Global Warming

[xyzer]

Deadeye posts..

You have just proven that the temperature of the Globe fluxuates. We all know this. It has been in a state of flux since the place was formed about 4.5 billion years ago

I agree! And suggest you can't inject any reason in Pooeys rigid mental facade. Pooey ignores any logical assumptions in this debate. I also agree that any human conceived solutions to natural climate change will be futile. And cost nations many dollars.

Here is another page in the scientific study of climate influence..Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Science

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I invite you, particularly Pooey the believer, to visit this site.Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Science This contains actual data plus a scientifally based prediction that the PDO has large control over global temps(translated to global climate) It just so happens there is a measured cooling trend and science is looking into the PDO and ocean currents as the cause of climate variation. They now predict a cooling phase in spite of CO2 influence?

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you, you're just repeating something in my face. If you'd read the actual source properly you'd realise what this oscillation means; temperatures will switch from higher to lower depending on which end of the cycle it is. Therefore, as La Nino has been going strong for the past few years, we can expect any warming to be offset. If you want to establish a cooling trend you'd have to see the data over at least one cycle of this PDO!

Quote by: xyzer It turns out Pooey, who still dwells on pre 2000 predictions based on correlations with CO2 and climate change may have hooked his evidence on the wrong outmoded theory?. He has forgotten the scientific axiom, "correlation is not necessarily causation"?

Speaking of science, you have still not provided me with a paper that has demonstrated that we're in an actual long term cooling trend. I'm afraid a graph drawn in Excel from 1998 onwards doesn't quite qualify as evidence. Anyway, I have already refuted your point on the "pre 2000 data" used by IPCC. I made a clear example by referring to it's supporting material which has clearly got post 2000 references.

Quote by: xyzer An example? He is still fussing over a near record decade of global warming and its so called evidence of human driven global warming. Hey Pooey, wake up! There is new evidence(actual evidence) that its begun to cool in the last decade and He probaly wont even read the reference I posted because his juvenile mentality might reveal that he is afraid to have been wrong about the concoction that anthopogenic CO2 increases have set us on an uninterruptable course to increasing warming? He infers nothing can stop it but reductions in human carbon energy use?

You seem to be blinded by your own arrogance. Mr EnragedParrot and I have already pointed out over a dozen times that CO2 is not the only natural influence on the climate, there are a multitude of factors that can overwhelm that and we have always acknowledged this. However, it would seem that this is a revelation to you, though unsurprising considering your immense lack of scientific understanding. Just goes to show you're not actually reading our posts, but skimming it over and then giving it your own twisted version.

[Deadeye]

In the news last week. There is evidence that CO2 is the result of GWing and not the cause.

GWing fans claim that the temperature is rising and that the US caused it. They seem to think that if Americans reduced our population to say, 10 people that GWing would decrease. Probably not.

There is still a school of thought that GWing is a natural phenom, just as it always has been. I say again, the temperature of the Globe is always in a state of flux and it always will be so. It is unlikely that the destruction of our economy will effect it one way or the other.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Deadeye posts.. I agree! And suggest you can't inject any reason in Pooeys rigid mental facade. Pooey ignores any logical assumptions in this debate. I also agree that any human conceived solutions to natural climate change will be futile. And cost nations many dollars. Here is another page in the scientific study of climate influence..Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Science

Wow, tell you that about the PDO/ El Nino & La Nina effects which neatly explains the fluctuations in warming you question about and somehow you think it aids your argument? I think you're breeding a new line of logic here whereby winning is to bring support your other side!

I guess you don't get tired of losing because you never actually acknowledge when you're beat. Just like you don't bother to respond to many of my points. Like when I said this (a repeated question)

Quote by: Pooeypants For example, just a few posts prior, you posted this. Of course, once we looked at the source of that article, we find it's from a website with no association to NASA and nor do their supposed scientific paper appear in any official journals. You said, and I quote; "Could it be that natural causes(as NASA thinks) have a much more important influence of climate change?" Yet I cannot actually find real evidence to support this claim you have here.

So unless you can find evidence of what you claimed NASA to have said, you're a liar.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Deadeye In the news last week. There is evidence that CO2 is the result of GWing and not the cause.

This is no news, it's been known for a long time now that in the past, CO2 rises have been a positive feedback. But to say that increasing a greenhouse gas will have no effect on total thermal retention is not exactly logical, nor does it make sense when we can't account for all the increased warming from natural sources.

Quote by: Deadeye GWing fans claim that the temperature is rising and that the US caused it. They seem to think that if Americans reduced our population to say, 10 people that GWing would decrease. Probably not.

