The science against climate change

[daveman]

Westwall -

What question?

With all due respect guys, this thread is 11 pages long. I have addressed every sensible question or comment that I have seen, and tried to skip through the usual spamming. I may well have missed something useful, in which case tell me what the thread# is, and I'll take a look at it.

Then you havn't been looking. The Vostock ice core data shows that first there is a warming period (that usually lasts for around 300 to 500 years, then after a further 600 to 800 year lag the CO level rises.

Explain how your theory survives that simple fact.

"Ummm...errrr...ah-ha! They're looking at the ice cores upside down!!"


That's as reasonable as one can expect from an AGW supporter.

 

[Saigon]

Then you havn't been looking. The Vostock ice core data shows that first there is a warming period (that usually lasts for around 300 to 500 years, then after a further 600 to 800 year lag the CO level rises.

Explain how your theory survives that simple fact.

Can you guys PLEASE provide links with your claims?

With the best will in the world - I WILL answer any quesrion you like, and I will look at any info you post which seems coherent and balanced, and I'd rather not have to just take your word for what the ice core data says.

And yes, I am sure you have posted it before. I haven't seen it.

 

[Saigon]

And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.

You ignore that temperature and solar activity have been going the opposite way since 1980, thus conclusively disproving your "the sun did it!" theory.

Okay, you don't ignore it. You just wave your hands around and shout "It doesn't have to be linear!". That is, when increased solar activity raises temps, it supports your theory, and when decreasing solar activity raises temps, that supports your theory. Your theory is not disprovable, meaning it's pseudoscience. That's the opposite of how AGW theory works, since if temps started dropping over the long term, AGW theory would be disproved.

This is a very good post, and an interesting graphic.

I do thing IanC and Flac have asked very fair questions about TSI (certainly Dave and Frank could learn something from them!) and I would agree that we need to know more about this element, but it certainly does seem apparent that solar activity and climate change do not follow each other very closely.
On one graphic I posted earlier they almost form a mirror image for a thousand years, then do seem to be in parallel for another thosand, but again in the past decade edging apart.

I think it is likely that as one report linked yesterday suggested, TSI has an impact on temperature - but a relatively small one.

IanC -

I did read most of the report you linked yesterday, which I thought was excellent. It is difficult to evaluate either solar activity and CO2 in isolation, and it would be interesting to read more about how scientists consider the two aspects overlap or influence each other.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

Your points about data sets certainly has been discussed, though perhaps not in the detail you were hoping for.

There are different set of data, there are different weather stations, there are different interpretations of that data. The British Met Office has supplied three entirely different data sets recently, and yet all show a very similar pattern.

If you have question about any one set of data, then I'd suggest ignoring it and using one of the others.

Certainly Muller's review of all of the data has been very useful in this, and I would have thought largely ended that aspect of the debate for most objective parties.

There is an overview of the 3 sets of data interpretations.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring

 

[westwall]

Then you havn't been looking. The Vostock ice core data shows that first there is a warming period (that usually lasts for around 300 to 500 years, then after a further 600 to 800 year lag the CO level rises.

Explain how your theory survives that simple fact.

Can you guys PLEASE provide links with your claims?

With the best will in the world - I WILL answer any quesrion you like, and I will look at any info you post which seems coherent and balanced, and I'd rather not have to just take your word for what the ice core data says.

And yes, I am sure you have posted it before. I haven't seen it.

Google is your friend.....

There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

OK, I've rad that. So why not present a case?

What do YOU think this means?

Again - this thread is really an invitation for you guys to present your theories about climate change.

 

[IanC]

Daveman -

Your points about data sets certainly has been discussed, though perhaps not in the detail you were hoping for.

There are different set of data, there are different weather stations, there are different interpretations of that data. The British Met Office has supplied three entirely different data sets recently, and yet all show a very similar pattern.

If you have question about any one set of data, then I'd suggest ignoring it and using one of the others.

Certainly Muller's review of all of the data has been very useful in this, and I would have thought largely ended that aspect of the debate for most objective parties.

There is an overview of the 3 sets of data interpretations.

Climate monitoring - Met Office

Sorry, that link doesnt work for this computer, and isnt easily found on my phone. could you paste the relevent info?

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

OK, I've rad that. So why not present a case?

What do YOU think this means?

Again - this thread is really an invitation for you guys to present your theories about climate change.

I've allready told you what I think it means. It means that the claim that CO2 is the prime driver of climate is wrong. CO2 has no impact on climate, it's GH effect is so small compared to the water vapor (that operates in the same wavelengths) that there is no measurable effect.

The ice core data and historical record support that view. Furthermore, the policies that the AGW fraudsters wish to implement will actually do MORE harm to the environment than the actual processes going on now.

Add to that the significant negative impact on the developing world, plus the outrageous cost to the poor in the first world countries and it becomes clear that the schemes put forth by the IPCC and its minions are counterproductive at best and criminally harmful at worst.

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

Your points about data sets certainly has been discussed, though perhaps not in the detail you were hoping for.

There are different set of data, there are different weather stations, there are different interpretations of that data. The British Met Office has supplied three entirely different data sets recently, and yet all show a very similar pattern.

