The science against climate change

[mamooth]

Skook, I thank you for so conclusively proving the point I keep bringing up, which is that most denialists are purely political cultists, possessing zero knowledge of science and logic.

If you could talk about the science, you would. You can't, so instead you spend your days ranting about how Al Gore is out to steal your precious bodily fluids.

 

[mamooth]

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

Because I've answered it many times before, the result being you always turn and run. But hey, I'm always up to see it happen again.

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

Of course they do.

Now why do you think that matters?

That is, why do you think the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now?

And why do you pretend that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver, when none of them has ever said or implied such a thing?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Let's just fix this one large gap in your knowledge of climate change first.. You are embarrassing yourself here by fixating on Scaffetta and your ad hominems when you should be recognizing how many natural oscillations exist in climate.

Go look up AMO, PDO, SOI ---- which all contain a STRONG 60 yr Fourier component in their cycles. And tell me how warmers like yourself want to deny what I said about KNOWN natural cycles that have 60 and 1000 yr cycles.. As in -----

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01...els-20th-century-temperature-reconstructions/

The more interesting feature, though, is the inability of the models to mimic the rapid warming before 1940, and the lack of warming from the 1940s to the 1970s. These two periods of inconvenient temperature variability are well known: (1) the pre-1940 warming was before atmospheric CO2 had increased very much; and (2) the lack of warming from the 1940s to the 1970s was during a time of rapid growth in CO2. In other words, the stronger warming period should have been after 1940, not before, based upon the CO2 warming effect alone.

Natural Climate Variability as an Explanation for What The Models Can Not Mimic

The next chart shows the difference between the two curves in the previous chart, that is, the 20th Century temperature variability the models have not, in an average sense, been able to explain. Also shown are three known modes of natural variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, in blue); the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, in green); and the negative of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI, in red). The SOI is a measure of El Nino and La Nina activity. All three climate indicies have been scaled so that their net amount of variability (standard deviation) matches that of the “unexplained temperature” curve.

 

[westwall]

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.

What was that about failing logic ol spideytoobertrakertrollingblunderfraud? How many socks did you create anyway? I know you carry on lots of conversations with yourself but this is becoming ridiculous!

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Because I've answered it many times before, the result being you always turn and run. But hey, I'm always up to see it happen again.

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

Of course they do.

Now why do you think that matters?

That is, why do you think the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now?

And why do you pretend that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver, when none of them has ever said or implied such a thing?

Hey --- You just told me CO2 EXPLAINS EVERYTHING about the past 40 yrs or so in climate. And that natural cycles were garbage.. Which is it midget?

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.

Isn't that saying that CO2 IS THE ONLY climate driver required? I sense some "hand-waving" coming on...

 

[westwall]

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

Because I've answered it many times before, the result being you always turn and run. But hey, I'm always up to see it happen again.

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

Of course they do.

Now why do you think that matters?

That is, why do you think the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now?

And why do you pretend that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver, when none of them has ever said or implied such a thing?

What conditions are wildly different now? ever heard of Occam? Basic scientific principle which you clowns seem to either never have heard about or ignore, but very very relevant.

Unless you're a religious zealot...then science matters not at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Because I've answered it many times before, the result being you always turn and run. But hey, I'm always up to see it happen again.

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

Of course they do.

Now why do you think that matters?

That is, why do you think the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now?

And why do you pretend that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver, when none of them has ever said or implied such a thing?

Bravo. We're making some progress!

See, you raised three other issues.

2. I'm not pretending "that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver" that's what the AGW "Scientists" have been saying. For the record can you state the hypothesis of AGW?

3. Do the Vostok ice cores show that we are in a 20,000 year warming trend?

4. If CO2 lags temperature as demonstrated in the ice cores, how can it now drive the temperature? For the past 600,000 years increase in CO2 never drove the temperatures higher, what's different about today's CO2?

 

[westwall]

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

Because I've answered it many times before, the result being you always turn and run. But hey, I'm always up to see it happen again.

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

Of course they do.

Now why do you think that matters?

That is, why do you think the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions are wildly different now?

And why do you pretend that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver, when none of them has ever said or implied such a thing?

Bravo. We're making some progress!

See, you raised three other issues.

2. I'm not pretending "that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver" that's what the AGW "Scientists" have been saying. For the record can you state the hypothesis of AGW?

3. Do the Vostok ice cores show that we are in a 20,000 year warming trend?

4. If CO2 lags temperature as demonstrated in the ice cores, how can it now drive the temperature? For the past 600,000 years increase in CO2 never drove the temperatures higher, what's different about today's CO2?

