Scientists Prove Warmer Eras Prior to Industrial Age, Disproves AGW

[Olde Europe]

Not impossible at all. Ever heard of Carbon 14? The carbon we add by burning fossil fuels has no C14 in it because it is millions of years old. These levels can be measured. The ratio of C14 in atmospheric CO2 is dropping even as the amount of CO2 increases.

That's not quite correct. See:

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today.​

 

[alang1216]

What we need to do is risk/cost analysis.

Destroying our economy to a void a risk that would cost us far less and has a negligible chance of actually happen is not good risk/cost analysis.

One recent storm cost NYC $19 billion. Is a $1 billion wall cost effective?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It has been disproven that AGW theoy predicts more hurricanes, which is fortunate for AGW proponents since we ahve had fewere hurricanes these last ten years, not more.

GW may or may not predict more hurricanes but it does predict more intense hurricanes.

It has been disproven that AGW theoy predicts more hurricanes, which is fortunate for AGW proponents since we ahve had fewere hurricanes these last ten years, not more.

GW may or may not predict more hurricanes but it does predict more intense hurricanes.

"We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average. In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, tropical cyclone surge levels should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5."

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Whoah, hold on. This is a conspiracy nutter thread. Your "facts" and "science" have no place here, nerd!

 

[JimBowie1958]

One recent storm cost NYC $19 billion. Is a $1 billion wall cost effective?

No, but a $20 billion wall would be.

The wall is a force multiplier for the Border Patrol and would allow them to handle more traffic at our ports of entry.

 

[Aletheia4u]

They are engineering everything so that they can make a profit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once you adjust the warmer periods downward AND add in the AGW heat trapped 2000m deep in the ocean, then, yeah this is the warmest evah!

 

[skookerasbil]

It has been disproven that AGW theoy predicts more hurricanes, which is fortunate for AGW proponents since we ahve had fewere hurricanes these last ten years, not more.

GW may or may not predict more hurricanes but it does predict more intense hurricanes.

It has been disproven that AGW theoy predicts more hurricanes, which is fortunate for AGW proponents since we ahve had fewere hurricanes these last ten years, not more.

GW may or may not predict more hurricanes but it does predict more intense hurricanes.

"We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average. In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, tropical cyclone surge levels should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5."

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Whoah, hold on. This is a conspiracy nutter thread. Your "facts" and "science" have no place here, nerd!

A conspiracy thread? Huh?!!!

Where is there any evidence that the public thinks " the science" matters? It's the AGW crowd that represents the fringe here s0n!

I mean c'mon now....this debate has been going on for 20 years and Congress could not possibly be any less interested. Why? Because nobody is caring about climate change action. Only those prone to the hysterical get all angst about climate change.....doy.... the Paris Climate Treaty ( and all previous climate treaties) are dead as a doornail. Real people with real responsibilities in life have waaaaaaaaaaaaay more pressing matters on their plate than climate change. When might that change? It might change if we see bikini babes jet skiing on a lake in Central Canada for 3 straight weeks in January!

 

[alang1216]

One recent storm cost NYC $19 billion. Is a $1 billion wall cost effective?

No, but a $20 billion wall would be.

The wall is a force multiplier for the Border Patrol and would allow them to handle more traffic at our ports of entry.

WTF???

While it is true many Manhattanites have wanted a wall between them and New Jersey, it is just not cost effective. They just keep raising the tolls.

 

[22lcidw]

The population of the earth is the highest in history. We live near everywhere and live in more potentially dangerous zones in big numbers. We even live in areas purposely/artificially that may not be good. So if Florida had a million people several decades ago and say twenty million people now will there be a difference in cause and affect? So there is a difference between climate change and weather. And then there is not. Progs make things up as they go along. Florida is supposedly be a third the size now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One recent storm cost NYC $19 billion. Is a $1 billion wall cost effective?

No, but a $20 billion wall would be.

The wall is a force multiplier for the Border Patrol and would allow them to handle more traffic at our ports of entry.

WTF???

While it is true many Manhattanites have wanted a wall between them and New Jersey, it is just not cost effective. They just keep raising the tolls.

