Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[abu afak]

CO2 and Temperature have tracked together brilliantly throughout the ENTIRE Climate record -- to the degree we can measure with proxies and their lag/lead and temporal and spatial accuracies.


What this graph DOES NOT SHOW -- is any empirical evidence of the purported "catastrophic theories of GW" that predicted "runaway or accelerated warming, tipping point or any of the other SUPERPOWERS of CO2 over the past 100 years.


BTW arrogant, unstable one -- and tho it's NOT a topic for this forum -- there ARE DOZENS of questions that must BE ASKED AND ANSWERED on Evolution theories as well as something as multi-disciplinary and complex as Climate Change where EACH much reach a consensus to bullet-proof these theories.

What evidence of "catastrophic theories", "runaway warming" or "tipping point" do you believe is missing from the data?

"Catastrophic" is just FCT's Strawman to make everyone on the AGW acknowledgment side Radicals.

Al Gore may have been right in 2000 and we MAY be too late now.
Other's said by 2008/12, and they may be right but I doubt it.
People are saying it now too.
With the China explosion of emissions since Gore made a big issue of it, It think it is too late to stop warming (and melting), ie, too much for society and many of our cities and crops to bare by ie 2100.

I might add the USA/Corp America is doing a great job reducing emissions and moving to renewables.
AOC's wet dream. Nearly GND with no legislation. (I think she called for it by 2030 or 40)
`


flacaltenn I believe this is Neg #8 from Westwall today as he is out of control
Sick with Hate and Empty posts. and YES it's a "part of pattern" as YOU Know, if interrupted. (and again stopped just two days ago when I mentioned it to Zinc)
He is too stupid to refute so he uses the Red Neg instead.
A sick and Frustrated debate weakling/pile on Bully who can't fight opinions/people he dislikes any other way.

And i might add..
NOT one day since this mess started Have I initiated an exchange, but I will retaliate.
At first one-for-one hoping he'd get the picture.
That didn't work.

 

[westwall]

What evidence of "catastrophic theories", "runaway warming" or "tipping point" do you believe is missing from the data?

All of it. There simply IS no evidence to support any of the theories espousing catastrophe from a one degree rise in global temperature.

Not one bit.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Catastrophic" is just FCT's Strawman to make everyone on the AGW acknowledgment side Radicals.

OH HELL NO -- Bozo.. I probably mostly AGREE with some of the single SILLY "consensus" statements that you are pushing. What I REJECT is all of the CATASTROPHIC "add-ons" that they have breached to the public over the years where CO2 has SUPERPOWERS BEYOND its known and chemical and physical basis to warm the planet.

The pants peeing CRAP about "catastrophic warming" is the CAUSE of this panicked circus.

Are you AWARE of this important difference? I hope so.

Al Gore may have been right in 2000 and we MAY be too late now.
Other's said by 2008/12, and they may be right but I doubt it.
With China exdplosion of emissions since Gor made a big isue of iot, It think it is too late to stop warming (and melting) too much for society to bare by ie 2100.

ALL OF these statements you're quoting RELY ON THE Catastrophic theories of Accelerated or Runaway warming. WITHOUT THEM -- THERE ARE NO "trigger points" or deadlines. Just a bunch of busted MODELS and projections of fairly LINEAR future warming.


Dont you KNOW this shit when you see it? The warming rate by satellite is CONSISTENTLY less then 0.14DegC per DECADE. NO -- catastrophic evidence in sight.

 

[flacaltenn]

To get even LINEAR warming rates -- it takes LOGARITHMIC INCREASES in CO2 emissions. That's the "warming power of CO2" by the book.

To get ACCELERATED warming rates with fit curves HIGHER than linear -- you need SUPER LOGARITHMIC increases in Global emissions.

Basic chemistry and physics of CO2 warming capabilities. ]

Your graph shows NEITHER Logarithmic rates of CO2 rise or anything other than LINEAR temperature rise over your lifetime.

