CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[jwoodie]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

 

[depotoo]

“Climate change” is anything they need it to be at the moment, other than cyclical as shown through millennia.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

I would offer the opinion that it is the theory that the earth is warming. Quantifiable data I have read about includes things like thawing permafrost in the arctic, warmer weather species moving further north, increased rates of terrestrial glacier melting, and a reduction in the amount of permanent sea ice in the arctic. The predominant theory seems to be that increased greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, lead to warmer earth. There is no doubt in my mind that there are significant signs of warming, and I also think our imprint on atmospheric CO2 is undeniable The best record we have is the data from Mauna Loa. I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also. I am not a proponent of drastic measures to try and cut back on CO2, or eliminate cow farts.

Mauna Loa Record Graphic | Scripps CO2 Program

 

[jwoodie]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming? If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming? If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

The two terms probably have different technical definitions but I consider them the same, as would be considered by the broad public. As far as temp change, I think there are a number of sources, and as you can see, the change is pretty small. A lot of arguments are made that the data is invalid. I accept that it is valid.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

 

[Billy_Bob]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

The first order of business is defining what it is you mean by "Climate Change".

Do you mean the natural warming and cooling of the earth by natural means?

Or are you referring to Anthroprogenic Global Warming which is man caused and can affect the natural cycle?

Our alarmist friends like to conflate these two terms in an effort to be dishonest and cloud the real cause of the planets natural changes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming? If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

The two terms probably have different technical definitions but I consider them the same, as would be considered by the broad public. As far as temp change, I think there are a number of sources, and as you can see, the change is pretty small. A lot of arguments are made that the data is invalid. I accept that it is valid.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

And this is why you are easily duped.

They are very different and they have different causes and effects.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming? If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

The two terms probably have different technical definitions but I consider them the same, as would be considered by the broad public. As far as temp change, I think there are a number of sources, and as you can see, the change is pretty small. A lot of arguments are made that the data is invalid. I accept that it is valid.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

And this is why you are easily duped.

They are very different and they have different causes and effects.

What are the differences in cause and effect? I am well aware of the difference between weather and climate. What are you referring to?

 

[Billy_Bob]

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

After 7 years of asking for the evidence that is EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED (not a modle as these are constructs not evidence), Verified, Quantified, and the mechanism identified by scientific rule out, not one of our alarmist friends is forthcoming.

CO2 can not do what they claim. The IPCC has reduced its "sensitivity" rating from over 8 deg C rise per doubling to now being just 1/2 of the LOG found in the lab of this trace gas (0.0-0.6 deg C per doubling). The IPCC is now struggling with the fact water vapor reduces CO2's function by greater than 1/2 when they initially stated that it doubled and tripled its effect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming? If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

The two terms probably have different technical definitions but I consider them the same, as would be considered by the broad public. As far as temp change, I think there are a number of sources, and as you can see, the change is pretty small. A lot of arguments are made that the data is invalid. I accept that it is valid.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

And this is why you are easily duped.

They are very different and they have different causes and effects.

What are the differences in cause and effect? I am well aware of the difference between weather and climate. What are you referring to?

Climate Change- natural: is caused by solar changes, axial tilt of the earth, magnetism changes of earths core, distance of the earth to the sun, among many others. These are naturally occurring and something man can not affect. It is the reason we have cyclical ice ages lasting 90,000 years and a warm period of 9,000 to 14,000 years before re-glaciation.

As you can see the earth has a massive number of factors that change its climate. As we are always vasolating between the two opposite stages the earth shifts in climate are always changing.

Anthroprogenic causes-man induced; can only affect the atmosphere in some manner. Thus its affects are short lived and the earth corrects the imbalance in a very quick manner. CO2 has a half life of just 3-9 years so it is removed from our atmosphere in short order. Our land use can change some areas of local climate but can not affect the whole for very long. Man can not create a runaway earth because it can self correct in a very short time span.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The earth can self correct and has done so for over 4.5 billion years..

We have survived levels of CO2 above 7000ppm and still glaciated and warmed again over and over again. Below is a long term graphing.

Here is a short term graphing that shows the natural glacial cycles;

The terminology is purposely clouded so that the average person simply is unable to discern the truth and that is very unsettling.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

1) The climate is always changing.. Always has.. And the Earth does not have a single climate zone. The thermodynamics and weather system are too complicated to be understood in terms of "Global" climate.

2) There is about a 1degC "blip" in temp rise over the past 100 years or so. It comes directly after the "Little Ice Age" that froze the knickers off of our earliest American settlers. There is not any ACCURATE way of finding 1 degC blips that occur in 50 to 100 year spans in ANCIENT climate history, so we don't actually KNOW if this modern measured event is even rare or unexpected...

3) CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.. It's not even the PRINCIPAL GHGas -- Water vapor is.. So it does affect the Earth's surface temp equilibrium.. From basic Physics and Chemistry, the amount of expected temp rise from a doubling of CO2 in the atmos is about 1.1degC... The amount of CO2 in the atmos has not even REACHED a doubling since the Industrial Revolution.. (now 400 ppm versus 280 ppm in 1900 or so)

And Global Warming theory ADDS a bunch of speculative notions about that physic limit that is NOT settled science. These include speculations about "runaway warming effects" and the existing of primarily "positive feedbacks".. It's THOSE elements of speculation that STOKED the original fear and propaganda that EXAGGERATED the actual science as its been done..

So far -- since we've had modern instrumentation and satellites in space to measure these things -- the warming rate OBSERVED has been much closer to the "basic Physics/Chem estimate than it has to the modeling that INCLUDES the "catastrophic" aspects of GW theory..

It's a problem maybe. But NOT our "world war" or biggest crisis for humanity...

 

[ChesBayJJ]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming? If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

The two terms probably have different technical definitions but I consider them the same, as would be considered by the broad public. As far as temp change, I think there are a number of sources, and as you can see, the change is pretty small. A lot of arguments are made that the data is invalid. I accept that it is valid.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

And this is why you are easily duped.

They are very different and they have different causes and effects.

What are the differences in cause and effect? I am well aware of the difference between weather and climate. What are you referring to?

Climate Change- natural: is caused by solar changes, axial tilt of the earth, magnetism changes of earths core, distance of the earth to the sun, among many others. These are naturally occurring and something man can not affect. It is the reason we have cyclical ice ages lasting 90,000 years and a warm period of 9,000 to 14,000 years before re-glaciation.

As you can see the earth has a massive number of factors that change its climate. As we are always vasolating between the two opposite stages the earth shifts in climate are always changing.

Anthroprogenic causes-man induced; can only affect the atmosphere in some manner. Thus its affects are short lived and the earth corrects the imbalance in a very quick manner. CO2 has a half life of just 3-9 years so it is removed from our atmosphere in short order. Our land use can change some areas of local climate but can not affect the whole for very long. Man can not create a runaway earth because it can self correct in a very short time span.

As you would note from my opening comment

I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also.​

I am aware of natural causes like the Milankovitch cycles, that we are in an interglacial period, and that there are numerous complicating issues like the role of water vapor. My only comment is that I think we humans have an impact - that there is an anthropogenic component. I have no data or evidence that supports reaching any sort of conclusion as to how much of a factor we humans are. And for my personal usage, I prefer to combine both effects, human and natural, under a single term - either global warming or climate change.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The IPCC states that all warming prior to 1950 is considered natural variation or not man caused and that warming post 1950 is all man caused. I still don't know how they pulled off stopping natural cycles.

Below are those two rates of warming. There is no statistical difference between the two. If we consider natural variation, CO2's influence is zero.

The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

I then ask alarmists to show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

I never get a legitimate answer. lots of cut and paste garbage but little more.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming? If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

The two terms probably have different technical definitions but I consider them the same, as would be considered by the broad public. As far as temp change, I think there are a number of sources, and as you can see, the change is pretty small. A lot of arguments are made that the data is invalid. I accept that it is valid.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

And this is why you are easily duped.

They are very different and they have different causes and effects.

What are the differences in cause and effect? I am well aware of the difference between weather and climate. What are you referring to?

Climate Change- natural: is caused by solar changes, axial tilt of the earth, magnetism changes of earths core, distance of the earth to the sun, among many others. These are naturally occurring and something man can not affect. It is the reason we have cyclical ice ages lasting 90,000 years and a warm period of 9,000 to 14,000 years before re-glaciation.

As you can see the earth has a massive number of factors that change its climate. As we are always vasolating between the two opposite stages the earth shifts in climate are always changing.

Anthroprogenic causes-man induced; can only affect the atmosphere in some manner. Thus its affects are short lived and the earth corrects the imbalance in a very quick manner. CO2 has a half life of just 3-9 years so it is removed from our atmosphere in short order. Our land use can change some areas of local climate but can not affect the whole for very long. Man can not create a runaway earth because it can self correct in a very short time span.

As you would note from my opening comment

I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also.​

I am aware of natural causes like the Milankovitch cycles, that we are in an interglacial period, and that there are numerous complicating issues like the role of water vapor. My only comment is that I think we humans have an impact - that there is an anthropogenic component. I have no data or evidence that supports reaching any sort of conclusion as to how much of a factor we humans are. And for my personal usage, I prefer to combine both effects, human and natural, under a single term - either global warming or climate change.

As I posted above our impact is at or near zero today. Much less than the IPCC has bantered about.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

The two terms probably have different technical definitions but I consider them the same, as would be considered by the broad public. As far as temp change, I think there are a number of sources, and as you can see, the change is pretty small. A lot of arguments are made that the data is invalid. I accept that it is valid.

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

And this is why you are easily duped.

They are very different and they have different causes and effects.

What are the differences in cause and effect? I am well aware of the difference between weather and climate. What are you referring to?

Climate Change- natural: is caused by solar changes, axial tilt of the earth, magnetism changes of earths core, distance of the earth to the sun, among many others. These are naturally occurring and something man can not affect. It is the reason we have cyclical ice ages lasting 90,000 years and a warm period of 9,000 to 14,000 years before re-glaciation.

As you can see the earth has a massive number of factors that change its climate. As we are always vasolating between the two opposite stages the earth shifts in climate are always changing.

Anthroprogenic causes-man induced; can only affect the atmosphere in some manner. Thus its affects are short lived and the earth corrects the imbalance in a very quick manner. CO2 has a half life of just 3-9 years so it is removed from our atmosphere in short order. Our land use can change some areas of local climate but can not affect the whole for very long. Man can not create a runaway earth because it can self correct in a very short time span.

As you would note from my opening comment

I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also.​

I am aware of natural causes like the Milankovitch cycles, that we are in an interglacial period, and that there are numerous complicating issues like the role of water vapor. My only comment is that I think we humans have an impact - that there is an anthropogenic component. I have no data or evidence that supports reaching any sort of conclusion as to how much of a factor we humans are. And for my personal usage, I prefer to combine both effects, human and natural, under a single term - either global warming or climate change.

As I posted above our impact is at or near zero today. Much less than the IPCC has bantered about.

I'm not as sure as you are. See ya later

 

[flacaltenn]

The IPCC states that all warming prior to 1950 is considered natural variation or not man caused and that warming post 1950 is all man caused. I still don't know how they pulled off stopping natural cycles.

Below are those two rates of warming. There is no statistical difference between the two. If we consider natural variation, CO2's influence is zero.

The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

I then ask alarmists to show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

I never get a legitimate answer. lots of cut and paste garbage but little more.

CO2 "influence" is not Zero.. You need to be more careful... CO2 is RELATED to surface temp.. It is both a forcing and a Feedback effect. It's just been given "superpowers" by academics that believe the Earth's climate is so entirely fragile that a mere 2degC would irreversibly and permanently render the planet uninhabitable..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And this is why you are easily duped.

They are very different and they have different causes and effects.

What are the differences in cause and effect? I am well aware of the difference between weather and climate. What are you referring to?

Climate Change- natural: is caused by solar changes, axial tilt of the earth, magnetism changes of earths core, distance of the earth to the sun, among many others. These are naturally occurring and something man can not affect. It is the reason we have cyclical ice ages lasting 90,000 years and a warm period of 9,000 to 14,000 years before re-glaciation.

As you can see the earth has a massive number of factors that change its climate. As we are always vasolating between the two opposite stages the earth shifts in climate are always changing.

Anthroprogenic causes-man induced; can only affect the atmosphere in some manner. Thus its affects are short lived and the earth corrects the imbalance in a very quick manner. CO2 has a half life of just 3-9 years so it is removed from our atmosphere in short order. Our land use can change some areas of local climate but can not affect the whole for very long. Man can not create a runaway earth because it can self correct in a very short time span.

As you would note from my opening comment

I am a believer in the theory that we humans contribute to warming but I also think there are natural processes happening also.​

I am aware of natural causes like the Milankovitch cycles, that we are in an interglacial period, and that there are numerous complicating issues like the role of water vapor. My only comment is that I think we humans have an impact - that there is an anthropogenic component. I have no data or evidence that supports reaching any sort of conclusion as to how much of a factor we humans are. And for my personal usage, I prefer to combine both effects, human and natural, under a single term - either global warming or climate change.

As I posted above our impact is at or near zero today. Much less than the IPCC has bantered about.

I'm not as sure as you are. See ya later

I just gave you empirical evidence showing what I found. Please provide the evidence your basing your assumption on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The IPCC states that all warming prior to 1950 is considered natural variation or not man caused and that warming post 1950 is all man caused. I still don't know how they pulled off stopping natural cycles.

Below are those two rates of warming. There is no statistical difference between the two. If we consider natural variation, CO2's influence is zero.

The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

I then ask alarmists to show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

I never get a legitimate answer. lots of cut and paste garbage but little more.

CO2 "influence" is not Zero.. You need to be more careful... CO2 is RELATED to surface temp.. It is both a forcing and a Feedback effect. It's just been given "superpowers" by academics that believe the Earth's climate is so entirely fragile that a mere 2degC would irreversibly and permanently render the planet uninhabitable..

It was my intention to show the exaggeration. That is why I stated it was "at or near zero" in our current cycle. We have identified CO2's potential contribution is just about its LOG value.

CO2's ability is roughly 95% spent, so there is not much left for it to affect. The red line is actual observations and it is almost flat line at 800ppm.

 

[Confounding]

Could you provide some evidence that there's a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists at hide the fact that AGW isn't actually happening? Reputable sources only please.