Climate Change

[PersianPaladin]

You fail to realise that even if a doubling of CO2 may well only result in about 1.2C global average temp increases - the consequences it has for feedback mechanisms, are really tremendous.

Sure sounds scary, there PP.

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

David Wasdell discussed the paloeclimatic findings in a youtube video I posted earlier in this thread.

The 1.2C measurement is a conservative one - and assumes no feed-backs. This is a discussion of the temperature rises with respect to CO2 increase:-
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Chri ... ffects.pdf

"One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. "
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa ... hange.html

As for the persistent claim that the fact that "CO2 lags temperature" somehow "debunks" AGW....I suggest people read this:-

"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

*
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
*
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
*
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-doe ... ature.html

[PersianPaladin]

In an email forwarded to me by a friend, was this gem:

Scary story about Global Warming

Please read all the way to the end!

FLASH NEWS!!!!

The Washington Post

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Oops. Never mind.

This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in

The Washington Post - 88 years ago!

(Color and bolding mine for effect)

Hmmmmmmmm....

Cheers, Dave.

That doesn't tell us anything about the total area of Arctic melt/re-freezing. It also doesn't tell us about the actual depth of the ice - and satellites can measure sea-ice thickness even below the ocean.

Also, the Arctic Ocean ice-range is more dynamic than the Greenland ice-shelf. The latter is of considerably great concern if it melts.

I also suggest people read up on Arctic Amplification with respect to AGW. It explains why most of the warming is currently towards the poles, rather than at lower latitudes.

Regards,

~PP

[Lloyd]

* Yeah, everything we say is discredited. And your idols are always right and perfect. They're full of hype as the article I cited earlier explained. Just the usual Doom and Gloom.
* So you want to tax everyone for breathing and prevent the third world from developing technology to end their poverty.

[PersianPaladin]

* Yeah, everything we say is discredited. And your idols are always right and perfect. They're full of hype as the article I cited earlier explained. Just the usual Doom and Gloom.
* So you want to tax everyone for breathing and prevent the third world from developing technology to end their poverty.

No, I do not.

I suggest you read my article "Why are climate scientists ignoring peak oil and coal?", and then read the comments section where I respond to claims that "we need to end all CO2 output".
http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news/504 ... l-and-coal

As you can see - I state that it is a massively wasteful and destructive GLOBALISED industrial-economy that has contributed to the exponential rises of CO2. It is not the burning of fuel for heating homes or cooking food that has caused these problems. And developing alternative-technologies need not be overly expensive for any country.

Just because some politicians/bankers may hijack the very real and credible science of AGW (i.e. the "never allow a good crisis go to waste" mentality) doesn't mean that the solutions have to lie in their framework.

And my article demonstrates that we have no choice but to develop alternatives and end our debt-based insane money system too. I expand on that here:-
http://hozturner.blogspot.com/2011/01/p ... ere-i.html

[Jarvamundo]

You fail to realise that even if a doubling of CO2 may well only result in about 1.2C global average temp increases - the consequences it has for feedback mechanisms, are really tremendous.

Sure sounds scary, there PP.

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

David Wasdell discussed the paloeclimatic findings in a youtube video I posted earlier in this thread.

The 1.2C measurement is a conservative one - and assumes no feed-backs. This is a discussion of the temperature rises with respect to CO2 increase:-
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Chri ... ffects.pdf

PP, your claim was that a doubling of CO2 leads to 1.2C. You've now indicated that this is a conservative estimate!

Sounds even scarier now.

And so i repeat:

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

[paulvsheridan]

This is a classic example of why I do not waste my time in forums where the administrators allow for anonymous posts/participants. Such is the case here, in droves, by this so-called "PersianPaladin."

At its onset, this forum author indicated, and in a not-very-subtle manner (i.e. by classic default), that his true purpose was gatekeeping. Therefore, by definition, the discussion must eventually descend into tautologies at-best, diversions eventually, and diatribe in-time.

Just so we are clear, for those of us so burdened, the focus/origin of the gatekeeping is also anything but subtle. Many will recognize this frantic arm-waving as not only having a long, obnoxious and therefore recognizable history, but will see it as a blatant part of the now-currently globally deteriorating cultural/social agenda that these particular gatekeepers have long-called, "Securing of the Realm." As this agenda becomes increasingly exposed (for what it is), its days become increasingly numbered; but now we must endure, and indeed quell its final moments that are aptly characterized as "desparation mode." The latter includes din such as this thread.

From cute misstatements to outright falsehoods to recently outrightly criminal behavior*, the Realm continues to pose a real danger at all levels of human endeavor because its intrinsic purpose is implictly not the truth, but its own cultural ends.

For those who know exactly what I am talking about; I say, our burden remains at least for a short time longer. For those who are not sure or those that have no idea; I say, good . . . remain focused on the pursuit of the truth for the explicit benefit of all humanity . . . that burden will never include a "desparation mode."

