The science against climate change

[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.

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.

Hey moron.. We see the SAME "chillingly close connection" between CO2 and Temperature during those successive Ice Ages -- but there's not a pair of scientists who will say that CO2 caused those Ice Ages is there? In fact -- the temperature CAUSED the CO2 to vary during those periods..

Now tell me --- when atmosph. CO2 was 10 TIMES higher than it is today during the Dinosaur age -- -how come the world didn't come to an end?????

 

[Saigon]

Flac -

I think we're really going back over questions answered earlier now.

This has been covered by the discussion on Milankovitch cycles, surely?

 

[RollingThunder]

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?)

The denier cultists have long fastened on the Vostok ice cores as evidence that increasing CO2 was caused by warming in the distant past and therefore (somehow) rising CO2 levels from human activities couldn't possibly be the cause of the current rising trend in world average temperatures. Their logic is demented and their understanding of the physical processes is nonexistent. Scientists have known for some time that CO2 was a powerful driver of climate changes and that even if some other factor, like orbital variations, was the trigger for some initial warming, that the CO2 released by that warming was itself the driver and feedback mechanism for far greater further warming. Now further research has revealed that the Vostok ice core record was inadequate and inaccurate at reflecting the global temperature variations. Studies of other proxie records at many different locations around the world indicate that at the initial transition point from the last period of glaciation to our current interglacial period, CO2 increases led the temperature increases.

Here's some of the scientific info on all this. I've posted this material elsewhere as well in rebuttal to the same mistaken denier cult propaganda points.

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature 484, 87–91 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10929
Published online 04 April 2012
Robert M. DeConto, Simone Galeotti, Mark Pagani, David Tracy, Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, David Pollard & David J. Beerling
(abstract)

Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphere–ocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event9, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal10. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earth’s orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals.


Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming
A paper in Nature shows how increased CO2 in the atmosphere led to warming – rather than the other way round


Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age
By Tierney Smith
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
Compelling new evidence suggests that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming. “CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it,” said Jeremy Shakun from Harvard University and lead-author of the report. “Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase of CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond. While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming.”

While previous studies only compared carbon dioxide levels to local temperatures in Antarctica, the current study aimed to reconstruct global average temperature changes, using 80 core samples from around the world. Looking only at local temperatures in Antarctica, warming appears to precede rising CO2, an argument often adopted by sceptics to disprove carbon dioxide’s role in global warming. Shakun however, says this is leaving a huge gap in the research. Putting all these records together into a reconstruction of global temperature shows "a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age,” said Shakun. “Even more interesting, while CO2 trails Antarctica warming, it actually precedes global temperature change, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing warming.”



Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Published online 04 April 2012
(Abstract)

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, but Rolling Thunder, those are just scientists. What the hell do they know about anything? Much better to get one's information from undegreed ex-TV weathermen or obese junkies.

The wingnuts have made a scientific issue poltical. And it is going to bite their ass in a most serious manner.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah, but Rolling Thunder, those are just scientists. What the hell do they know about anything? Much better to get one's information from undegreed ex-TV weathermen or obese junkies.

The wingnuts have made a scientific issue poltical. And it is going to bite their ass in a most serious manner.

Are you seriously saying that the CO2 stayed "local" in Antarctica for 10,000 years, but today's CO2 is "Global" in under 200?

What is different about today's CO2? How did it earn so many frequent flyer miles?

Here's what they're basing this "Science" on

 

[Saigon]

Are you seriously saying that the CO2 stayed "local" in Antarctica for 10,000 years, but today's CO2 is "Global" in under 200?
]

Why do you always insist on ridiculing points no one has made?

Why not try and address the topic honestly?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you seriously saying that the CO2 stayed "local" in Antarctica for 10,000 years, but today's CO2 is "Global" in under 200?
]

Why do you always insist on ridiculing points no one has made?

Why not try and address the topic honestly?

You might want to read the article you comment on, apparently neither the CO2 nor temperature effect, over 10,000 years, were "Global"

 

[RollingThunder]

Are you seriously saying that the CO2 stayed "local" in Antarctica for 10,000 years, but today's CO2 is "Global" in under 200?
]

Why do you always insist on ridiculing points no one has made?

Why not try and address the topic honestly?

You might want to read the article you comment on, apparently neither the CO2 nor temperature effect, over 10,000 years, were "Global"

Ah, CrazyFruitcake, it is really too bad that you're too retarded to understand what you read. It's hard to tell sometimes whether you're deliberately making up strawman arguments or whether you're just so stupid you don't realize that you can't understand what was said.