 

[abu afak]

OH HELL NO -- Bozo.. I probably mostly AGREE with some of the single SILLY "consensus" statements that you are pushing. What I REJECT is all of the CATASTROPHIC "add-ons" that they have breached to the public over the years where CO2 has SUPERPOWERS BEYOND its known and chemical and physical basis to warm the planet.

The pants peeing CRAP about "catastrophic warming" is the CAUSE of this panicked circus.

Are you AWARE of this important difference? I hope so.




ALL OF these statements you're quoting RELY ON THE Catastrophic theories of Accelerated or Runaway warming. WITHOUT THEM -- THERE ARE NO "trigger points" or deadlines. Just a bunch of busted MODELS and projections of fairly LINEAR future warming.


Dont you KNOW this shit when you see it? The warming rate by satellite is CONSISTENTLY less then 0.14DegC per DECADE. NO -- catastrophic evidence in sight.

What, Specifically is "Catastrophic" in Temp or Sea level since YOU insist on using this word. (really at/attacking all AGW acknowledgers.)



flacaltenn I believe that's Neg #8 above from Westwall today as he is out of control.
Sick with Hate and Empty posts. and YES it's a "part of a pattern" (the largest/years on USMB) as YOU Know, if interrupted. (and again stopped just two days ago when I mentioned it to Zinc)
He is too stupid to refute so he uses the Red Neg instead.
A sick and Frustrated debate weakling/pile on Bully who can't fight opinions/people he dislikes any other way.

I might add:

NOT ONCE since this mess with Wetwall started have I initiated but I will retaliate.
At first one-for-one hoping he'd get the picture.
That didn't work.​

`

 

[flacaltenn]

@flacaltenn I believe this is Neg #8 from Westwall today as he is out of control
Sick with Hate and Empty posts. and YES it's a "part of pattern" as YOU Know, if interrupted. (and again stopped just two days ago when I mentioned it to Zinc)
He is too stupid to refute so he uses the Red Neg instead.
A sick and Frustrated debate weakling/pile on Bully who can't fight opinions/people he dislikes any other way.

Dont DO this in thread. Take it PM. And if we're really counting -- I think in this and one other Enviro thread -- I'm up to 6 negs from YOU TODAY. Am I harassed by that? Hardly.

 

[flacaltenn]

What evidence of "catastrophic theories", "runaway warming" or "tipping point" do you believe is missing from the data? What would each of those projections display

YOU? The ultimate fan-boy of IPCC AR reports are ASKING ME for graphs on CATASTROPHIC warming predictions?

Well -- they are certainly NOT as catastrophic as they were PRIOR to 2000 or so, but go pick an IPCC conference from around that time and look at the 2100 predictions shaped like Xsquared mushroom clouds.

And pay attention to the UNCERTAINTY bracket and the "chosen emissions" scenarios.

There IS NO EVIDENCE of accelerated or runaway warming and all these grossly exaggerated theories are fading away. BUT THEY STILL LIVE ON THE WEB. And in the minds of the media morons and political hacks.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What, Specifically is "Catastrophic" in Temp or Sea level since YOU insist on using this word. (really at/attacking all AGW acknowledgers.)

What science are you talking about? You can either prove it or you cannot. Currently no model is accurate. The empirically observed evidence or experiment show there is no runaway anything possible. The Logarithmic extrapolation shows what we should expect from certain concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.

You continue to avoid this very basic and primary tenet of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. The empirically observed evidence, demonstrates the atmosphere is dampening the CO2 expected rise by more than half. This means it cannot drive anything. Other gases and water vapor are running roughshod over this trace gas.

Provide empirical evidence to support your contention that CO2 can drive our climate. The Observed empirical evidence shows this is not possible. No model is going to help your cause. I don't care where it comes from or who you hold in high esteem. Appeals to authority are fallacy.

 

[abu afak]

What science are you talking about? You can either prove it or you cannot. Currently no model is accurate. The empirically observed evidence or experiment show there is no runaway anything possible. The Logarithmic extrapolation shows what we should expect from certain concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.

