Human Caused Global Warming

[konradv]

You assume wrong.. Those two statements are conjecture. There is no basis in fact and the facts presented show those two statements false. Their own paper shows the alarmist drivel fraud. Yet they placed them in for the faithful to latch on too as the facts are damming. The statements are an attempt to keep their funding. You will find them in every papaer which is damming and the people are trying like hell to keep the money flowing.

How do you know it's the funding and not merely the fact that deniers never give a satisfactory answer to the question of what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs as its concentration in the atmosphere increases?

 

[Billy_Bob]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

So is there a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over the world’s eyes? It seems highly unlikely, considering the numerous studies that show overwhelming consensus among respected scientists that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is indisputable.

at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change

The study says that the few "contrarian" scientists are a vocal, but small, minority. They also found that those scientists denying human-caused climate change tend to have less expertise in the subject than those who believe in it.
Another survey out of the University of Illinois found that 82 percent of earth scientists (out of more than 3,000 respondents) believe that global temperature shifts are human-caused. Among climate-specific earth scientists who responded, 97.4 percent said they believe in human-caused climate change.
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,"

Awe... Poor little libtard is using John Cooks FALSE STATEMENTS (which are quoted in both papers) as fact when they have been show a lie...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You assume wrong.. Those two statements are conjecture. There is no basis in fact and the facts presented show those two statements false. Their own paper shows the alarmist drivel fraud. Yet they placed them in for the faithful to latch on too as the facts are damming. The statements are an attempt to keep their funding. You will find them in every papaer which is damming and the people are trying like hell to keep the money flowing.

How do you know it's the funding and not merely the fact that deniers never give a satisfactory answer to the question of what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs as its concentration in the atmosphere increases?

First of all you must understand that it responds in a LOG function decreasing return as the level increases.

The law of diminishing returns rules. CO2 has already spent 0ver 95% of its usable warming effect in our atmosphere and with current observations that number may be 99.9%. CO2 in the lab reacts differently than it does in our atmosphere. The amount of actual absorption by CO2 is less than 1.5% which occurs at planet surface. The reflected energy which transfers in our upper atmosphere has not resulted in any hot spot of any kind, thus absorption is not indicated. To understand this one need only look at how other items in our atmosphere react.

Until you reconcile these items you will never know what CO2 is doing. As of today the increase in CO2 without the coupled response of temp rise shows the AGW premise false using the Null hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

 

[konradv]

Until you reconcile these items you will never know what CO2 is doing. As of today the increase in CO2 without the coupled response of temp rise shows the AGW premise false using the Null hypothesis.

Isn't that just one model vs another. Your premise is that yours is correct anfthe other is wrong, despite there being no more evidence for your favorite than the other. A logarithmic increase is still an increase. A 30-40% increase in CO2 equals 11-15% on a log scale. Still seems quite significant in my book. I guess we'll have to wait until the current "pause" is over. Hope it's not too late.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Until you reconcile these items you will never know what CO2 is doing. As of today the increase in CO2 without the coupled response of temp rise shows the AGW premise false using the Null hypothesis.

Isn't that just one model vs another. Your premise is that yours is correct anfthe other is wrong, despite there being no more evidence for your favorite than the other. A logarithmic increase is still an increase. A 30-40% increase in CO2 equals 11-15% on a log scale. Still seems quite significant in my book. I guess we'll have to wait until the current "pause" is over. Hope it's not too late.

We are at 400ppm and we will only see 0.5 deg F in increase, IF it is not countered by water vapor, at a full doubling to 800ppm. Then you must take into account that at 800ppm that same rise of 0.5 Deg F will have to wait until we hit 1,600ppm.

As to my second post, Those facts are presented by the IPCC and NOAA who both proclaimed that all warming prior to 1950 was natural variation and all after was man made. I have always wondered how they stopped natural variation. when you take into account natural variation there is no CO2 induced rise. It just isn't there empirically.