My purpose here is not to be strident, but the entire tone of this thread is, in my non-anonymous opinion, repulsive.

* Can anyone say, "ClimateGate" as just one (thread relevant) example of the deteriorating Realm?

[laynegarner]

Anyone who has become convinced that humans cause global warming, simply has not learned much about actual science.

A simple test is to look at the predictions made by those professing any particular science.

In the case of the Global warming alarmists, none of their predictions are coming true. The only justification for their theory is computer simulations. The real world doesn't confirm any of their dire predictions.

There is actually more proof of global cooling than of warming, and no evidence at all that humans can cause either.

If your proof only exists in computer models, it isn't real science.

[Julian Braggins]

paulvsheridan » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:05 pm makes very good points about the bona fides of PP.

For those newcomers to the ongoing climate debate here are some websites worth visiting on a regular basis
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Chief Editor Patrick J. Michaels, a well credentialed climatologist with several books repudiating the conclusions of the Catastrophic Warmists. Articles going back to 2005 examining papers that have errors in fact or conclusions in their support of Anthropogenic GW .

http://www.co2science.org/

Dr Craig D. Idso and Dr Sherwood B. Idso of The Centre for the study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Has a vast repository of facts and papers on all aspects CO2 and its effects, plus a lot of documentation of other aspects of climate change

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

Claims to be the World’s most viewed climate website and it certainly rates a daily visit from me.
It reviews the latest information in the climate sphere, posts Guest Writers articles on climate subjects and has a lively comments section that can reach 300 or more posts in a day. It exposes sloppy work in papers in comments by some well credentialed posters, many of which have their own websites. Good Blogroll.

http://www.icecap.us/

Has several new articles daily on climate by both sides of the spectrum on climate change, with comment and analysis by editors.
Click on ‘The Blogosphere’ for a comprehensive list of Blog sites that cover all aspects of the climate controversy.

[Julian Braggins]

I omitted to include Lucy Skywalker's URL for a most revealing journey of a 'Warmist' turned 'Denier'
in which she faults with relevant science most of the 'facts' that ones such as P.P. like to spread around the blogworld. This should be the first stop for a 'newbie'

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Scien ... .htm#sense

[Lloyd]

* PP isn't anonymous. On the links he gave last time his name is given as Hossein Turner.
* His main intent seems to be to call for more sound economic change. He seems convinced that there's likely to be over 2 degrees Centigrade global warming by the end of this century and that current industrial economy is likely to come to a halt soon anyway, due to inflation, greater expense of oil production etc.
* I agree with the need for sound economy, but I think Walter Burien may be correct about the ruling class manipulating the economy via govt investments as shown on CAFRs, explained at http://cafr1.com.
* I concur on the general excellence of the science posted at http://co2science.org.

[PersianPaladin]

Okay. I'm going to try and summarise the issue of anthropogenic climate change as best as I can. I will try to draw upon what I know already (and have partly collated from books and my university course).

The following are paragraphs from the first chapter of Nafeez Ahmed's excellent book "A User's Guide To The Crisis Of Civilization - And How To Save It":-
http://iprd.org.uk/?p=224

Since 1900 there has been an approximately 0.7C rise in global average temperature. This increase cannot be accounted for by natural variations of solar and volcanic activity, nor by human-induced sulphate emissions, which act to reduce global temperature. It is only by including the impact of human-induced CO2 emissions that climate models are able to accurately stimulate the rise in global temperatures over the last century of industrial civlization. This does not mean that all climate change is solely due to our CO2 emissions. Scientists acknowledge that there are many other factors involved in climate change, such as solar activity, as well as periodic changes in the earth's orbit. Yet they have overwhelmingly confirmed that these are not the primary factors currently driving global warming.

Global warming sceptics often point to the fact that human-induced CO2 emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions from the ocean and vegetation. What they forget, however, is that natural emissions are balanced by natural absorptions by ocean and vegetation. This natural balance has become increasingly unstable due to additional CO2 emissions from industrial activities. In terms of natural emissions, consumption of vegetation by animals and microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 (Gt). The ocean releases about 330Gt. This totals about 770Gt of natural emissions. In terms of natural absorptions, land plants absorb about 440 Gt of carbon per year, and the ocean absorbs about 330Gt, again roughly totalling about 770Gt. This emission-absorption parity (770 Gt released and 770 absorbed) ensures that natural atmospheric CO2 levels remain in overall balance even as emissions and absorptions fluctuate over time. The problem is that this seemingly small addition of CO2 into the atmosphere by industrialization CANNOT BE ABSORBED BY THE PLANET. Only about 40 per cent of it is actually absorbed, largely by oceans (resulting in higher acidity), leaving 60 per cent in the atmosphere. Worse still, the oceans are increasingly losing their ability to absorb CO2, with the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic both approaching saturation point in 2007. This means that, with time, unprecedented concentrations of CO2 are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere. Just how unprecedented can be guaged by a simple example - while a natural change of 100 parts per million (ppm) takes between 5000 and 20,000 years, the recent increase of 100 ppm took only 120 years.

The majority of scientific studies show that climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions is high, or, in other words, that CO2 emissions induce large increases in global temperature. Despite the media images of a raging debate among climate scientists, the fundamentals are agreed upon - the direct connection between CO2 and global temperatures has been empirically observed by analysis of ice cores, paleoclimate records, observations of ocean heat update, and temperature responses to the solar cycle, among other data. The empirically focused studies, including published research from the 1990s to 2009, show that doubled CO2 emissions would contribute to warming within the range of at least 1.4C to 4.3C (Sources - J.Hansen, A. Lacis 1993; Stouffer et al 2002).

Furthermore, the link between CO2 and warming is confirmed by fundamental physicsts, including laboratory analysis on the degree to which CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared, as documented by University Of Chicago geoscientist Dr.Ray Pierrehumbert in his physics textbook on climate change.

Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to climate-skeptic groups with the aim of manufacturing uncertainty about even the most indisputable scientific evidence. This has not only generated considerable confusion in the media about climate change, it has also influenced US government policy.
In 2004, US geoscientist Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University Of California, San Diego, conducted a survey of the 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on gobal climate change from 1993 to 2003. She found that 75 per cent explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view, while 25 per cent took no position and dealt purely with methods of paleoclimate. Naomi stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." (Source http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686 )

One study by scientists from Finland and Germany, commonly used by climate skeptics, concludes that the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than in the preceding 1150 years. The scientists argue that "long-term climate variations are affected by solar magnetic activity". Yet the same study points out that correlation between solar activity and temperature CEASED in 1975, after which global average temperatures escalated despite solar activity remaining at a stationery level (http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publika ... i/c153.pdf)
More recently, in 2008, a study published by Nature noted that "the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional" and "may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century". Yet it goes on to confirm that:

"solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades...even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30 per cent of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin" (http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.prf)

(PersianPaladin's comment: Anybody with even the most basic scientific knowledge of our energy-system; would know that fossil-fuel usage has increased exponentially over the years; thus explaining the more noticable 1970+ impact/anamoly on temperature.)

The last 12,000 year period on planet earth was the beginning of a continuing warm interglacial period, whose current trend in the Milankovitch cycle is toward a gradual cooling down towards an ice age. This gradual cooling phase of the current cycle does not explain the current trend of global warming. Indeed, so unnatural is the current phase of global warming that Andre Berger, one of the worlds' leading experts on Quaternary climate change and honorary president of the European Geosciences Union, calculates that current industrial fossil fuel emissions could potentially suppress the next natural glacial cycle entirely (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5585/1287).

A British environmentalist George Monboit points out, to avoid dangerous climate change the entire world must dramatically reduce greenhouse gases by no less than 90 per cent by 2030 (in fact, it should be BEFORE 2020, with further efforts to safely capture and store carbon from the atmosphere through carbon sequestration, among other methods, according to Hansen). Doing so, he shows, would require large-scale changes in the infrastructure of Western societies to downsize energy consumption and revert to renewable energies.


(PersianPaladin's comment: Sadly, our current globalised political-economic industrial system (with deep control from vested corporate interests) stands in the way of such change. With green-washing and rhetoric seemingly the only thing that politicians and companies offer on the issue of climate change - it will be in the hands of the people to forcefully demand a change to this highly wasteful and damaging system.)

[PersianPaladin]

Anyone who has become convinced that humans cause global warming, simply has not learned much about actual science.

A simple test is to look at the predictions made by those professing any particular science.

In the case of the Global warming alarmists, none of their predictions are coming true. The only justification for their theory is computer simulations. The real world doesn't confirm any of their dire predictions.

There is actually more proof of global cooling than of warming, and no evidence at all that humans can cause either.

If your proof only exists in computer models, it isn't real science.

Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm

[PersianPaladin]

Nafeez Ahmed is NOT some establishment-apologist. He has done some important work in exposing some nefarious activities with respect to government, terrorism and 9/11 - as can be seen here:-

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7005

[PersianPaladin]

paulvsheridan » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:05 pm makes very good points about the bona fides of PP.

For those newcomers to the ongoing climate debate here are some websites worth visiting on a regular basis
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Chief Editor Patrick J. Michaels, a well credentialed climatologist with several books repudiating the conclusions of the Catastrophic Warmists. Articles going back to 2005 examining papers that have errors in fact or conclusions in their support of Anthropogenic GW .

http://www.co2science.org/

Dr Craig D. Idso and Dr Sherwood B. Idso of The Centre for the study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Has a vast repository of facts and papers on all aspects CO2 and its effects, plus a lot of documentation of other aspects of climate change

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

Claims to be the World’s most viewed climate website and it certainly rates a daily visit from me.
It reviews the latest information in the climate sphere, posts Guest Writers articles on climate subjects and has a lively comments section that can reach 300 or more posts in a day. It exposes sloppy work in papers in comments by some well credentialed posters, many of which have their own websites. Good Blogroll.

http://www.icecap.us/

Has several new articles daily on climate by both sides of the spectrum on climate change, with comment and analysis by editors.
Click on ‘The Blogosphere’ for a comprehensive list of Blog sites that cover all aspects of the climate controversy.

Those websites seriously insult my intelligence.

A cursory glance at a few articles on the website worlclimatereport.com (for example) show deep misunderstandings about the actual context of climate-related feedback mechanisms in the biosphere.

[Lloyd]

* It's nice to see that Ahmed is aware of the 9/11 related plots. Too bad he didn't find about some of the others regarding global warming, such as the following.
- This article http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/s ... _hoax.html shows that the global warming scare was started in 1975 by population control fanatics, led by Margaret Mead, who was president of the AAAS in 1974, the year the AAAS conducted a smear campaign against Velikovsky via their kangaroo court, called an AAAS symposium. Why did they make such a big fuss about Velikovsky? Could it be that his information about Venus being a young planet might undermine Sagan’s beloved greenhouse theory?
- Britain’s conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, took up the cause of global warming around 1979 for the purpose of undermining the power of the coal and oil labor unions, I believe. What took "liberal" Gore so long to get aboard the scare campaign?
- Here’s the initial portion of another article, explaining some of the IPCC fraud.
THE FRAUD OF GLOBAL WARMING
True C02 Record Buried Under Gore
by Laurence Hecht, Editor, 21st Century Science & Technology
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 070302.pdf

- The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck of the Merian-Schule, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre-1957 CO2 record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods from1857 to 1957.(1) 375.00 ppm in 1885 (Hempel in Dresden), 390.0 in 1866 (Gorup, Erlangen), and 416.0 in 1857 and 1858 (von Gilm, Innsbruck). Ironically, although the 1940s increase correlated with a period of average atmospheric warming, Beck and others have shown that the warming preceded the increase in CO2 concentrations.
- 1. “180 years accurate CO2 air gas analysis by chemical methods (short version),” an unofficial extract, Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006 http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdf, and private communication.
- The IPCC’s hoked-up record attempts to prove that CO2 concentrations have been steadily increasing with the progress of human industrial civilization. Beck’s work confirms a wealth of previous investigations which demonstrate that the IPCC cherry-picked its data in an attempt to prove that we must stop industrial development and return to the horse-and-buggy age, or face oppressive heat and melting of the polar ice caps. It shows that the Kyoto Treaty on reduction of greenhouse gases was based on a scientific fraud which violates the laws of the universe, denying the well-established determination of climate by cyclical variations in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship and in the Sun’s heat output.
- In a thorough review of 175 scientific papers, Professor Beck found that the founders of modern greenhouse theory, Guy Stewart Callendar and Charles David Keeling (a special idol of Al Gore’s), had completely ignored careful and systematic measurements by some of the most famous names of physical chemistry, among them several Nobel Prizewinners. Measurements by these chemists showed that today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 380 parts per million (ppm) has been exceeded in the past, including a period from 1936 to 1944, when the CO2 levels varied from 393.0 to 454.7 ppm.
- There were also measurements, accurate to within 3%, of (Gorup, Erlangen), and 416.0 in 1857 and 1858 (von Gilm, Innsbruck). Ironically, although the 1940s increase correlated with a period of average atmospheric warming, Beck and others have shown that the warming preceded the increase in CO2 concentrations.
- The data reviewed by Beck came mainly from the Northern Hemisphere, geographically spread from Alaska over Europe to Poona, India, nearly all taken from rural areas or the periphery of towns without contamination by industry, at a measuring height of approximately 2 meters above ground. Evaluation of chemical methods revealed a maximum error of 3% down to 1% in the best cases.
- By contrast, the measurements hoked up from ice cores, show a rather steady increase in CO2 levels, conveniently corresponding to the preconceived idea that increasing industrial activity has produced a steady CO2 increase. As Beck’s collaborator, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, former senior advisor to the Polish radiation monitoring service and a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, has shown, the gaseous inclusions in ice cores have no validity as historical proxies for atmospheric concentrations. The continual freezing, [thawing,] refreezing, and pressurization of ice columns drastically alters the original atmospheric concentrations of the gas bubbles.(2)
- 2. See “Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase” by Zbigniew Jaworowski and other references at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com under the topic “Global Warming.”