An Inconvenient Scientist

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Go find the religious debate thread Rsak, It might have been on the old board somewhere but I remember Kthan in particular fighting his point of view on god to the death if need be.

[Rsak]

Kthan might have done so.. but I wouldn't label him one of the current frequent posters and he isn't part of this Climate Change thread in any case. On the whole the posters on this board are not zealots, but there are quite a few who have very closed minds on particular issues.

[Klast Brell]

Heh. The very first one on your list is a Geophysicist. I'm sure he is qualified to find oil or analyze seismic activity, but expertise in one field does not imply expertise in another. Same goes for Astrophysicists, economists and mathematicians.

Take out the "experts" who have no training in the field then subtract the paid industry shills and what do you have left? Hot air.

Take a look at the science disciplines for individuals that contributued to the IPCC report, then explain to me why you'll accept a multi-disciplinary report from them.

When did I ever say I did? I have not said a word about IPCC.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Heh. The very first one on your list is a Geophysicist. I'm sure he is qualified to find oil or analyze seismic activity, but expertise in one field does not imply expertise in another. Same goes for Astrophysicists, economists and mathematicians.

Take out the "experts" who have no training in the field then subtract the paid industry shills and what do you have left? Hot air.

Take a look at the science disciplines for individuals that contributued to the IPCC report, then explain to me why you'll accept a multi-disciplinary report from them.

When did I ever say I did? I have not said a word about IPCC.

Then what sources do you rely upon to help you form your opinion about what is happening to the earth's climate?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Please notice that I was the last person to post on this thread, before I posted again. Refuting the tired mantra of Lurker that I run away from this debate. Seems he has run away from the debate.

Please notice Klast has not responded to my last question...

For Lurker, Klast, and I think Kulaf (I think he bought into the "global warming is caused by man" tripe, and I apologize if it wasn't Kulaf), please answer the following...
1. Why have, in the past, CO2 levels been 10x higher than they are today, and the planet's atmosphere was cooler?
2. When CO2 levels were 10x higher than they are today, and humans hadn't evolved yet, what could have caused that level of CO2?
3. Why, if global warming is such a threat to the existence of humanity, did much of the human population explode during the Climactic Optimum, (around 3,000 to 5,000 BC, long before industrialization), when global temps were 1-2 degrees Celcius above what they are today? And what could have caused that global increase in temperature?
4. What caused the cooling 2000-3000 years ago, that exposed the islands we know as the Bahamas? (I'm guessing it wasn't CO2 from campfires)
5. Why do you consider today's temperature, which are 10-12 degrees cooler than the earth's average temperature (not counting when the earth was a glowing ball of molten rock, but when earth's temps could sustain life as we know it), to be a sign of catastrophic global warming?

Seriously guys... can you respond to these points?

[Kulaf]

"global warming is caused by man"

There's 90% of the problem right there. No one in this debate is saying global warming is caused by man. What we are saying is that man is contributing to global warming by massively increasing the rate at which carbon is entering the atmosphere.

Secondly.....quit asking questions where you presuppose some given (10x greater than), without providing a credible source that hasn't already been refuted many many many many times in this thread and others.

Yer seriously sounding like a broken record.....which is why people are leaving this discussion. We beat you over the head with data and you blithely continue to ignore it.

[Harlowe]

Embar it seems like you just read that from some article by a naysayer and decided to then post it here as part of your argument....a month later. I'm with Kulaf, where are your sources for those claims?

Also using terms like "in the past" or "average" without giving specifics is disingenuous.

[Partha]

1. Why have, in the past, CO2 levels been 10x higher than they are today, and the planet's atmosphere was cooler?
2. When CO2 levels were 10x higher than they are today, and humans hadn't evolved yet, what could have caused that level of CO2?

Gee, I wish there was some way we could go back in time and see if this question was answered. Like, on page 2?

Jesus Christ, are you people myopic. You'd think the entire world consisted solely of a temperature gauge and a CO2 reader.

Do any of you deniers happen to know what life was like on the planet 450M years ago? You're trying to compare apples to hockey pucks.

Truth is, 450 million years ago is when the first plants appeared on land. They were slow and inefficient at scrubbing out CO2, so they were a negligible impactor on CO2 levels. Now, however, we have the majority of the land masses of the earth covered in green things that eat CO2 - and levels are STILL rising.

You know what chemicals are produced by modern industrial practices like burning coal - or you should. You can measure exactly how much CO2 they're putting into the air. How you deny that humans are influencing the condition of the planet by a level unseen in modern life history of the planet is beyond belief.