 

[Billy_Bob]

While the suns Total Solar Irradiance (TSI defined in Watts/meter^2) is relatively stable, the way in which the sun emits its energy is changing. The Infrared bands (IR) of light are what carry a very good portion of heat onto the earths surface and heats the molecules in our atmosphere.(note that IR causes excitement of other molecules and therefore heat) During the day we have high energy and high frequency input. At night we have Low frequency black body radiation to space.

During the day the energy is pushed through the atmosphere colliding with everything, reflecting and absorption. CO2's primary roll is during the day when it reflects back to earth some of the heat it allows to pass through our atmosphere in the high frequency bands. At night the low frequency bands are actually allowed to escape faster back into space with higher concentrations of CO2.

As the suns power bands change it can affect the earths warm up time in direct sun light. The current active bands are of much lower frequency, so it easily passes through the atmosphere and looses much of its heat to space. The net result is cooling. The poles will be the areas most affected as the atmosphere is thin. Today we have major polar lows (2 to 3 times the size) than just 10 years ago. This loss of heat can be directly traced to solar output and resulting solar wind decline.

A sun nearing a time of slumber would be a rapid cool down. The last ten years of observations are very interesting as we watched the shift in IR bands and the resulting shift on the earth while TSI remained constant.

The shift occurred just before the ADO and PDO went cold. So there is yet to be more discussion on what the effects of both did and by how much. This shift can also explain why we have had periods of Glaciation in conjunction with high levels of CO2 throughout geological history.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 is a trace gas. Its only claim to fame is it can cause short wave radiation to bounce back to earth which happens during the day. Its other balancing effect is that long wave black body radiation slips easily through it which occurs at night releasing the accumulated increase from the day. In day time instances the increase is logarithmic. At night the increase allows faster escape of long-wave radiation that water vapor would have reflected back to earth.


The graph above shows a laboratory experiment and reality seen in earths atmosphere at exactly the same levels of CO2.

As the trace gas increases, the potential increase in temp increases. This however has a rate of diminishing return or a logarithmic function. CO2 takes 2 times the rise in CO2 to obtain 1 deg C in warming. At 400ppm it would take a further increase of 800ppm to obtain that 1 degree of warming. Thus by the time we reach 500ppm further doubling would essentially be a flat line in temperature rise.

Essentially we have seen the warming that is capable with CO2 alone already. The question now becomes how will other systems react to that warming? As we have seen in the last 17 years and 9 months since the peak of temp rise and peak of solar maximum the earth responds by many variables and those variables mitigate the temp rise.


Even the IPCC is now acknowledging that their own climate sensitivity predictions were way to high and that it is much closer to the one to one relationship number than to their high end one to six that has been shown falsified.. CO2 isn't driving anything.

 

[Billy_Bob]

NCA CLAIM #3: Third LOE – “The Climate Models”

The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate. (NCA, Page 24)

RESPONSE: The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.

These Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.

I do not know how to explain this any better than they did. Scientific Process was purposely ignored by the EPA. Just reading the whole in context on Anthony Watts site pretty much mirrors my review of CAGW. The links to the writers works and refuting data are a good source of information. They even show the arctic warming and spike to be statistically the same as 1940.

The majority of the Admins Document is pure conjecture and baseless.

What I find rather interesting is the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC are backpedaling fast on the climate sensitivity issue and they have both reduced there ratings to 1-1/1-1.3 while the Obama Administration and the EPA are still touting a 1-6 sensitivity.

The Obama Admin and EPA have lost all credibility..


Source

 

[Saigon]

Bill Bob -

At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.

Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.

 

[westwall]

Bill Bob -

At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.

Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.

Give it a rest saggy. The propaganda has failed. No one with a brain believes your bullshit anymore. Climate change is natural and given the fact that the Arctic sea ice has been at a 10 year high for the last month or so, and the fact that the Great Lakes are icing up the earliest in 40 years, and the fact that century old snow records are being demolished, shows that the world is cooling off. The lies and deceit that you fraudsters have been perpetrating on the peoples of this world is over. You've lost. Now it's just a matter of time till the fraud is totally discounted. That time is close, 69% of Aussies now think your tall tale is hogwash. They were among the most ardent of "believers" Here's Lake Michigan in Feb 2014. Looks more like the Arctic Circle doesn't it...

Great Lakes ice cover developing Earliest in over 40 years MLive.com

 

[Billy_Bob]

Bill Bob -

At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.

Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.

You refuse to see the lie being thrown about and the facts trashing your religion. Those two paragraphs are at odds with the facts presented. But bury your head and 'believe'... the kookaid is killing you.!

 

[jc456]

You don't care? You don't know. You're just spouting off what you've heard and throwing in a neat graph. Answer the question. What becomes of the energy?

why does it matter? The proof is that it isn't mattering.

You don't know that. You're taking a small slice of time and saying it's the standard without accounting for all the facts. Aren't facts nasty when they get in the way of your deeply held biases? So much for being "on full trott at me". So it ends, not with a bang, but a whimper!

hahaahahahaahahaha, dude you presenting nothing and then claiming to hold me off is just, laughable. Let's see your experiment dude, without that, you can't stop me, so you should probably put the keys down and go to bed now.

 

[sealybobo]

So what? Clearly there is something else you are leaving out. Because after all the experts got together and discussed this they continued the thought process to it's conclusion and they almost all agreed that GW is real. So you are trying to have an experts conversation with a bunch of people on USMB. Either you are one of the 3% experts who disagrees with all of your colleagues or you are a right wing tool who's not an expert but is using expert information that you yourself don't even fully understand because the coal companies through rush or fox told you what to say in this argument...

That shouldn't even be an argument anymore. You are now a conspiracy theorist if you deny gw. Period. A kook. Like someone who thinks Bush let 9-11 happen.

Dude, you make a statement and my peer gives you the numbers. What is it you're missing?

Who is your peer?

who do you think? Are you that naive?

Climate change skeptics’ talking points have evolved since the 1990s as the scientific evidence has grown. They first said the Earth wasn’t warming. Then they said the Earth was warming, but it’s not caused by human activity. Now, many agree with the science, but it’s not that big of a problem.

and yet there is an 18 and half year pause. Hmmmmm.IPCC even recognizes that.

No pause. It is amazing anyone is still denying it even exists. At some point you will shift your argument to either

a. There is nothing we can do about it
b. It is happening but isn't as bad as the majority of experts say

And the corporations and rich people, once they can no longer deny, will argue on how to solve the problem. They'll say we should pay for it because "they already pay their fair share". Meanwhile they haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

Any GOP politician that denies is being paid to deny and they are considered right wing nuts by their peers. But they don't care because they gerimandered themselves some very white ignorant districts.

 

[jc456]

Dude, you make a statement and my peer gives you the numbers. What is it you're missing?

Who is your peer?

who do you think? Are you that naive?

Climate change skeptics’ talking points have evolved since the 1990s as the scientific evidence has grown. They first said the Earth wasn’t warming. Then they said the Earth was warming, but it’s not caused by human activity. Now, many agree with the science, but it’s not that big of a problem.

and yet there is an 18 and half year pause. Hmmmmm.IPCC even recognizes that.

No pause. It is amazing anyone is still denying it even exists. At some point you will shift your argument to either

a. There is nothing we can do about it
b. It is happening but isn't as bad as the majority of experts say

And the corporations and rich people, once they can no longer deny, will argue on how to solve the problem. They'll say we should pay for it because "they already pay their fair share". Meanwhile they haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

Any GOP politician that denies is being paid to deny and they are considered right wing nuts by their peers. But they don't care because they gerimandered themselves some very white ignorant districts.

Do you even know what peer is? dude that's just flippin hilarious. Why don't you go learn english.

 

[sealybobo]

Who is your peer?

who do you think? Are you that naive?

Climate change skeptics’ talking points have evolved since the 1990s as the scientific evidence has grown. They first said the Earth wasn’t warming. Then they said the Earth was warming, but it’s not caused by human activity. Now, many agree with the science, but it’s not that big of a problem.

and yet there is an 18 and half year pause. Hmmmmm.IPCC even recognizes that.

No pause. It is amazing anyone is still denying it even exists. At some point you will shift your argument to either

a. There is nothing we can do about it
b. It is happening but isn't as bad as the majority of experts say

And the corporations and rich people, once they can no longer deny, will argue on how to solve the problem. They'll say we should pay for it because "they already pay their fair share". Meanwhile they haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

Any GOP politician that denies is being paid to deny and they are considered right wing nuts by their peers. But they don't care because they gerimandered themselves some very white ignorant districts.

Do you even know what peer is? dude that's just flippin hilarious. Why don't you go learn english.

Pier, Peer, Pear. Go jump off one of them dummy.

 

[jc456]

ahhhh, do you need a tissue? snif snif.

Are you an adult? You do realize this is a board for mature adults, right? Do you have your parents permission to be here? We don't really have time for immature outbursts from children. We get enough of that from the so-called adults around here.

still crying I see. You sure are a whiny little one aren't you?

 

[jc456]

who do you think? Are you that naive?

Climate change skeptics’ talking points have evolved since the 1990s as the scientific evidence has grown. They first said the Earth wasn’t warming. Then they said the Earth was warming, but it’s not caused by human activity. Now, many agree with the science, but it’s not that big of a problem.

and yet there is an 18 and half year pause. Hmmmmm.IPCC even recognizes that.

No pause. It is amazing anyone is still denying it even exists. At some point you will shift your argument to either

a. There is nothing we can do about it
b. It is happening but isn't as bad as the majority of experts say

And the corporations and rich people, once they can no longer deny, will argue on how to solve the problem. They'll say we should pay for it because "they already pay their fair share". Meanwhile they haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

Any GOP politician that denies is being paid to deny and they are considered right wing nuts by their peers. But they don't care because they gerimandered themselves some very white ignorant districts.

Do you even know what peer is? dude that's just flippin hilarious. Why don't you go learn english.

Pier, Peer, Pear. Go jump off one of them dummy.

thanks for proving my point!!!

 

[jc456]

Bill Bob -

At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.

Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.

did you forget to take the marbles out of your hands?

 

[sealybobo]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

So is there a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over the world’s eyes? It seems highly unlikely, considering the numerous studies that show overwhelming consensus among respected scientists that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is indisputable.

at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change

The study says that the few "contrarian" scientists are a vocal, but small, minority. They also found that those scientists denying human-caused climate change tend to have less expertise in the subject than those who believe in it.
Another survey out of the University of Illinois found that 82 percent of earth scientists (out of more than 3,000 respondents) believe that global temperature shifts are human-caused. Among climate-specific earth scientists who responded, 97.4 percent said they believe in human-caused climate change.
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,"

Awe... Poor little libtard is using John Cooks FALSE STATEMENTS (which are quoted in both papers) as fact when they have been show a lie...

Your entire position is a lie. 90% say so. Once your side decides it is no longer effective to lie/deny they will argue their second talking point then 3rd. Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should but you guys will fight that until ultimately you will make us the people pay.

And I don't blame you. Why not sock it to the people? They don't even show up to vote so keep fucking them until they have had enough. Clearly they haven't had enough. The America people are so dumb.

By the way, this is the same thing happening in Michigan with our roads. Michigan allows corporations to put more weight on trucks than any of the other 50 states. That alone is a reason why corporations do business in Michigan. No need to give them more tax breaks although Snyder did give them more. Anyways, the point is that corporate trucks tear up our roads more than our cars do. So corporations should pay for the roads. But Snyder says no. He gave them tax breaks and says we don't have any $ to fix the roads, so he's going to raise our taxes. Basically proving me right. Republicans are only anti tax for the rich. They actually shift the tax burden from the rich onto us. Essentially they are for raising our taxes so they can lower the taxes for the rich. If you are for that, either you are dumb or rich.

Remember for how many years Republicans said NO NEW TAXES? Suddenly they win a 2nd term and sock it to the middle class? Where are all my middle class buddies who vote Republican? Suddenly they are defending tax increases? Interesting. Just like when they win back the white house they will stop being deficit hawks bet me. THey'll double the debt and you won't hear a sound out of their defenders. In fact remember Chaney said debt was good? I do.