If you have question about any one set of data, then I'd suggest ignoring it and using one of the others.

Certainly Muller's review of all of the data has been very useful in this, and I would have thought largely ended that aspect of the debate for most objective parties.

There is an overview of the 3 sets of data interpretations.

Climate monitoring - Met Office

The Met Office is hardly an objective party.

Look, it's okay if you can't explain why climate "scientists" want to use less data than what's available. It's okay if you can't explain why they cherry-pick which stations to use.

But what's not okay is insisting their claims are credible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then you havn't been looking. The Vostock ice core data shows that first there is a warming period (that usually lasts for around 300 to 500 years, then after a further 600 to 800 year lag the CO level rises.

Explain how your theory survives that simple fact.

Can you guys PLEASE provide links with your claims?

With the best will in the world - I WILL answer any quesrion you like, and I will look at any info you post which seems coherent and balanced, and I'd rather not have to just take your word for what the ice core data says.

And yes, I am sure you have posted it before. I haven't seen it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Better time resolution and I've blown up and circled a couple instances that are being referred to here. CO2 is red trace.

This is discussed and explained here:::::

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...aper-uses-hide-the-incline-5.html#post5418644

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?

Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?

"When something doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true" -- Judge Judy

 

[westwall]

If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?

Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?

"When something doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true" -- Judge Judy

One should not bring logic into a religious discussion Frank.

 

[flacaltenn]

If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?

Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?

"When something doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true" -- Judge Judy

One should not bring logic into a religious discussion Frank.

Or probably not Judge Judy either -----

 

[mamooth]

If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?

Idiot logic, relying on the implication that AGW scientists have said "CO2 is the _only_ thing driving temperature". Since that would be a dumb thing to say, you only find denialists saying it.

Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?

Not only does he get the temperature trend wrong, he assumes the present must act like the past, even if conditions are wildly different in the present.

The lesson we learn here? That those who stink at logic tend to fall for the denialist conspiracy theory.

 

[skookerasbil]

If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?

Idiot logic, relying on the implication that AGW scientists have said "CO2 is the _only_ thing driving temperature". Since that would be a dumb thing to say, you only find denialists saying it.

Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?

Not only does he get the temperature trend wrong, he assumes the present must act like the past, even if conditions are wildly different in the present.

The lesson we learn here? That those who stink at logic tend to fall for the denialist conspiracy theory.

Im laughing............the far left assholes of the world walk around telling everybody how smart they are and how dumb everybody else is who doesnt buy into their k00k narrtive. But for all the years of bloviating about the world abuot to melt, in the last few years, the public looks at them and yawns!! But guys ike me, FlaCalTenn and West use "stink logic".


Well then......heres to those with the stink logic who also happen to be winning!!!!

yuk.....yuk...........from this past February.........Pew Research. LOL....last year, "global warming" ranked 22nd ( dead last) and this year, doesnt even make the list.



Heres to stink logic!!!!!!!!

 

[mamooth]

There are NATURAL CYCLES that have 60 and 1000 yr periods that ARE KNOWN and acknowledge due to orbital mechanics and longer solar phenomenons than sunspots.

No, there's just one scientist who claims such cycles exist, but who fails even at his cherrypicked curve-fitting attempts to support such a claim, and who fails completely at explaining what the phsyical mechanism is which explains how those cycles affect temperature. Without a testable physical mechanism, it most certainly is just handwaving.

PS --- Hey MAMOOTH ---- why did you buds at Skeptical Science NOT SHOW THE ENTIRE historical reconstruction of TSI since the Maunder min in 1700? Didn't want to SHOW that is was increasing consistently for the past 300 years??? Or is that adding another 150 years of INCREASING SOLAR WARMING to the horizontal axis would make the little blip at the right side look small and insignificant?

It would have made no difference, since no one has ever denied TSI has an effect, except for denialists who are trying to misrepresent the mainstream AGW position.

To be taken seriously, you need to explain why TSI and temp started going the opposite way around 1980, after more or less staying together before that. AGW science has explained that perfectly. Your side has just waved its hands around. Vague statements about magical cycles is not a theory. A theory explains specific physical mechanisms, and a theory makes predictions. Please tell us the specific mechanism behind the temperature changes according to your theory, and what your theory predicts for the future. That way, we can compare results in a few years and see who was correct.

 

[skookerasbil]

The climate k00ks blew their own faces off a few years ago as they ramped up the hysteria and angst to mental case levels..........and are now laughed at............

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 drives temperature, how come it's lagging temperature in the chart, is today's CO2 new and improved?

Idiot logic, relying on the implication that AGW scientists have said "CO2 is the _only_ thing driving temperature". Since that would be a dumb thing to say, you only find denialists saying it.

Also, the temperature seems to have been increasing for the past 20,000 years, which would explain the deglaciation of Canada and northern USA. Did this trend stop 200 years ago and then magically restart when CO2 (which lags temperature) increased?

Not only does he get the temperature trend wrong, he assumes the present must act like the past, even if conditions are wildly different in the present.

The lesson we learn here? That those who stink at logic tend to fall for the denialist conspiracy theory.

You didn't actually answer anything. Let's take one sentence, one thought at a time.

1. Do the Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature?