1850 ppb. And that is rapidly warming the atmosphere and oceans.

2. We can change over from the fossil fuels to renewables in a generation, should we choose to. If we fail to do that, then the cost is going to be very high, including the loss of many of our coastal cities.

The earth is a self correcting system. Why yes, it is. Warmer oceans, warmer atmosphere, and a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Easily corrected, dump 56" of rain on Houston and surrounding areas. Those corrections do not give a damn about man or his works.

Now, Toob, stop being an asshole, and putting words into my mouth. I have never claimed thermal runaway as the result of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. That may be possible, but I doubt it. However, we are creating a much poorer world for our children. And people like you don't give a damn as long as you have yours.

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult. And reading scientific literature. And most of the scientific literature of the time stated that warming was a danger. Some thought that the industrial air pollution would continue to increase to the point that it would create a long term cooling. However, they were soon disabused of that notion, both by the readily apparent warming, and by the fact that the then industrial nations cleaned up their act. Much to the chagrin of people like you. Plus there was a PNAS paper in 1975 that stated at that time we really did not have enough data to determine whether there we were were in for cooling or warming in the long term, from the actions of man. And the majority of papers published in peer reviewed journals stated the evidence at that time pointed more towards warming;

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your first claim is not supported by factual observation. CO2 is the only gas that we actually produce in any quantity and that is less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Furthermore hard evidence shows that CO2 lags warmth. That is now not even remotely questioned save by those with a monetary dependence on the "theories" continued survival.

LOL Mr. Westwall, there is now over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 120 ppm more than at the beginning of the industrial age. That 120 ppm is greater than the difference between the glacial and interglacial periods. CH4 varied between 400 ppb and 800 ppm glacial to interglacial. CH4 is now above 1850 ppb. That is an increase of over 1000 ppb. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. And increased the amount of CH4 by almost 250%. So your 5% figure is an outright lie, and you know it.

Big whoop. There is more evidence supporting the supposition that the increase in CO2 is from the warming of the MWP which was 800 years ago which corollates very nicely with the Vostock ice core samples which show a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 increase after a period of warming. That is called science. What you are pushing is called science fiction.

How stupid can you get? There was a far greater warm up at 8000 years ago, and there was no such increase in CO2 and CH4. And that temperature lag is for the southern hemisphere.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

A popular myth amongst climate 'skeptics' is that historically atmospheric CO2 levels have risen after temperature increases began, and therefore it's actually temperature increases that cause CO2 increases, and not vice-versa as basic climate science and physics would have us believe. To this point, the standard response to this myth has been that initial temperature increases have historically been caused by the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles, which in turn warm the oceans, causing them to release CO2, which in turn amplify the global warming. Thus while the initial warming hasn't historically been caused by CO2, CO2 has amplified the warming for thousands of subsequent years, and thus is still the principal control knob governing Earth's temperature.

Shakun et al was DESTROYED years ago silly boy. Better get yourself some newer material.
2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims

2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

 

[westwall]

Ya wanna know what's truly funny olfraud? Everytime you give me a laugh emoji my overall rating go's UP! So thanks! Ya dumbass!

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep. But your silly posts still remain extraodinarily funny.

 

[toobfreak]

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult.

I never said I was a child in the '70's. I was in college in 1975.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm

BOTTOM LINE: The Holocene is an inter-glacial period. If patterns over the past 450,000 years hold true, then we are nearing or at the end of that warmer period. At every such instance, there were wild fluctuations in temperature right before the precipitous fall back into glaciation with no help from man. That seems to be what we are doing now. Even if we ARE adding to that warming, when the Earth decides to cool off again, it is going to cool off no matter what we do.

It is the warm up to interglacial that is precipitous, not the cool down to glacial, as one can see from the chart.

I know I am a fool to keep arguing with you, you post your stupid chart as if it proves anything? What if there was some third quantity whose effect caused both temperature variations and CO2 variations? You make the logical fallacy of assuming that the one here is causing the other! Further, such charts are adjusted to purposefully line up and match the amplitude scales so that they superimpose beautifully! Don't you know that coincidence does not necessarily mean connection? And you do nothing to explain why the two lines sometimes diverge? What force is at work there? In some spots, the temperature went up before the CO2 rose! If CO2 shot up from 260 to 383 ppm in 2007, why did temperature go down slightly? Everywhere else, your chart seems to suggest a very fast response time from one to the other. According to your chart, the temp in Antarctica ought to be up to about -35 by now, just a little colder than it sometimes gets here. If your chart is right, then within 5 years, the Earth ought to be plagued by massive super storms, drought everywhere and people dying by the millions. I'll look forward to seeing if it pans out. The good news is that if millions die, there will be far less to pollute with GHGs and there the Earth will have found its control.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult.

I never said I was a child in the '70's. I was in college in 1975.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm

BOTTOM LINE: The Holocene is an inter-glacial period. If patterns over the past 450,000 years hold true, then we are nearing or at the end of that warmer period. At every such instance, there were wild fluctuations in temperature right before the precipitous fall back into glaciation with no help from man. That seems to be what we are doing now. Even if we ARE adding to that warming, when the Earth decides to cool off again, it is going to cool off no matter what we do.