Nowhere in those articles did anyone say what you apparently imagine that they said.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

****

Ah, ol' kookiepukie, the bitter, confused denier cult retard.....what will he say?......well, actually nothing meaningful or relevant, ever......but then, well, he is completely retarded and somewhat insane so....what else can we expect, anyway.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do you always insist on ridiculing points no one has made?

Why not try and address the topic honestly?

You might want to read the article you comment on, apparently neither the CO2 nor temperature effect, over 10,000 years, were "Global"

Ah, CrazyFruitcake, it is really too bad that you're too retarded to understand what you read. It's hard to tell sometimes whether you're deliberately making up strawman arguments or whether you're just so stupid you don't realize that you can't understand what was said.

Nowhere in those articles did anyone say what you apparently imagine that they said.

It's OK, keep talking like that, you keep proving my point that there's no real science to your ridiculous "CO2 is turning the oceans to acid and melting the ice caps!" theory

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Of course there is science behind it - that is not the question. By all means start a thread on the topic and we can present it.

The question is whether you have the integrity to discuss it sensibly. I think it is fairly clear at this stage that you do not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Of course there is science behind it - that is not the question. By all means start a thread on the topic and we can present it.

The question is whether you have the integrity to discuss it sensibly. I think it is fairly clear at this stage that you do not.

Linking to today's story and adding "see that right there that's manmade global warming" is the farthest thing from science

Running out and making up proxies to explain away data that falsified your theory is also not science

But keep insulting because you prove time and again that you're a cult member

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

And there you go again attacking something no one is doing or saying.

Weather is not climate, and I think most posters here are well aware of the difference.

Why will you NEVER address this topic sensibly and honestly?

 

[skookerasbil]

****

Ah, ol' kookiepukie, the bitter, confused denier cult retard.....what will he say?......well, actually nothing meaningful or relevant, ever......but then, well, he is completely retarded and somewhat insane so....what else can we expect, anyway.....

Im laughing............what a genius............

 

[Old Rocks]

A study showing not only does base ignorance affect the assimulation of scientific information, but political views, as well. To the point that people with very strong political views see the science through the lens of their views, and totally misinterpret and misrepresent what the scientists are stating.

Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts

Lawrence C. Hamilton
Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824. email: [email protected], phone: 1-603-862-1859

Abstract

Beliefs about climate change divide the U.S. public along party lines more distinctly than hot social issues. Research finds that better educated or informed respondents are more likely to align with their parties on climate change. This information-elite polarization resembles a process of biased assimilation first described in psychological experiments. In nonexperimental settings, college graduates could be prone to biased assimilation if they more effectively acquire information that supports their beliefs. Recent national and statewide survey data show response patterns consistent with biased assimilation (and biased guessing) contributing to the correlation observed between climate beliefs and knowledge. The survey knowledge questions involve key, uncontroversial observations such as whether the area of late-summer Arctic sea ice has declined, increased, or declined and then recovered to what it was 30 years ago. Correct answers are predicted by education, and some wrong answers (e.g., more ice) have predictors that suggest lack of knowledge. Other wrong answers (e.g., ice recovered) are predicted by political and belief factors instead. Response patterns suggest causality in both directions: science information affecting climate beliefs, but also beliefs affecting the assimilation of science information.

 

[mamooth]

I've always supported passing out free testosterone supplements to those in need of them, as that would wipe out denialism almost immediately. If the simpering semi-men who make up most of the denialists had a more normal hormonal balance, they'd stop it with the pathetic attempts to overcompensate which are the root of much of the denialist conspiracy whining.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

AGW has been listed as the cause of everything from acne to butter prices.... it's a moron's folly.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I've always supported passing out free testosterone supplements to those in need of them, as that would wipe out denialism almost immediately. If the simpering semi-men who make up most of the denialists had a more normal hormonal balance, they'd stop it with the pathetic attempts to overcompensate which are the root of much of the denialist conspiracy whining.

Oh, so now ignoring the farce that is AGW means one's testosterone levels are off?

My God you folks are fucking stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

And there you go again attacking something no one is doing or saying.

Weather is not climate, and I think most posters here are well aware of the difference.

Why will you NEVER address this topic sensibly and honestly?

Vostok ice cores set forth 600,000 years of CO2 and temperature but because it shows CO2 lagging temperature, your side discounts it as "local" then runs out to create phony data to fit your foregone conclusion. Is 600,000 years weather or climate?

That's not science!