You continue to avoid this very basic and primary tenet of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. The empirically observed evidence, demonstrates the atmosphere is dampening the CO2 expected rise by more than half. This means it cannot drive anything. Other gases and water vapor are running roughshod over this trace gas.

Provide empirical evidence to support your contention that CO2 can drive our climate. The Observed empirical evidence shows this is not possible. No model is going to help your cause. I don't care where it comes from or who you hold in high esteem. Appeals to authority are fallacy.

You just keep talking/claiming with No basis/backing.
If as well as CO2, Other man-driven GHGs (Methane up 2.5x, etc) ... caused the problem that would still be..... AGW!

But back to just CO2 for the moment.

"""Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 (abu: now 36 gig) is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year,
it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2.
About 60% of this additional CO2 is absorbed.

The rest Remains in the Atmosphere, and as a Consequence, Atmospheric CO2 is at its Highest level in 15 to 20 Million Years (Tripati et al. 2009).

A Natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The Recent increase of 100ppm has taken Just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a Third (abu: now half/50%) since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is Warming the Planet.
While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is Cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating."""

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


No answer on what constitutes 'Catastrophic' from FCT, so...
Is CO2 Building up at app 50-200x the Natural Rate potentially "Catastrophic."
I think VERY possibly Yes.

`

 

[Crick]

OH HELL NO -- Bozo.. I probably mostly AGREE with some of the single SILLY "consensus" statements that you are pushing. What I REJECT is all of the CATASTROPHIC "add-ons" that they have breached to the public over the years where CO2 has SUPERPOWERS BEYOND its known and chemical and physical basis to warm the planet.

The pants peeing CRAP about "catastrophic warming" is the CAUSE of this panicked circus.

Are you AWARE of this important difference? I hope so.




ALL OF these statements you're quoting RELY ON THE Catastrophic theories of Accelerated or Runaway warming. WITHOUT THEM -- THERE ARE NO "trigger points" or deadlines. Just a bunch of busted MODELS and projections of fairly LINEAR future warming.


Dont you KNOW this shit when you see it? The warming rate by satellite is CONSISTENTLY less then 0.14DegC per DECADE. NO -- catastrophic evidence in sight.

What I was hoping for was at least a qualitative description of patterns or events in the data that YOU believe would be necessary before one could conclude that catastrophic or runaway warming was imminent or that a tipping point had been reached. You said no evidence was present in the data Abu presented. If so, you must know what that evidence would have looked like. Please share that knowledge with us.

Just an FYI. I have the AR6 Technical Summary open. 112 pages. In the entire text, the word "catastrophic" appears ZERO times. The word "runaway" appears ZERO times. The term "tipping point" does appear, 15 times. It even appears in some chapter titles.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gravity is still an open question, we understand parts of it, not all of it; but manmade global warming is "Settled science"? LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What I was hoping for was at least a qualitative description of patterns or events in the data that YOU believe would be necessary before one could conclude that catastrophic or runaway warming was imminent or that a tipping point had been reached. You said no evidence was present in the data Abu presented. If so, you must know what that evidence would have looked like. Please share that knowledge with us.

Guam, the ultimate tipping point! The tipping point Island!

 

[Oddball]

All of it. There simply IS no evidence to support any of the theories hypotheses espousing catastrophe from a one degree rise in global temperature.

Not one bit.

Fixed that for ya.

I'm here to help.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You just keep talking/claiming with No basis/backing.
If as well as CO2, Other man-driven GHGs (Methane up 2.5x, etc) ... caused the problem that would still be..... AGW!

But back to just CO2 for the moment.

"""Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 (abu: now 36 gig) is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year,
it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2.
About 60% of this additional CO2 is absorbed.

The rest Remains in the Atmosphere, and as a Consequence, Atmospheric CO2 is at its Highest level in 15 to 20 Million Years (Tripati et al. 2009).

A Natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The Recent increase of 100ppm has taken Just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a Third (abu: now half/50%) since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is Warming the Planet.
While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is Cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating."""