Today we have SUPERDUPERPOOPER CO2. It's real special.

 

[mamooth]

What conditions are wildly different now?

That would be the quickly dumping a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time.

ever heard of Occam?

The Razor says your theory is wrong, being that your theory fails to account for the observed data. For example, your theory fails to explain the divergence of TSI and temperature after 1980. Hard to be more specific though, given how your side is so reluctant to actually state any specific theory, preferring vague handwaving instead.

In contrast, AGW theory is the simplest theory that does correctly account for the observed data, therefore Occam's says it is most likely to be the correct theory. Helps, of course, that's it currently the _only_ theory that correctly accounts for the observed data.

 

[skookerasbil]

Skook, I thank you for so conclusively proving the point I keep bringing up, which is that most denialists are purely political cultists, possessing zero knowledge of science and logic.

If you could talk about the science, you would. You can't, so instead you spend your days ranting about how Al Gore is out to steal your precious bodily fluids.

meh


climate change science has become nothing more than an internet hobby and you're right.....as long as its having zero impact on public policy ( ie: no doubling of my electric rates) Im happy as a pig in shit and will point out the climate k00ks for exactly what they are: the religion of perpetual angst that dont give a flying fuck about regular people with real responsibilities.

ANd I never rant about Gore......he's irrelevant in 2012.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What conditions are wildly different now?

That would be the quickly dumping a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time.

ever heard of Occam?

The Razor says your theory is wrong, being that your theory fails to account for the observed data. For example, your theory fails to explain the divergence of TSI and temperature after 1980. Hard to be more specific though, given how your side is so reluctant to actually state any specific theory, preferring vague handwaving instead.

In contrast, AGW theory is the simplest theory that does correctly account for the observed data, therefore Occam's says it is most likely to be the correct theory. Helps, of course, that's it currently the _only_ theory that correctly accounts for the observed data.

600,000 years of observation showing CO2 lagging temperature > TSI "divergence" since 1980 (and again you're saying that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change --- you see that you're doing that, right?)

 

[flacaltenn]

What conditions are wildly different now?

That would be the quickly dumping a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time.

ever heard of Occam?

The Razor says your theory is wrong, being that your theory fails to account for the observed data. For example, your theory fails to explain the divergence of TSI and temperature after 1980. Hard to be more specific though, given how your side is so reluctant to actually state any specific theory, preferring vague handwaving instead.

In contrast, AGW theory is the simplest theory that does correctly account for the observed data, therefore Occam's says it is most likely to be the correct theory. Helps, of course, that's it currently the _only_ theory that correctly accounts for the observed data.

Not so fast -- TSI is a LOT more significant than the IPCC or warmers claim -- but it is not the ONLY Natural Forcing that's in play here. PLENTY of other factors to be added when you're ready to discuss them.. Right now -- you should go play with the ice wars...

BTW: Man may have thrown up some CO2 in the past 40 yrs, but every year the lands and the ocean thrown up 20 TIMES that amount. And we still don't have an accounting for the variations in CO2 sinking abilities and how they change over time do we?

In fact --- TERMITES aren't far behind man when you combine their CO2/Methane production... Go get them to sign Kyoto...

 

[mamooth]

2. I'm not pretending "that AGW scientists say that CO2 is the only climate driver" that's what the AGW "Scientists" have been saying.

Now you're just flat out making crap up.

If you disagree, simply prove your bizarre assertion by showing some of these climate scientists stating how "CO2 is the only climate driver". You made the insane claim, so it's up to you to support it. If you can't, we'll correctly take that as your admission that you're just making crap up.

For the record can you state the hypothesis of AGW?

That due to human activity, increased greenhouse gas levels are starting to trap more heat and warm the planet.

And that isn't anything even close to saying "CO2 is the sole driver of climate."

4. If CO2 lags temperature as demonstrated in the ice cores, how can it now drive the temperature?

Because, since CO2 is not the only driver of climate (as every single climate scientist has known and stated for decades), other factors were driving the climate in the past. Those identifiable factors are having no significant effect now, but the massive CO2 dump we're putting out is having a big effect.

For the past 600,000 years increase in CO2 never drove the temperatures higher, what's different about today's CO2?

Why do you think today's CO2 is different? That's just bizarre. Any other denialists want to explain why they think today's CO2 is different? Westwall, why do you think today's CO2 is supercharged? That's just bizarre.

(Guys, your strange strawmen just make you all look like you're all too chicken to address the real arguments.)

 

[westwall]

What conditions are wildly different now?

That would be the quickly dumping a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time.

ever heard of Occam?

The Razor says your theory is wrong, being that your theory fails to account for the observed data. For example, your theory fails to explain the divergence of TSI and temperature after 1980. Hard to be more specific though, given how your side is so reluctant to actually state any specific theory, preferring vague handwaving instead.

In contrast, AGW theory is the simplest theory that does correctly account for the observed data, therefore Occam's says it is most likely to be the correct theory. Helps, of course, that's it currently the _only_ theory that correctly accounts for the observed data.

Wrong as usual. Look back at those graphs that have been posted. Note the 800 year lag between warming and CO2 level increases. My theory is the CO2 level increases we see now are attributable to the MWP which occured....wait for it... 800 years ago.

Absolutely matches observed data.

Your theory doesn't at all.

 

[mamooth]

Note the 800 year lag between warming and CO2 level increases. My theory is the CO2 level increases we see now are attributable to the MWP which occured....wait for it... 800 years ago.

Absolutely matches observed data.

Er, no. Your strange theory fails entirely to explain the shift in the isotopic signature of the CO2, which shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the CO2 change came from ancient fossil fuels. As in millions of years old, not thousands.

Plus, your theory isn't a theory. It's handwaving. Where is your magic CO2 suddenly shooting out from, 800 years after the MWP? What's the mechanism? What's the evidence for that mechanism?

Your theory doesn't at all.

Again, totally wrong. AGW theory perfectly explains both the levels and the isotopic signature of the CO2.

 

[westwall]

Note the 800 year lag between warming and CO2 level increases. My theory is the CO2 level increases we see now are attributable to the MWP which occured....wait for it... 800 years ago.

Absolutely matches observed data.

Er, no. Your strange theory fails entirely to explain the shift in the isotopic signature of the CO2, which shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the CO2 change came from ancient fossil fuels. As in millions of years old, not thousands.

Plus, your theory isn't a theory. It's handwaving. Where is your magic CO2 suddenly shooting out from, 800 years after the MWP? What's the mechanism? What's the evidence for that mechanism?

Your theory doesn't at all.

Again, totally wrong. AGW theory perfectly explains both the levels and the isotopic signature of the CO2.

Wrong again buckwheat. The isotopic change is for a vanishingly small amount of CO2. Man contributes a paltry 5% of the total CO2 budget. That means the overwhelming majority of CO2 increase is due to natural processes.

 

[Saigon]

Sorry that I haven't been in to anwer comments for the past week, but perhaps time for a bit of an oerview of the science against climate changes presented.

TSI and solar forcing has been prsented by Flac and Matthew, and although it certainly is an issue that warrants further study and is certainly a major player in our climate, most experts are clearly of the opinion that the current warming trend can not be explained by TSI. Certainly charts seem to show periods where temperature rises and solar focing are in sync - and then very long periods where they are not.

Dave and Frank presented no scientific alternatives to 'AGW' at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thank-you Alex --- I'll take "Fakey Pretenious ScoreKeepers" for $100 please..

 

[Saigon]

What conditions are wildly different now?

That would be the quickly dumping a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time.

ever heard of Occam?

The Razor says your theory is wrong, being that your theory fails to account for the observed data. For example, your theory fails to explain the divergence of TSI and temperature after 1980. Hard to be more specific though, given how your side is so reluctant to actually state any specific theory, preferring vague handwaving instead.

In contrast, AGW theory is the simplest theory that does correctly account for the observed data, therefore Occam's says it is most likely to be the correct theory. Helps, of course, that's it currently the _only_ theory that correctly accounts for the observed data.

I couldn't agree more.

Look at any decent graph of atmospheric CO2 and temperature change and we see a chillingly close connection. It's undeniable to any objective observer.

Look at any decent graph showing sunspot activity and temperature change and the connection seems episodic and stuttering. I think it is clear that solar acitivty plays a role, but Occams Razor would clearly conclude what scientists conclude - which is that CO2 is the key driver here.

 

[skookerasbil]

Geez............talk about a complete waste of time..............the AGW Alarmist nutters might as well be throwing themselves off buildings so they can get another plate in their heads!!!


They're still talking abut "graphs" and "data" and "temperature change" and "atmospheric CO2"..........as if it is contributing to this enormous world green movement.



Yuk.........yuk...............it is a hoot to see them fall all over themselves with ther efforts!!!



Coal makes a comeback in Europe


While regulation limits coal power in the US, Hunt writes that the energy source is on the rise in Europe.

By Gary Hunt / September 26, 2012

A funny thing is happening on the way to the clean energy future. While the US government wages a regulatory war on coal fired generation, in Europe, the land of the oh so politically correct the drive for greenhouse gas emissions reduction is meeting a new competitor—reality!

Coal makes a comeback in Europe - CSMonitor.com