Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[ding]

Are you a climate scientist? If not why do you think you have special insight that allows you to gainsay the findings of literally thousands of independent researchers over the last 60-100 years?

I'm actually quite curious. If you prefer the work of Lindzen or Curry to the vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts you are effectively betting against the house. Not because you have some inside knowledge, but rather because you prefer their position.

Obviously I don't know you, but I rather assume you are at least like me and that means you are not a climate expert. I've been lucky to work in the earth sciences and be around a lot of folks who were, but I'm not myself. So in a sense I'm forced to defer to those who know better than I do.

I assume you are likewise hindered.

Because the geologic record doesn't support their conclusions, because they don't actually discuss the earth's climate or what drives it, because their "science" is in reality nothing more than computer modeling, because the planet is closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is a greenhouse, because the last 500,000 years has been extremely cold and the trend is for a cooling planet, because they stoop to stupid severe weather arguments, because they drastically over state the danger of a runaway greenhouse planet, because the US isn't the problem, because this is about money, because I don't blindly accept anything. I could go on for days but that's enough for now.

So when are you going to tell me what drove temperature trends before the industrial revolution and why they still aren't doing so now? You do realize our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2, right? Why isn't it warmer now?

 

[ding]

I honestly wish you would have read what I actually wrote. I'll try yet again: Science is not driven by consensus, but a solid hypothesis can be expected to generate a consensus.

I can't say it any simpler than that.

Unless you think that the laws of Thermodynamics do not fall into a general consensus.

There is no political agenda for the laws of thermodynamics.

You do realize the IPCC has a goal of speaking from one voice, right?

 

[ding]

I believe it is thought that there was a significant effect from CO2 during the End Permean Extinction, but I could be mistaken about that, but I believe there are some who feel that it was in part due to the extensive volcanism associated with the Siberian Traps which put out a bunch of additional CO2. But it doesn't have to be the "rule", there are many reasons for climate change in earth's history.

As for CO2 lagging temperature, that's just Chemistry 101 stuff. Basic chemistry. As you warm a fluid like sea water dissolved CO2 will exsolve. That's nothing new.

CO2 can both DRIVE and LAG warming. There's virtually nothing controversial about that fact.



Why only go back that far? Why not go back to say the end Permean?

CO2 lagging temperature is not CO2 driving the climate. That's the temperature driving CO2.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because the geologic record doesn't support their conclusions,

What on earth do you mean by that?

because they don't actually discuss the earth's climate or what drives it,

That's incorrect.

because their "science" is in reality nothing more than computer modeling,

That's incorrect. Models are integral to science, even if you personally have no experience with them.

because the planet is closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is a greenhouse,

Nope.

because the last 500,000 years has been extremely cold and the trend is for a cooling planet, because they stoop to stupid severe weather arguments, because they drastically over state the danger of a runaway greenhouse planet, because the US isn't the problem, because this is about money, because I don't blindly accept anything. I could go on for days but that's enough for now.

And most of your points are wrong.

So when are you going to tell me what drove temperature trends before the industrial revolution

The sun, the arrangement of the continental land masses, ocean currents, volcanism, etc, etc, etc.

All those things are known and right now we can't use them to explain why the earth is warming. The solar cycles aren't in the right phase, there isn't a massive amount of volcanism as there was at the end of the Permian, the ocean currents are not such that they would cause the climate to change.

The ONE THING that makes the data make sense is if we include human activity and we find that it explains more than 50% of the variance of the data.

 

[ding]

What on earth do you mean by that?

You are a geologist and you don't know how the geologic record doesn't support CO2 driving the earth's climate? Really? How does the earth's geologic record support CO2 as driving the earth's climate?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are a geologist and you don't know how the geologic record doesn't support CO2 driving the earth's climate?

Except it does. As I said, look back at the End Permian as one example.

Really? How does the earth's geologic record support CO2 as driving the earth's climate?

I guess the bigger question (since you know so very little about the actual geologic history of the earth) is "do you not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?"

I mean we've known for more than 150 years that CO2 is a able to absorb IR and that it is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. In nature it is one of the main reasons that the earth's surface temperature is above the blackbody temperature (!)

So why do you doubt that MORE CO2 would lead to MORE warming?

How do you think this all works?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

CO2 lagging temperature is not CO2 driving the climate. That's the temperature driving CO2.

Have you taken an intro chemistry class? Just curious. Here's what's going on:

1. It is EXTREMELY well known that if you heat a fluid that has dissolved CO2 in it the CO2 will come out of solution. We teach this to college kids in intro chemistry classes. So if you warm the planet then CO2 can be expected to exsolve (come out of solution) from things like the oceans.

2. CO2 is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. We have known CO2's ability to absorb IR since the mid-1800's with Fourier and Tyndal's work. If it can absorb IR that energy doesn't just "disappear". In fact it is KNOWN that CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the reasons that the earth's surface temperature is above the blackbody temperature. O2 and N2 (the main components of our atmosphere) lack the ability to signficantly absorb IR and thus would not serve to keep the surface as warm as it is. H2O and CO2, having the right types of chemical bonds CAN absorb IR rather well.

So CO2 can both LEAD and LAG.

There is literally nothing about what I just said that is even REMOTELY in doubt or debate. We've known about these things for OVER A CENTURY.

 

[abu afak]

You are a geologist and you don't know how the geologic record doesn't support CO2 driving the earth's climate? Really? How does the earth's geologic record support CO2 as driving the earth's climate?

WE have been through this DOZENS of times.
I have refuted you on all of them
So now you try on someone else. a One trick pony.
NOT for the truth but as a Stumper. A Dishonest Riddle you know is wrong.

Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because of the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at an [increasingly] staggering rate.
CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.
NOT the case now.
They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.

Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.
Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.
Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.

That's about the best, but not only, of many reasons we now this is AGW.

`

 

[ding]

Except it does. As I said, look back at the End Permian as one example.

Seriously, dude. CO2 lags temperature throughout the geologic record.

 

[ding]

I guess the bigger question (since you know so very little about the actual geologic history of the earth) is "do you not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?"

I mean we've known for more than 150 years that CO2 is a able to absorb IR and that it is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. In nature it is one of the main reasons that the earth's surface temperature is above the blackbody temperature (!)

So why do you doubt that MORE CO2 would lead to MORE warming?

How do you think this all works?

Apparently I know more about it than you do. You didn't even know the role plate tectonics played in the transition to an icehouse planet. I was pretty shocked how ignorant you were about the science. You didn't even know there was a transition to an icehouse planet and your beliefs about the role orbital forcing played was all wrong too.

 

[ding]

Have you taken an intro chemistry class? Just curious. Here's what's going on:

1. It is EXTREMELY well known that if you heat a fluid that has dissolved CO2 in it the CO2 will come out of solution. We teach this to college kids in intro chemistry classes. So if you warm the planet then CO2 can be expected to exsolve (come out of solution) from things like the oceans.

2. CO2 is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. We have known CO2's ability to absorb IR since the mid-1800's with Fourier and Tyndal's work. If it can absorb IR that energy doesn't just "disappear". In fact it is KNOWN that CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the reasons that the earth's surface temperature is above the blackbody temperature. O2 and N2 (the main components of our atmosphere) lack the ability to signficantly absorb IR and thus would not serve to keep the surface as warm as it is. H2O and CO2, having the right types of chemical bonds CAN absorb IR rather well.

So CO2 can both LEAD and LAG.

There is literally nothing about what I just said that is even REMOTELY in doubt or debate. We've known about these things for OVER A CENTURY.

So how can CO2 drive earth's climate throughout the geologic record (which is your stated belief) if CO2 lags temperature by 800 to 1000 years?

 

[ding]

WE have been through this DOZENS of times.
I have refuted you on all of them
So now you try on someone else. a One trick pony.
NOT for the truth but as a Stumper. A Dishonest Riddle you know is wrong.

Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because of the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at an [increasingly] staggering rate.
CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.
NOT the case now.
They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.

Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.
Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.
Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.

That's about the best, but not only, of many reasons we now this is AGW.

`

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years. THAT'S NOT DRIVING CLIMATE. THAT IS CO2 BEING DRIVEN BY CLIMATE.

 

[ding]

What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years. Red areas represent temperatures warmer than those in 1987 (top of the core); blue areas were cooler. Almost all of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the past 1500 years. (Plotted from data in Grootes and Stuiver, 1997)

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Seriously, dude. CO2 lags temperature throughout the geologic record.

Do you even know what I'm talking about with regards to the End Pemian Extinction?

Just anything?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?

View attachment 627941
δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years. Red areas represent temperatures warmer than those in 1987 (top of the core); blue areas were cooler. Almost all of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the past 1500 years. (Plotted from data in Grootes and Stuiver, 1997)

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

Do you think the earth is only 10,000 years old?

Huh.

You DO realize the earth is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH older than this graph, right?

You DO realize that don't you?

You aren't a Young Earth Creationist are you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years. THAT'S NOT DRIVING CLIMATE. THAT IS CO2 BEING DRIVEN BY CLIMATE.

Are you able to understand my point about CO2 both leading and lagging?

Was that clear?

What part of basic chemistry do you not like?

If you don't understand how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas I can help you with that. If you don't understand how CO2 exsolves out of solution I can also help you with that.

We need to figure out which parts of basic, first year chemistry you have the MOST trouble with.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So how can CO2 drive earth's climate throughout the geologic record (which is your stated belief) if CO2 lags temperature by 800 to 1000 years?

Because IT CAN AND DOES LEAD TO WARMING.

There is LITERALLY NOTHING THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THAT.

There are OTHER means of warming the planet as well (solar cycles, ocean current changes, etc.) and when they warm the planet it causes dissolved CO2 to come out of solution from the oceans.

Honestly, one would have to be completely uneducated to not understand these two simple concepts.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Apparently I know more about it than you do. You didn't even know the role plate tectonics played in the transition to an icehouse planet.

Are you joking? Where do you come up with this stuff???? I've forgotten more Plate Tectonics than you have ever learned! LOL

I was pretty shocked how ignorant you were about the science. You didn't even know there was a transition to an icehouse planet and your beliefs about the role orbital forcing played was all wrong too.

wow.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do you think the earth is only 10,000 years old?

Huh.

You DO realize the earth is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH older than this graph, right?

You DO realize that don't you?

You aren't a Young Earth Creationist are you?

You can't answer the question.... apparently just make a noisy reply to cover for your inability to answer a simple question.

10,000 years is long enough for the question you didn't answer because you don't understand it:

"What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?"

 

[Sunsettommy]

Because IT CAN AND DOES LEAD TO WARMING.

There is LITERALLY NOTHING THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THAT.

There are OTHER means of warming the planet as well (solar cycles, ocean current changes, etc.) and when they warm the planet it causes dissolved CO2 to come out of solution from the oceans.

Honestly, one would have to be completely uneducated to not understand these two simple concepts.

No there are many published papers showing that CO2 LAGS temperature changes by many years which indicate it isn't a driver but a follower.