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


No answer on what constitutes 'Catastrophic' from FCT, so...
Is CO2 Building up at app 50-200x the Natural Rate potentially "Catastrophic."
I think VERY possibly Yes.

`

You're dancing around the basics and ignoring the evidence. Today's rise in CO2 is NOT unusual. Stomata proxies show this.

And no catastrophic events.

You keep trying to imply that CO2 has powers it does not possess. You ignore the fact that CO2 has a logarithmic loss of ability to raise temperature. 95% of what CO2 can do is expend already.

You keep making pontifications, by appeal to authority, without concept of what it is your spewing.

 

[westwall]

You just keep talking/claiming with No basis/backing.
If as well as CO2, Other man-driven GHGs (Methane up 2.5x, etc) ... caused the problem that would still be..... AGW!

But back to just CO2 for the moment.

"""Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 (abu: now 36 gig) is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year,
it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2.
About 60% of this additional CO2 is absorbed.

The rest Remains in the Atmosphere, and as a Consequence, Atmospheric CO2 is at its Highest level in 15 to 20 Million Years (Tripati et al. 2009).

A Natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The Recent increase of 100ppm has taken Just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a Third (abu: now half/50%) since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is Warming the Planet.
While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is Cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating."""

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


No answer on what constitutes 'Catastrophic' from FCT, so...
Is CO2 Building up at app 50-200x the Natural Rate potentially "Catastrophic."
I think VERY possibly Yes.

`

None of this supports your claim of catastrophic temperature rise.

 

[westwall]

Guam, the ultimate tipping point! The tipping point Island!

The "authority" Hank Johnson said so!

 

[westwall]

What I was hoping for was at least a qualitative description of patterns or events in the data that YOU believe would be necessary before one could conclude that catastrophic or runaway warming was imminent or that a tipping point had been reached. You said no evidence was present in the data Abu presented. If so, you must know what that evidence would have looked like. Please share that knowledge with us.

Just an FYI. I have the AR6 Technical Summary open. 112 pages. In the entire text, the word "catastrophic" appears ZERO times. The word "runaway" appears ZERO times. The term "tipping point" does appear, 15 times. It even appears in some chapter titles.

What data? You must first provide some.

Here's a hint. Computer models are NOT data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 720352


`

Odd that the temperature "anomaly" in this chart is a flatline. When this data is presented in a side by side 450,000 year dataset, it shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both increase AND decrease

 

[ReinyDays]

Consensus is for people who know their math is wrong ... it's been the 21st Century for some time now, and Hypercanes were proven to be impossible in our atmosphere back in the middle of the 19th Century ... 150 years ago ...

Some science is settled ... friction increases faster than cyclonic torque ... every place and at all times ... Typhoon Tip is as big as they get ... by law ... so Alarmists have to make shit up to get their points across ... because we're not seeing this in nature ... weather catastrophes are occurring at the same rate they always have, more people get hurt because there's more people ... fucking morons ...

ETA: "There IS NO EVIDENCE of accelerated or runaway warming and all these grossly exaggerated theories are fading away. BUT THEY STILL LIVE ON THE WEB. And in the minds of the media morons and political hacks." --- The Flacaltenn

Hypercanes and Hockey Sticks ... things to make even Orson Welles blush ...

 

[abu afak]

Consensus is for people who know their math is wrong ... it's been the 21st Century for some time now, and Hypercanes were proven to be impossible in our atmosphere back in the middle of the 19th Century ... 150 years ago ...

Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really/absolutely do that. (2+2 is 4)

Science deals in Theories affirmed over time BY continuing consistent measurement and observation of the evidence.
So in fact, science IS Consensus. (consensus a reflection of scientist opinion on Evidence)
ie, Evolution is ALSO true by consensus of the consistent and growing evidence.
The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW, and it has Grown over the last few decades, to where now it is over 90%, and of more/most experienced specialists, nearing 100%. (continue reading OP link under excerpt quoted '"surveys.")

`