Who are these fans and when did they say such things? I've certainly not heard of it.

Quote by: Deadeye There is still a school of thought that GWing is a natural phenom, just as it always has been. I say again, the temperature of the Globe is always in a state of flux and it always will be so. It is unlikely that the destruction of our economy will effect it one way or the other.

Thank you for your assessment, I'm sure your wisdom and expertise is beyond anyone person or organisation in the world! Heck, let's make you world President!
Or maybe, we can start to examine this seriously, because frankly I find your alarmist attitude to be quite shocking. Quite why you'd think the economy will be wrecked by moving us to be more energy efficient is quite beyond me. Don't you enjoy saving costs from your expenditure? For example, if you could insulate your house better to reduce your heating bill, wouldn't that benefit you? Are you afraid that the big energy corporations will get a thinner fiscal bonus?

[xyzer]

Ah Ha, Pooeys mindset is revealed...

guess you don't get tired of losing because you never actually acknowledge when you're beat. Just like you don't bother to respond to many of my points. Like when I said this (a repeated question)

Leads one to understand why his plaintiff babbling continues.

This site is not about winning or losing Pooey. Its about presenting viewpoints and logical reasoning from facts.Its obvious to me that you are so rigidly locked into Gore and the IPCC's outmoded crap that fact and reality have left you? You want to attack any site, or study, that doesn't agree with the IPCC outmoded theories. Your standard tactic is to shoot doen the messenger which it seems to me is not a valid approach to scientific analysis? Science progresses through new understanding and hypothesis not a rigid orthodoxy.
I provided a site for you to buttress my argument and you claim its non scientific and I'm a liar?Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Science
Now wait a minute, do you realize how infantile that is?
An example is this ..

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you, you're just repeating something in my face. If you'd read the actual source properly you'd realise what this oscillation means; temperatures will switch from higher to lower depending on which end of the cycle it is. Therefore, as La Nino has been going strong for the past few years, we can expect any warming to be offset. If you want to establish a cooling trend you'd have to see the data over at least one cycle of this PDO!

I post a scientifically related site and opinion (PDO), you dispute it and in the same breath tell me thats what you have been saying? Dont you remember your multiple posts supporting the anthropogenic influence of CO2 and how it would lead to all sorts of warming? It tipped the balance you said? Well here is actual measurement data and another more important natural climate influencer?

To elaborate on the PDO, it shows that there are other(Than CO2) important and overruling natural influences on climate. Influences that control it enough to overwhelm the influence of levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and its forcing effect?
It seems to me we finally agree on that. As I have been saying over the months this is the key to disputing the IPCC gloomy outlook. Climate has historically changed and will continue to vary. Humans don't have the power or wherewthall to change it. We must adapt!

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer To elaborate on the PDO, it shows that there are other(Than CO2) important and overruling natural influences on climate. Influences that control it enough to overwhelm the influence of levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and its forcing effect? It seems to me we finally agree on that. As I have been saying over the months this is the key to disputing the IPCC gloomy outlook. Climate has historically changed and will continue to vary. Humans don't have the power or wherewthall to change it. We must adapt!

I don't think anyone disputes that, Xyzer. The CO2 greenhouse effect is just one of many factors controlling the Earth's climate. The argument we're making is not that CO2 is the sole determinant of the planet's climate, but that CO2 is the driving force behind the current climate change. The existence of other factors capable of overwhelming the CO2 induced warming doesn't contradict the theory.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Pooeypants This is no news, it's been known for a long time now that in the past, CO2 rises have been a positive feedback. But to say that increasing a greenhouse gas will have no effect on total thermal retention is not exactly logical, nor does it make sense when we can't account for all the increased warming from natural sources. Who are these fans and when did they say such things? I've certainly not heard of it.Thank you for your assessment, I'm sure your wisdom and expertise is beyond anyone person or organisation in the world! Heck, let's make you world President! Or maybe, we can start to examine this seriously, because frankly I find your alarmist attitude to be quite shocking. Quite why you'd think the economy will be wrecked by moving us to be more energy efficient is quite beyond me. Don't you enjoy saving costs from your expenditure? For example, if you could insulate your house better to reduce your heating bill, wouldn't that benefit you? Are you afraid that the big energy corporations will get a thinner fiscal bonus?

Oh, I try to concerve energy like most folks. My point is whether or not I do will have no effect upon the tempurature of the Earth.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Deadeye Oh, I try to concerve energy like most folks. My point is whether or not I do will have no effect upon the tempurature of the Earth.

