Quick primer for the believers in AGW.

Discussion in 'Conservation' started by Klickrolf, Jun 7, 2016.

Tags:
  1. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    I added an extra backslash in the original. Here is the correct url and I will edit the original: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm.

    No, the physics are still the same. Minor regular changes in the Earth's orbit act as the primer.

    Steve
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
  2. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    833
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Still doesn't explain anything regarding CO2 and climate. Back to solar cycles which of course have a significant impact on our climate. Funny how the first chart is well known but now it shows CO2 leads temps. Funny indeed. Pretty sure that's called editing, the opposite of science.

    Do you mean changes in the Earth's orbit act as the driver...or the "primer"? If the earth's orbit around the sun acts as the driver then CO2 doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
  3. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    If you read the link, if you understood the link, if you read this: "While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).", you would not have asked that question or made the statement that followed. Today the trigger of atmospheric CO2 release is anthropogenic activity.
    Steve
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
    dfl likes this.
  4. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    833
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Natural CO2 emission = ~96% of CO2 emission, human output ~4%.
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

    Does that mean CO2 caused the interglacial? Not by a long shot...

    And, assuming solar cycles are the driver, which we must assume, temp increases drive CO2 increases, not the other way around.
     
  5. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Read the damn article and try to think. When you shoot a bullet, what drives the bullet, the primer or the gunpowder? Yes, the primer (change in orbit, leading to a small change in temperature which reduces the solubility of dissolved CO2) had to come first but the actual driver of the movement of the bullet (the increase in global temperature due to the greenhouse effect of CO2) is the oxidation of the gunpowder. I am taking the time to explain this for the benefit for others who may be following this thread.
    I am unwilling to continue to play "whack a mole" with climate change deniers such as yourself. I have spent a lifetime dealing with creationists; this is more of the same. I have more productive things to do with my life.
    Those who wish to learn more about the science behind the rebuttal of the common denialists' canards should consult http://www.skepticalscience.com/.
    Steve
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
    2506, dryflylarry, Evan Burck and 3 others like this.
  6. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    833
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Seems like you're pretty much into"whack a mole" at this point.

    I did read the article and went even furthur, I read the comments following the article. Here is a particularly relevant one...

    "15. Wondering Aloud
    at 10:31 AM on 29 February, 2008
    Nice personal attack Farmer but it added nothing to this discussion. Your Comment "No matter what the atmosphere is doing, if you add heat you get warming. You don't need a PhD to understand that." makes no sense in this context.

    There is no heat being added unless you are talking about variation in Solar output. The warming is supposed to be the result of Earth holding on to more heat and releasing it more slowly. The Earth is not a Black body radiator, but that doesn't even matter because CO2 isn't a big absorber of black body radiation at this temperature.

    Or this comment "We already know that increased carbon dioxide causes warming, so this means that the warming will be amplified by increased CO2 emission from the oceans."

    This is simply not correct. We think it should work this way, we have some theoretical reason to believe it should. But, it has rather badly failed the experimental test so far. In addition if your assertion were true this would be a positive feedback loop that is clearly not present in the Earth's paleo record. If the climate really worked this way the Earth would be vastly warmer than it is and would never have had any ice ages because once the CO2 got high, as it has many times in the past, it would cause a warming spiral.

    The idea that you can "take into account" in models affects that we simply don't understand is absolutely silly."

    The comment section provides way more useful input than the article itself.
    Another good one..

    "19. Dan Pangburn at 09:58 AM on 13 April, 2008
    During a glacial period (between interglacials), the graph shows many changes in temperature direction, trend up, followed by trend down, followed by trend up, followed by trend down and so on for many cycles. If the theory is that a trend up causes atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase which adds to warming, why, with atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher than it had been during the temperature increase, would the temperature stop going up and go down instead?"

    And don't miss comment 28...actually the comments are more interesting and educational than the article itself.

    The fact that solar insolation is where the heat comes from and the fact that equilibrium is always the physical goal means that CO2 can briefly hold heat but it can't force it and it can't create it (same as adding it). The planet has two sources of heat, the sun and the earths core. CO2 cannot add heat period. Even if it absorbs heat we all know radiant heat rises in our atmosphere and therefore most of what CO2 absorbs will go out into deep, dark and dead cold space, not down to the earths surface. CO2 is an ineffective and impossible blanket, it ain't like goose down and it ain't got a cover.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2016
  7. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    8,667
    Likes Received:
    3,219
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
  8. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    833
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Here's another interesting read, note: all charts and data are from "peer reviewed" scientific papers, live links for your perusal.
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/27/...n-global-warming-claims/#sthash.8XEQ1M7E.dpbs

    As an aside, this one is cool:
    https://eyesonbrowne.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/i-made-my-very-own-hockey-stick/

    I'm thinking about recording my own local temps from here on out. I've lived in the same spot for 16+ years and I know the average summer temps have dropped. Don't know where this will go but starting Jan 1, 2017 I'm gonna record daily temps at 2:30 am and pm and see where this goes...you might try it too.
     
  9. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    8,667
    Likes Received:
    3,219
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    But how will we know the data is factual? I suggest you and GT take the readings together over morning coffee :D.
     
  10. weiliwen

    weiliwen Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    838
    Location:
    Chicago Illinois
  11. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    833
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis violates fundamentals of physics.
    http://realplanet.eu/error.htm

    If there is a CO2 warming effect it diminishes logarithmically and at 400ppmv is 87 % used up.

    We live in a political world.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  12. dryflylarry

    dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Likes Received:
    1,271
    Location:
    Near the Fjord
  13. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    833
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Here's some mashable stuff, this'll help reduce human CO2 emission...by Greenpeace nonetheless!
    http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/11/11/chinas-coal-bubble-155-new-overcapacity/

    And India, etc.
    http://www.dw.com/en/china-india-pouring-cash-into-coal-plants-that-may-not-be-used/a-19156066

    a quote from the title "So why are utilities still building them?"

    and another quote, "It looks like this trend will continue, with China committing to renewables, gas and nuclear targets for 2020 — together they will cover any increase in electricity demand."
    Renewables? They'll be burning coal if world economies improve. If not they'll be burning coal because it's cheap. In large measure they have already succeeded because world economies are near collapse, that's what it's about, control.

    Atmospheric CO2 ain't coming down folks, it's going straight up, hopefully to 700 or 800 ppm, that would increase carrying capacity for trees, fish, all wildlife and humans. The Marrakech coal express is about to begin and the developed (rich, that's us) world will pay for it. http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord-adaptation-idUKKBN13C1ID

    This has nothing to do with "global warming", if it did they wouldn't have chosen "climate change" as the replacement. Wake up folks!
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  14. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    As has been pointed out already in this thread (have a problem with facts?), "climate change" has been part of the vocabulary since the beginning. "Climate change" is a better description of the totality of changes: faster rate of increase in atmospheric temperatures, increased acidity of the ocean, alterations to global weather, and faster increases in sea level. Perhaps you should send a resume to the current administration; knowledge and understanding of the fundamental science need not apply.
    Steve
     
    2506 and dfl like this.
  15. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    8,667
    Likes Received:
    3,219
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    They changed the banner's title when they got caught manipulating data. Not wanting to limit the opportunity to leverage any changes to our climate, to further drive political agenda's, they cleverly now call it climate change... which takes place with or without us bi-peds. Until they can figure out how to mandate everyone take the oath of allegiance, the free people of the world will continue to make up their own minds on the subject. And you are correct, about the current administration.