The wall is a force multiplier, and is not intended to do everything involved in protecting our borders but it does allow for fewer personnel to cover a larger area.

 

[80zephyr]

I'm not sure how the Earth being warmer 3 million years ago disproves that mankind may be causing warming now. Does manmade global warming mean only warming that is greater than it has been at any point in the past?

Regardless of whether humanity is contributing to the warming of the planet, the fact that it was warmer 3 million years ago neither proves nor disproves the idea.

If CO2 was as high 3 million years ago, how did it get that high? Maybe man isn't causing the rise of CO2 now but some natural phenomena is.

Mark

That might be. My point was that the level of CO2 3 million years ago doesn't prove whether or not man is contributing to it now.

Correct. Since we know that CO2 levels can vary without mans "help", I would say it would be damn near impossible to say with certainty that we are the cause of CO2 rise.

Mark

Not impossible at all. Ever heard of Carbon 14? The carbon we add by burning fossil fuels has no C14 in it because it is millions of years old. These levels can be measured. The ratio of C14 in atmospheric CO2 is dropping even as the amount of CO2 increases.

The question is how much is man contributing.

We know that C)2 went up in the past, but we don't know what caused it. Since vegetation uses CO2 to live, it is possible that some unknown phenomenon is making more "natural CO2" therefore "feeding" the plants and allowing what might be no gain in normal times of our use of CO2 to get "crowded out" by the natural CO2.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Not impossible at all. Ever heard of Carbon 14? The carbon we add by burning fossil fuels has no C14 in it because it is millions of years old. These levels can be measured. The ratio of C14 in atmospheric CO2 is dropping even as the amount of CO2 increases.

That's not quite correct. See:

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today.​

So does that mean that global warming is caused by humans or not?

Mark

 

[satrebil]

Here's why "global warming" is complete and utter bullshit in one sentence: Banks and insurance companies still issue loans and policies for coastal properties & development.

If you honestly believe that the world's richest corporations are going to risk untold billions upon billions of dollars on things that would be unequivocally annihilated by imminent rising sea levels, I have a bridge for sale.

 

[alang1216]

Here's why "global warming" is complete and utter bullshit in one sentence: Banks and insurance companies still issue loans and policies for coastal properties & development.

If you honestly believe that the world's richest corporations are going to risk untold billions upon billions of dollars on things that would be unequivocally annihilated by imminent rising sea levels, I have a bridge for sale.

I'll bet the cost of such insurance is rising and will eventually be unaffordable to most.

7 out of 10 cities are on a coast:
It'll Cost You a Fortune to Insure Your Home in These Cities

 

[skookerasbil]

Here's why "global warming" is complete and utter bullshit in one sentence: Banks and insurance companies still issue loans and policies for coastal properties & development.

If you honestly believe that the world's richest corporations are going to risk untold billions upon billions of dollars on things that would be unequivocally annihilated by imminent rising sea levels, I have a bridge for sale.

That's why they call it a religion. No matter how effectively you connect the dots for climate crusaders, it's never going to matter. This is the modern version of The Moonies from back in the 1970's.....so the volumes of evidence this is a ruse is never going to matter.

Fortunately, none of the decided science is mattering in the real world. It has never transcended beyond it's own field, a fact unable to be acknowledged by members of the religion. Most of these people are obsessed with having to control their landscape....they see a flood and the resulting misfortune and become consumed with trying to do something to stop it. But most people dont think that way....and thank God for that. Most see nature for what it is and know the level of silly to think man can control it......and " most" we know because for 20 years now, Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested. Yep....the science isnt mattering for dick!

Indeed....most people worry about real shit right in front of them and not imaginary threats. They might be a bit concerned.....but not that much!

 

[Likkmee]

OK. more gore
Dust Bowl - Wikipedia

 

[alang1216]

Here's why "global warming" is complete and utter bullshit in one sentence: Banks and insurance companies still issue loans and policies for coastal properties & development.

If you honestly believe that the world's richest corporations are going to risk untold billions upon billions of dollars on things that would be unequivocally annihilated by imminent rising sea levels, I have a bridge for sale.

