Climate change: Is it for real?

Climate change or better termed at their present time as global warming IS real. What may or may not be real is whether or not humans can change this natural course of nature. Most studies show that no matter what we do it will have little effect on the natural climate cycle. We are technically and scientifically still in a preglacial cycle. Based on historical records. The earth has experienced this many times. New York for instance was covered by ice in the past. The earth has experienced higher temperatures in the past. We can work to alter the climate but should not raise energy costs that are already a huge expense to the population hoping it will drastically change the climate in the near future,because there is no science that supports nthis. Period

 

So you're interested in playing semantical games, and have no interest in the science, and no interest in defending the OP. Gotcha.

And, just as I predicted, you ignore the graph I posted, and ignore the data you find politically inconvenient. Essentially, you're ignoring reality because you don't like Democrats. Brilliant logic, there.

 

Wrong. (But I suppose that this line--even if it is palpably untrue--perfectly fits your agenda.)

What I am actually interested in is science--not the comparative number of scientists in each camp.

 

It is undeniable that we are experiencing climate change, this time, climate WARMING. We have no scientific proof of what will happen in the next year to 100+ years, we can only look at the past history of the climate cycle. We also have no scientific proof that indicates humans can significantly alter this cycle.

To use this natural change in the climate cycle to promote a political agenda and raise the cost of electric and gas, clearly the lower cost form of energy at the present time is deceitful. At such time that solar, wind energy becomes less costly than coal and gas, they won't need to force us to use it, we will want to.

 

Climate change is real. Duh! However, the idea that man can do anything about it is the real question in my opinion. The climate always changes since the beginning of the earth.

 

That's what you claim, and yet when I specifically asked you to address the science -- in this graph -- you didn't say one word.

So it seems to me that you don't really give a hoot about the science. You're just pretending to.

 

"Proof" is a lawyer's word, not a scientist's. Science is always open to new evidence. What we do have is a mountain of evidence that strongly supports human-caused climate change.

Perhaps then you can explain this evidence:

To make a mess and leave it for others to clean up is immoral. And that's just what we're doing with the climate.

 

Gotta love the search for a hockey stick. Even have to splice different papers together to get them. Also, with Kinnard Et Al the major proxy used, 22 O18 series, out of 69 shows no hockey stick so you wonder which proxy was spliced on to make it look like a hockey stick.

BTW, you can't tack on modern records to proxies if you want to stay credible. Remember, Mann made cooling in the proxies disappear by splicing.

 

No, you don't have to wonder at all. You can read the paper. But then reading science is not allowed by the ayatollahs of Denierstan.

Sure you can. It happens all the time. To assert otherwise, you would have to assert that 1°C in, say, 1000 BC was different than 1°C today. And that kind of idiocy is only allowed in Denierstan.

False, and already refuted by the National Academy of Science.

 

For openers, I really do not know what methodology was used to arrive at this conclusion.

Moreover, I do not see anything in this graph about anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) global warming.

You would really do better to just stick to factual arguments, rather than imputing bad motives (including an indifference to the truth) to those with whom you disagree...

 

Then you must not have examined the graph very closely. Do you know how to find the CO2 data from Mauna Loa (Keeling) and Law Dome (Ethridge)? Do you know how to find annual temperatures from GISS? Do you know how to take a logarithm, and why it's necessary here (Beer's Law)? Can you lag temperature response relative to CO2 forcing, to account for thermal inertia?

If you can handle that, you can reproduce the graph above without my help.

Do you accept that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is 100% anthropogenic? Or shall we go back a step?

So when you go around spouting about "leftists" with "agendas", what factual arguments are you sticking to? Or don't your rules apply to you?

 

No, I do not; and I will not pretend otherwise.

Why should I?

I have made my "factual arguments" in this thread.

In any case, your response is nothing more than an excellent example of the tu quoque fallacy. (If you really do not know what that is, then I would suggest that you look it up.)

 

Yea, it's real and is changin' from summer to autumn...

... so Uncle Ferd bought Granny a new rake...

... so's she can rake leaves.

 

LOL, your first link doesn't even have the hockey stick, someone else tacked that on.

Your second is about proxies, nothing about Mann's nature trick.

What a hoot, you don't even know what you post.

 

Here you go. Here is the temperature chart of that very alarming warming that is touted by the alarmists.

 

Fair enough. Beer's Law governs the attenuation of light (including infrared light) by a liquid or gas. That absorption is not linear (in other words, twice as much gas does NOT give you twice as much absorption). Instead, absorption is logarithmic: twice as much liquid gives you about 69% more absorption (because the logarithm of 2 is .69). Since CO2 in the air absorbs infrared, its behavior follows Beer's Law. Therefore, if you graph the logarithm of CO2 (or ln(CO2) in mathspeak) you've factored out the logarithmic response, and what remains should be linear. As the graph shows.

Oceans have thermal inertia: if you change the energy balance on the oceans (or on any body of water), the temperature doesn't change as rapidly as the energy changes. That's why it takes time to boil water on a stove. So if you want to determine how increasing CO2 should affect surface temperatures, you need to do two things: (1) use the logarithm of CO2, to account for Beer's Law; and (2) lag the temperature relative to CO2 forcing, to account for thermal inertia of the oceans.

The graph I posted shows that when you do those things, the result is linear -- just as we expect from theory. More CO2 in the air does indeed make Earth warmer. And the amount of warming can be easily determined from the graph: to determine "climate sensitivity" -- the amount of warming we get if CO2 doubles -- multiply the slope of the graph by ln(2): 3.8952 × .69315 = 2.7°C per doubling. This is in the middle of the IPCC's accepted range for sensitivity of 1.5° to 4.5° per doubling.

Links to the raw data were in my previous post.

Because when something has been shown to be correct by an unrefuted mountain of evidence, you just make yourself look stupid if you don't accept it.

From the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysys Center (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems), total anthropogenic fossil carbon emissions from 1750-2010 were 364,725 MtC (derived from industrial records, not in dispute); if you burn 364,725 MtC you get 1.336 x 10[sup]15[/sup] kg of CO2 (basic chem). The mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 × 10[sup]18[/sup] kg [Trenberth, K. E., & Smith, L. (2005). The mass of the atmosphere: A constraint on global analyses. Journal of Climate, 18(6), 864-875.] Divide our known contribution by the total mass of the atmosphere, and we know that we have added 1.336 x 10[sup]15[/sup] / 5.1480 × 10[sup]18[/sup] = 260 parts per million by mass, which for CO2 is 171 parts per million by volume. That's what we know we've added to the air, from industrial records.

But when we look at CO2 data, both historical (ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt) and from ice cores (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt) we don't see a rise of 171 ppmv during the period 1750-2010. We only see a rise of 113 ppmv in the atmosphere.

So what happened to the remaining 58 ppmv? Four hundred and fifty billion tonnes of CO2 cannot just vanish! It must exist somewhere. And the answer, of course, is that the natural world, the oceans and soils (plus a tiny bit for the lithosphere) has absorbed some of the CO2 that we have emitted into the air -- which is why it's not in the air any more. And that means that the natural world, taken as a whole, must be acting as a net sink for CO2, which means that the natural world cannot also be acting as a net source for CO2.

Therefore, humans are responsible for 100% of the atmospheric increase in CO2.

And since, as the graph shows (and a lot of other data shows) increased atmospheric CO2 results in increased surface temperatures, humans are in fact responsible for global warming.

Tu quoque is a moral argument, and like all moral arguments it does not refute a logical argument. However, tu quoque can indeed refute another moral argument, and often does. For example: Ms. A makes the logical argument: "x, therefore y". Mr. B responds tu quoque: "But y goes against your moral position." Mr. B has not responded to Ms. A's logical argument, nor has he refuted it; instead, he employs a moral argument to derail the conversation. But if instead Ms. A had made a moral argument: "I believe y", then Mr. B's identical tu quoque response, "But y goes against your moral position" would be an appropriate moral refutation of her moral argument.

In the present case, you made a moral, rather than a logical argument. You said that it would be "better" (moral argument) to stick to facts rather than to impugn the motives of others. Therefore, a moral tu quoque response (but you impugn the motives of others) is a correct refutation, and entirely appropriate.

You can look that one up.

 

climate change is real and I know no one that would ever dispute that. It's called a change of season, climate moves temperatures around the globe along with weather. Now what is not real is CO2 influencing climate.

And for that, it is real that no one can prove it.

So post up that proof anytime and we'll a look at that.

 

it's called anthropogenic global warming for a reason

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

"The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.



Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.



Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

[video=youtube;5LvaGAEwxYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvaGAEwxYs[/video]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Wash, rinse, repeat. More from the cartoonists alarmist blog. To be expected.

BTW, I posted the actual global temperature graph. Show us the alarming warming on that graph.

 

of course you can't refute the facts

the graph you posted is malarkey, it's not even sourced

 

wash, rinse, repeat. Dude how many times have we explained this isn't evidence. I see that you are not a quick learner though. But hey you post up that experiment that shows what is and isn't human CO2 and what 20 PPM of CO2 can do.

I mean I get it, you don't know what the word evidence means.

 

your dishonesty is amusing

 

what does that mean?

Edit: Oh yeah, you know you're wrong and I'm right. LOL

 

it means that i know the science, evidence and facts say you're wrong