Why not? What makes you think that altering the thermal retentive composition of our atmosphere will have no effect? How does that logically follow?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Pooeypants Why not? What makes you think that altering the thermal retentive composition of our atmosphere will have no effect? How does that logically follow?

When one looks at the Earth from afar it's very very large. We are very very small. Even a huge factory that is pumping what looks to us a mile away like a huge amount of smoke when seen from space looks insignificant.

We know that some valcanos that spit thousands of tons of matter into the atmosphere did indeed effect the climate of the Globe, but that was a huge amount of matter (Krakatowa; sp?). The temperature aftger that event was effected for three years.

Human CO2 production is miniscule when compared to really large atmospheric events. Do we have some effect? I don't know. Does it matter? I doubt it. Is our impact so important that we need to change our lifestyles? No.

As I said before the climate of the Earth is in a constant state of flux. It was much warmer six hundred years ago, and cooler a hundred years ago. We have been, however; in a generally steady state warm climatic condition for the last 10,000 years. It has been during this time that mankind grew and became what it is today. The state of the climate and the condition of mankind is bound to change. It has always done so.

So say that man's activities effects this change is a matter of debate, but if we were all to just sit here and hold our breath the climate would change, an ice age would arrive. We have no, or at best very little, impact upon the very large factors that effect conditions on Earth.

We do not need or require human activity to effect climate change. If we were not here, and if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth we'd still have climate change, just as we had and just as we are having and just as we will always have.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Deadeye When one looks at the Earth from afar it's very very large. We are very very small. Even a huge factory that is pumping what looks to us a mile away like a huge amount of smoke when seen from space looks insignificant. We know that some valcanos that spit thousands of tons of matter into the atmosphere did indeed effect the climate of the Globe, but that was a huge amount of matter (Krakatowa; sp?). The temperature aftger that event was effected for three years.

Yes, that's true but this is just anecdotes.

Quote by: Deadeye Human CO2 production is miniscule when compared to really large atmospheric events. Do we have some effect? I don't know. Does it matter? I doubt it. Is our impact so important that we need to change our lifestyles? No.

Human activity has increased levels from 280ppm to 380ppm in less than two centuries. This is unprecedented and certainly not seen in the past half a million years, throughout which we've seen peaking and troughing of CO2 levels. So, you profess to not knowing what our production can do but yet can conclude that it doesn't matter. How does this logically follow?

Quote by: Deadeye As I said before the climate of the Earth is in a constant state of flux. It was much warmer six hundred years ago, and cooler a hundred years ago. We have been, however; in a generally steady state warm climatic condition for the last 10,000 years. It has been during this time that mankind grew and became what it is today. The state of the climate and the condition of mankind is bound to change. It has always done so.

You hit the nail on the head, mankind prospered a lot over a period of relative global status in temperature. Despite the fluctuations, there was no warming global trend seen in the past century. Therefore, it is in our best interest to keep things the same. Climates do change naturally but not at the rate we've been witnessing, certainly not without a catastrophic or anomalous event.

Quote by: Deadeye So say that man's activities effects this change is a matter of debate, but if we were all to just sit here and hold our breath the climate would change, an ice age would arrive. We have no, or at best very little, impact upon the very large factors that effect conditions on Earth.

Based on what assessments? Your own opinion? How do you know we have very little impact? Did you know that we're seeing another mass extinction event? Who do you think is causing that?

Quote by: Deadeye We do not need or require human activity to effect climate change. If we were not here, and if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth we'd still have climate change, just as we had and just as we are having and just as we will always have.

But none of what you say absolve human's influence on climate; even if global warming we're seeing is completely naturally, we're still changing climates through massive pollution, mass deforestation, building dams et cetera.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Deadeye We know that some valcanos that spit thousands of tons of matter into the atmosphere did indeed effect the climate of the Globe, but that was a huge amount of matter (Krakatowa; sp?). The temperature after that event was effected for three years.

A. Volcanic activity has been ongoing around the world since the beginning of time, and is well factored into the earth's chemical equilibrium. And while huge volcanoes that can actually alter global weather - like Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines (1991) - can pump out about 8 million tons of aerosals and dust, (Krakatoa was estimated at an incredible 16 million tons) the worldwide average for volcanic emmissions is around 150 million tons.

B. Human beings, on the other hand, are now pumping around 24 BILLION tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, and that's ON TOP OF the natural balance of what nature has been producing for hundreds of milllions of years.

Quote by: Deadeye Human CO2 production is miniscule when compared to really large atmospheric events.

LIke what "large atmospheric events"? Yes, nature produces far more CO2 than we do. But once again, nature has ALWAYS produced that amount, which has become part of an equilibrium.

The billions of tons we produce every year has been piling up on top of what nature produces, every year for the last 200 years, at an exponentially increasing rate, comparable to the human population curve.

Quote by: Deadeye As I said before the climate of the Earth is in a constant state of flux.

Not flux... a constant rhythm of regular fluctuations, based on a natural equilibrium, that changes only over thousands and thousands of years.

The human population has over the last two hundred years -- a geological blink of an eye -- dramatically altered that natural equilibrium and created a massive anomoly to the normal fluctuations.

Quote by: Deadeye We have no, or at best very little, impact upon the very large factors that effect conditions on Earth.

Wrong, and we're seeing the impacts playing out before our eyes, faster than predicted.

Quote by: Deadeye We do not need or require human activity to effect climate change. If we were not here, and if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth we'd still have climate change, just as we had and just as we are having and just as we will always have.

Not on cue we wouldn't and not in a 300 year nano-second of geological time. Global Warming was predicted, based solely on human activity, and those predictions are now happening, faster than predicted.

You're as clueless as Xyzer.

.

[xyzer]

Sonart..
Here is what we are comparing. You do the math?

The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion metric tons or 1/1,200,000 the mass of Earth. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×1018 kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5×1015 kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used; somewhat smaller than the previous estimate. The mean mass of water vapor is estimated as 1.27×1016 kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 ±0.0003×1018

You throw in a scare figure of ..

B. Human beings, on the other hand, are now pumping around 24 BILLION tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, and that's ON TOP OF the natural balance of what nature has been producing for hundreds of milllions of years.

Are you suggesting that none of the 1% of natural CO2 ever escapes the atmosphere, and it just keeps filling it up? What about the plants absorption of CO2, carbon sinks, etc? What natural balance level are you talking about and what is it? We alread know and you even mention it that the earths climate has varied dramitically in the past? Is it always in balance? Does that make sense?

LIke what "large atmospheric events"? Yes, nature produces far more CO2 than we do. But once again, nature has ALWAYS produced that amount, which has become part of an equilibrium.

Are you suggesting that the earth is in stasis" Suns warming doesn't change, volcanos always spew the same amount of gas, past climate changes don't affect the earth flora? CO2 just sits ther blocking the escape of heat?

We are talking about logic here, I hope.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer You throw in a scare figure of ..

You're the dijmwits who pointed out that a mere 16 million tons of volcanic pollutants spewed by one volcano affected global climate for years.

Quote by: Xyzer Are you suggesting that none of the 1% of natural CO2 ever escapes the atmosphere, and it just keeps filling it up? What about the plants absorption of CO2, carbon sinks, etc? What natural balance level are you talking about and what is it? We alread know and you even mention it that the earths climate has varied dramitically in the past? Is it always in balance? Does that make sense?

Not at all. I'm EXPLAINING to you that whatever that amount is, and however that amount fluctuates, it's been doing so consistently for millions upon millions of years, to the point where life on earth has evolved specifically based on that equilibrium.

And when a difference of only 100 parts/million of atmospheric CO2 represents the difference between the depths of an Ice Age and historic temperature peaks, the additional 100 ppm that we've added -- ON TOP OF WHAT NATURE CREATES AND LOSES -- is bound to wreak havoc.

Duh!

Are you suggesting that the earth is in stasis" Suns warming doesn't change, volcanos always spew the same amount of gas, past climate changes don't affect the earth flora? CO2 just sits ther blocking the escape of heat?

We've been over this a thousand times, Xzyer.

Scientists have looked into ALL these alternative variables, and not one of them can account for the current warming. Not solar cycles, not volcanoes, not anything. ONLY human activity can account for the rapid warming trend of the last 200 years.

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: xyzer Sonart.. Here is what we are comparing. You do the math? You throw in a scare figure of .. Are you suggesting that none of the 1% of natural CO2 ever escapes the atmosphere, and it just keeps filling it up? What about the plants absorption of CO2, carbon sinks, etc? What natural balance level are you talking about and what is it? We alread know and you even mention it that the earths climate has varied dramitically in the past? Is it always in balance? Does that make sense? Are you suggesting that the earth is in stasis" Suns warming doesn't change, volcanos always spew the same amount of gas, past climate changes don't affect the earth flora? CO2 just sits ther blocking the escape of heat? We are talking about logic here, I hope.

I'm not sure I understand your drift.