That's why they call it a religion. No matter how effectively you connect the dots for climate crusaders, it's never going to matter. This is the modern version of The Moonies from back in the 1970's.....so the volumes of evidence this is a ruse is never going to matter.

Fortunately, none of the decided science is mattering in the real world. It has never transcended beyond it's own field, a fact unable to be acknowledged by members of the religion. Most of these people are obsessed with having to control their landscape....they see a flood and the resulting misfortune and become consumed with trying to do something to stop it. But most people dont think that way....and thank God for that. Most see nature for what it is and know the level of silly to think man can control it......and " most" we know because for 20 years now, Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested. Yep....the science isnt mattering for dick!

Indeed....most people worry about real shit right in front of them and not imaginary threats. They might be a bit concerned.....but not that much!

Maybe you have it backwards and it is the deniers that worship their religion. It isn't a religion though, it is an ideology and that is more dangerous. When one is fully invested in an ideology you only accept "facts" that confirm it and ignore or dismiss anything that conflicts with it ("Yep....the science isnt mattering for dick!" ).

 

[skookerasbil]

Here's why "global warming" is complete and utter bullshit in one sentence: Banks and insurance companies still issue loans and policies for coastal properties & development.

If you honestly believe that the world's richest corporations are going to risk untold billions upon billions of dollars on things that would be unequivocally annihilated by imminent rising sea levels, I have a bridge for sale.

That's why they call it a religion. No matter how effectively you connect the dots for climate crusaders, it's never going to matter. This is the modern version of The Moonies from back in the 1970's.....so the volumes of evidence this is a ruse is never going to matter.

Fortunately, none of the decided science is mattering in the real world. It has never transcended beyond it's own field, a fact unable to be acknowledged by members of the religion. Most of these people are obsessed with having to control their landscape....they see a flood and the resulting misfortune and become consumed with trying to do something to stop it. But most people dont think that way....and thank God for that. Most see nature for what it is and know the level of silly to think man can control it......and " most" we know because for 20 years now, Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested. Yep....the science isnt mattering for dick!

Indeed....most people worry about real shit right in front of them and not imaginary threats. They might be a bit concerned.....but not that much!

Maybe you have it backwards and it is the deniers that worship their religion. It isn't a religion though, it is an ideology and that is more dangerous. When one is fully invested in an ideology you only accept "facts" that confirm it and ignore or dismiss anything that conflicts with it ("Yep....the science isnt mattering for dick!" ).

Huh?!!

Here the thing....your response displays that you view deniers as some slim minority. But the opposite is true. It is the AGW crowd that cant make the case to the public which is exceedingly clear. Everybody walking knows about "the science" but they also know that you cant predict the future climate with computer models.....so they're not going to get all angst like those who tend to the hysterical.

Voters dont care about climate change s0n. You can philosophize about ideology until the cows come home but that dynamic has held steady for over 20 years. My side only cares about who is winning!!!!!!

 

[alang1216]

Huh?!!

Here the thing....your response displays that you view deniers as some slim minority. But the opposite is true. It is the AGW crowd that cant make the case to the public which is exceedingly clear. Everybody walking knows about "the science" but they also know that you cant predict the future climate with computer models.....so they're not going to get all angst like those who tend to the hysterical.

Voters dont care about climate change s0n. You can philosophize about ideology until the cows come home but that dynamic has held steady for over 20 years. My side only cares about who is winning!!!!!!

You can't evaluate science like it is American Idol. Everyone, except scientists, knew the Earth was the center of the solar system/universe. According to a 2009 Harris poll, 26 percent of Americans believe in astrology; that's more people than believe in witches (23 percent), but less than believe in UFOs (32 percent), Creationism (40 percent) and ghosts (42 percent).

If you think numbers matter consider this, there are about 1 billion Christians and the same number of Muslims. Whatever the truth, at least 1 billion people have it wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you think numbers matter consider this, there are about 1 billion Christians and the same number of Muslims. Whatever the truth, at least 1 billion people have it wrong.

Or both are merely viewing the same Truth through different cultural lenses?