Sadly, it's no longer beyond belief.

[Embar Angylwrath]

What was on the planet 450 million years ago is irrelevant. The pablum being fed to the masses is increased CO2 = increased temperatures. (By the way, the person who states the CO2 levels 450 million years ago were 10x of what they are today is Tim Patterson, paleoclilmatologist, author of over 100 published and peer reviewed articles). If CO2 levels were 10x higher than they are today, and CO2 = increased temperature, then whay was the earth much colder then, than it is now?

And as a side note, you're beginning to see what political reactions to "global warming" can do to world populations. The bio-fuels push has helped exacerbate a world food shortage (crisis). Thanks to the redirection of grains into the bio-fuels market, more people are starving.

[Lurker]

Please notice that I was the last person to post on this thread, before I posted again. Refuting the tired mantra of Lurker that I run away from this debate. Seems he has run away from the debate.

Congratulations on being able to recycle the same statements over and over again.

I'm not going to keep debating a Chatty Cathy Doll.

[Partha]

The pablum being fed to the masses is increased CO2 = increased temperatures.

Simple experiment. So simple, I bet even Embar can do it.

Get two vacuum jars. Fill one with CO2. Fill one with normal air.

Place both in sunlight. Wait a couple of hours. Measure the temperature inside the jars. One's hotter. Guess which one?

[Lurker]

Oh yeah, Partha? Well if CO2 leads to warming then why did it get colder last night, huh??? Did all the CO2 suddenly vanish??!?

[Partha]

Because the Cubs won, and hell froze over.

I expect a new Greater Ice Age if they win the Series.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The pablum being fed to the masses is increased CO2 = increased temperatures.

Simple experiment. So simple, I bet even Embar can do it.

Get two vacuum jars. Fill one with CO2. Fill one with normal air.

Place both in sunlight. Wait a couple of hours. Measure the temperature inside the jars. One's hotter. Guess which one?

I thinkk this is a great illustration of why som many of you bought into hype. You think the atmospheric dynamics are driven by a low number of variables.

[Lurker]

I thinkk this is a great illustration of why som many of you bought into hype. You think the atmospheric dynamics are driven by a low number of variables.

The answer to the questions you keep endlessly cycling through is very simple and I gave it in August of last year in the other thread.

For the final time:

CO2 is not always the main driver behind warming and cooling of the planet, but human caused CO2 is almost certainly the main driver now.

You can now get the last word and win the debate! Congratulations.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lurker - you can't have it both ways. CO2 just doesn't decide on its own to become more or less involved with atmosphere. You still haven't explained why when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, the earth was much colder. Can Partha explain that using his simple CO2 ina jar experiment? I think not.

The theory that CO2 has a major impact on global warming must fit all scenarios, otherwise its a flawed scientific theory.

[Kulaf]

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm

Wait......was that research showing that tectonic uplift might also be a factor in global climate and might in fact have overridden the effect of increased CO2 levels "450 million years ago"......why I believe it was.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nope, that's not it.

Please notice that Patterson maintains the CO2 levels were still 10x of what they are today WHEN it was deep in the throes of an ice age. And the study you linked didn't mention at all what the levels of CO2 were before the cooling, and what they were after the cooling.

[Harlowe]

I just ...have to post this.




Because, nothing new is really being argued here, we could go back to the first few pages and see this same ping-pong discussion.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ok Harlowe,

Here's some new stuff. According to data from four prominant data sources measuring temps over the last few decades (HadCRUT, RSS, UAH and GISS), the temperature of the atmosphere has been dropping over the last 10 years when it spiked in 1998. And in the last 12 months or so, the drop was precipitous, back to a point that we saw back in the two decades 1920-1940 or so.

Interestingly enough, the spike in 1998 was accompanied by an El Nino year, and the drop this year was accompanied by a LA Nina (both ocean current phenomena). There are reports coming out now that climatologists expect a general cooling over the next few years too. They point to, guess what, ocean currents as the cause of the cooling.

So obviously, CO2 is not the main driver of global heating/cooling. Looks ocean currents have the ability to drive climate temps faster and more dramatically than CO2 ever could.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. But does it have the grand and powerful effect on the atmosphere as some think? I don't think so, and when we see data like this, it certainly refutes claims such as Lurker's, in that CO2 is THE driving factor in the atmosphere today.

Links for your enjoyment.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 ... l-metrics/