It is the warm up to interglacial that is precipitous, not the cool down to glacial, as one can see from the chart.

Love the deception add on.. Nice Hokey Schtick... How about you place the last 500 years in a single data point and quit lying by placing 5 year data points on the end of a 500 year plot..

 

[Billy_Bob]

1. We have no control over the external factors that drive our climate.

You are correct. We have no control over tectonics, the sun, or large volcanic eruptions. But we do have control over the fact that we have put a vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, and that is the reason that we went from a slow cooling to a very rapid warming. We have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. And the CH4 from about 700 to 800 ppb to over 1850 ppb. And that is rapidly warming the atmosphere and oceans.

2. We can change over from the fossil fuels to renewables in a generation, should we choose to. If we fail to do that, then the cost is going to be very high, including the loss of many of our coastal cities.

The earth is a self correcting system. Why yes, it is. Warmer oceans, warmer atmosphere, and a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Easily corrected, dump 56" of rain on Houston and surrounding areas. Those corrections do not give a damn about man or his works.

Now, Toob, stop being an asshole, and putting words into my mouth. I have never claimed thermal runaway as the result of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. That may be possible, but I doubt it. However, we are creating a much poorer world for our children. And people like you don't give a damn as long as you have yours.

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult. And reading scientific literature. And most of the scientific literature of the time stated that warming was a danger. Some thought that the industrial air pollution would continue to increase to the point that it would create a long term cooling. However, they were soon disabused of that notion, both by the readily apparent warming, and by the fact that the then industrial nations cleaned up their act. Much to the chagrin of people like you. Plus there was a PNAS paper in 1975 that stated at that time we really did not have enough data to determine whether there we were were in for cooling or warming in the long term, from the actions of man. And the majority of papers published in peer reviewed journals stated the evidence at that time pointed more towards warming;

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your first claim is not supported by factual observation. CO2 is the only gas that we actually produce in any quantity and that is less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Furthermore hard evidence shows that CO2 lags warmth. That is now not even remotely questioned save by those with a monetary dependence on the "theories" continued survival.

LOL Mr. Westwall, there is now over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 120 ppm more than at the beginning of the industrial age. That 120 ppm is greater than the difference between the glacial and interglacial periods. CH4 varied between 400 ppb and 800 ppm glacial to interglacial. CH4 is now above 1850 ppb. That is an increase of over 1000 ppb. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. And increased the amount of CH4 by almost 250%. So your 5% figure is an outright lie, and you know it.

Big whoop. There is more evidence supporting the supposition that the increase in CO2 is from the warming of the MWP which was 800 years ago which corollates very nicely with the Vostock ice core samples which show a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 increase after a period of warming. That is called science. What you are pushing is called science fiction.

How stupid can you get? There was a far greater warm up at 8000 years ago, and there was no such increase in CO2 and CH4. And that temperature lag is for the southern hemisphere.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

A popular myth amongst climate 'skeptics' is that historically atmospheric CO2 levels have risen after temperature increases began, and therefore it's actually temperature increases that cause CO2 increases, and not vice-versa as basic climate science and physics would have us believe. To this point, the standard response to this myth has been that initial temperature increases have historically been caused by the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles, which in turn warm the oceans, causing them to release CO2, which in turn amplify the global warming. Thus while the initial warming hasn't historically been caused by CO2, CO2 has amplified the warming for thousands of subsequent years, and thus is still the principal control knob governing Earth's temperature.

Shakun et al was DESTROYED years ago silly boy. Better get yourself some newer material.
2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims

2 New Papers: Models ‘Severely Flawed’, Temp Changes Largely Natural, CO2 Influence ‘Half’ Of IPCC Claims

Now there ya go again ... Showing Old Fraud his BS dosen't mesh with empirically observed and quantified evidence...

Real science shows his fraud a lie.... Bravo!

 

[Billy_Bob]

At every such instance, there were wild fluctuations in temperature right before the precipitous fall back into glaciation with no help from man. That seems to be what we are doing now.

Even the high resolution Greenland Ice cores reflect this observation. Spiking and then a leveling off of temp is seen in the last 6 glacial cycles before rapid cooling sets in. Exactly what we have observed the last 30 - 100 years. Were in a precarious position right now with solar energy going low and our present axial tilt of the earth reducing solar energy hitting the earths surface. Dr David Hathaway has even concluded that we could very easily see cold temperatures due to solar influence the next 30-60 years and that doesn't include the ENSO going cold as well as major ocean circulations. The enlargement of the Polar jets is evidence that cooling is massive.

Time will tell.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even as the article you point to says this right in its second paragraph: "the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation." Look fool, I'll save you a little more embarrassment by telling you in advance that I almost went into the field of astronomy before deciding on engineering as my main career but have and still do teach it on the side. I know all about the Sun so stop right here and quite trying to tell us something about it that neither you nor any one else knows. I love it when people post these maps of climate models as proving this or that when there are clearly flaws to all of them. Sure the Sun's cycles affect us, but not only are they poorly understood, whatever their effect, IT ONLY GOES BACK TO PROVE MY ORIGINAL POINT!

You clearly have an agenda to want to prove that MAN is the cause of climate change when only two things matter:
1). We have no control over the external forces that drive our climate.
2). Whatever man's influence, we are bound to the very GHGs you fear so much for another century until technology evolves to replace them. Without industry, we cannot sustain the world population.
And I would add a third point (again), removed from the system (the positive FB of mankind), the Earth is a self-correcting system that routinely self-corrects all of the time from far larger pressures!

Which makes the entire climate scare and its faux, self-serving industry of climate alarmists irrelevant to the outcome, observers at best and if I had my way, I would put all of you on the breadline, or to work doing something more useful, like delivering bread.

Don't try to run from what you said, we all read it. When I was a kid, the talk was we were heading into an ice age. Now 50 years later, it is thermal runaway leading us to Venus-like conditions. I am embarrassed for you that you would even suggest that the periodicity and wobble, etc., of the Earth happening over tens of thousands of years is even a factor in explaining that change; that is akin to watching a tree grow in the forest, then coming back in 5 minutes to ask if anything has changed. Neither you nor I know for sure what the future of the Earth shall be, but whatever it is, whatever is going to happen IS going to happen and the draconian changes needed to kill man's carbon footyprint (if needed) are unaffordable and as bad or worse than what they might prevent. So once again, enjoy the ride.

1. We have no control over the external factors that drive our climate.

You are correct. We have no control over tectonics, the sun, or large volcanic eruptions. But we do have control over the fact that we have put a vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, and that is the reason that we went from a slow cooling to a very rapid warming. We have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. And the CH4 from about 700 to 800 ppb to over 1850 ppb. And that is rapidly warming the atmosphere and oceans.

2. We can change over from the fossil fuels to renewables in a generation, should we choose to. If we fail to do that, then the cost is going to be very high, including the loss of many of our coastal cities.

The earth is a self correcting system. Why yes, it is. Warmer oceans, warmer atmosphere, and a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere. Easily corrected, dump 56" of rain on Houston and surrounding areas. Those corrections do not give a damn about man or his works.

Now, Toob, stop being an asshole, and putting words into my mouth. I have never claimed thermal runaway as the result of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. That may be possible, but I doubt it. However, we are creating a much poorer world for our children. And people like you don't give a damn as long as you have yours.

When you were a child in the 70's, I was an adult. And reading scientific literature. And most of the scientific literature of the time stated that warming was a danger. Some thought that the industrial air pollution would continue to increase to the point that it would create a long term cooling. However, they were soon disabused of that notion, both by the readily apparent warming, and by the fact that the then industrial nations cleaned up their act. Much to the chagrin of people like you. Plus there was a PNAS paper in 1975 that stated at that time we really did not have enough data to determine whether there we were were in for cooling or warming in the long term, from the actions of man. And the majority of papers published in peer reviewed journals stated the evidence at that time pointed more towards warming;

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Your first claim is not supported by factual observation. CO2 is the only gas that we actually produce in any quantity and that is less than 5% of the entire global CO2 budget. Furthermore hard evidence shows that CO2 lags warmth. That is now not even remotely questioned save by those with a monetary dependence on the "theories" continued survival.

LOL Mr. Westwall, there is now over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 120 ppm more than at the beginning of the industrial age. That 120 ppm is greater than the difference between the glacial and interglacial periods. CH4 varied between 400 ppb and 800 ppm glacial to interglacial. CH4 is now above 1850 ppb. That is an increase of over 1000 ppb. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. And increased the amount of CH4 by almost 250%. So your 5% figure is an outright lie, and you know it.

Big whoop. There is more evidence supporting the supposition that the increase in CO2 is from the warming of the MWP which was 800 years ago which corollates very nicely with the Vostock ice core samples which show a 600 to 800 year lag in CO2 increase after a period of warming. That is called science. What you are pushing is called science fiction.

How stupid can you get? There was a far greater warm up at 8000 years ago, and there was no such increase in CO2 and CH4. And that temperature lag is for the southern hemisphere.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag

A popular myth amongst climate 'skeptics' is that historically atmospheric CO2 levels have risen after temperature increases began, and therefore it's actually temperature increases that cause CO2 increases, and not vice-versa as basic climate science and physics would have us believe. To this point, the standard response to this myth has been that initial temperature increases have historically been caused by the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles, which in turn warm the oceans, causing them to release CO2, which in turn amplify the global warming. Thus while the initial warming hasn't historically been caused by CO2, CO2 has amplified the warming for thousands of subsequent years, and thus is still the principal control knob governing Earth's temperature.

First you bet on the Discredited James Hansen lie and now your doubling down with this pile of discredited crap... IS there any lie you wont use even AFTER its been torn to shreds by real science?