Here's what I'm saying: The temperature of the Earth is changing and has always done so. Everybody must understand this fact.

The Earth has been in a long warming trend started after the end of the last Ice Age. We are still in that warming trend. It will eventually turn and we will experience another Ice Age. This has been happening for a very long time and the cycle has repeated many times.

Man made Global Warming fans believe that man is changing the climate of the Earth. This may or may not be so, but we do know for certainty that the temperature of the Earth is in constant flux and it will always be so. The warming or cooling of the Earth does not require the help of men to do so.

Even if you were to stop all production of man made CO2, for instance, the climate would change. Your side, the MMGW side claim that we are speeding things up, others say otherwise.

I do not believe that the evidence that man causes climate change is overwhelming enough for me to revise my lifestyles. It's been said that to effect mmgw it would require the expenditure of $500,000,000,000,000We can't afford that for something that is as iffy as mmgw. Whether we spend the cash or not the climate will change. So why bother?

I don't think that most guys posting here actually read the anti-mmgw scientific papers written by climateologists. There have been several good ones published lately.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Deadeye I'm not sure I understand your drift. Here's what I'm saying: The temperature of the Earth is changing and has always done so. Everybody must understand this fact.

At no point does that automatically discount human influence. At no point in the Earth's history, has one single species caused so much changed in such a small amount of time.

Quote by: Deadeye The Earth has been in a long warming trend started after the end of the last Ice Age. We are still in that warming trend. It will eventually turn and we will experience another Ice Age. This has been happening for a very long time and the cycle has repeated many times.

Yet that apparent warming trend shouldn't happen anywhere near as fast as what we've experienced in the past century. So it doesn't explain anything but nice try.

Quote by: Deadeye Man made Global Warming fans believe that man is changing the climate of the Earth. This may or may not be so, but we do know for certainty that the temperature of the Earth is in constant flux and it will always be so. The warming or cooling of the Earth does not require the help of men to do so.

Again, this does not invalidate human influence. And because you're using the same point, I'll use the same analogy; just because cancer occurs naturally, it doesn't mean that smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol can increase its occurrence.

Quote by: Deadeye Even if you were to stop all production of man made CO2, for instance, the climate would change. Your side, the MMGW side claim that we are speeding things up, others say otherwise.

Well done for noting that there are deniers. Who would've thought there were always at least two sides to an argument?

Quote by: Deadeye I do not believe that the evidence that man causes climate change is overwhelming enough for me to revise my lifestyles. It's been said that to effect mmgw it would require the expenditure of $500,000,000,000,000We can't afford that for something that is as iffy as mmgw. Whether we spend the cash or not the climate will change. So why bother?

You have no reference to this figure, do you? In addition, have you read the Stern report? It outlines how we need to act now as opposed to later as it'll cost far more the later we leave it. But I don't need to reference a report from over a year ago, surely you've read it...right?

Quote by: Deadeye I don't think that most guys posting here actually read the anti-mmgw scientific papers written by climateologists. There have been several good ones published lately.

Please cite these scientific paper, which journals are they from?

[xyzer]

This is what I mean..

Scientists have looked into ALL these alternative variables, and not one of them can account for the current warming. Not solar cycles, not volcanoes, not anything. ONLY human activity can account for the rapid warming trend of the last 200 years.

We just got through mentioning the climate influences of El Nino and La Nina? These Ocean changes along with the PDO, influence global climate! Don't they? They are alternate variables that overwhem increasing CO2. Scientist now think the El Nino cycle is over and La Ninas influence will prevail. Its illogical to posit "only humans can cause climate change"?
Haven't we seen cooling periods as human industrialization expanded. Did energy consumption activities stop during the much colder epoch in the middle of the last century? Not so because it has continued to increase over the last century?

I have just posted a scientific reference and prediction that we are in for a La Nina epoch in the next 20 years or so(and have already seen cooling begin.) The logic involved would suggest(to reasonable people) that human caused CO2 may be a factor but its certainly not an influencing factor..
This rapid? warming cycle (of about 1Degree over 100 years) has been interrupted several times by cooling periods, has it not? In the sense of geologic time(not human time) we have gradually warmed up since the last ice age(when the ice was 50 feet thick in the Great Lakes region of the US. We have had recurrent warming and cooling epoch over the eons. Humans haven't been in a position of possibly affecting anything until the las half century or so.And yet we are warned that we are the cause of a warming trend that was quite short and has already been shown to have leveled off and moved to a cooler cycle.
How can we logically assume we humans can change these cycles?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer