Climate science arrogance

We are in a mass extinction event now, the very fact that we are observing species going extinct, many species in our lifetimes is extremely unusual in world history.
Yet we can list hundreds, thousands of species that have gone extinct in the last 100 years.
That's the proof that we are currently in a mass extinction event, the fact that we are witnessing species going extinct in large numbers.

 

That's not a correlation, because we don't know how many of the non-blind children had eaten carrots. If the value is the same, the correlation is zero.

Is there a denier on this forum who actually knows math?

- - - Updated - - -

It's not CO2 that causes extinction, it's rapid climate change. CO2 is one cause of rapid climate change, but not the only one.

 

Earth's global climate is primariliy determined by the Sun.

Earth's global climate is secondarily deterimned by Earth's electromgnatic field.

The ancillary contributors to Earth's global climate are, in order of significance are: The percentage of Earth's surface that is water,
the speed of Earth's rotation, its tilt upon its axis and life.

Living organisms contribute a vanishingly insignificant percentage of what determines Eath's global climate,
and human activity contributes a similarly insignificant percentage of what is contributed by living organisms.

Anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is based upon an anthropocentric arrogance.

Human activities do not raise global temperatures any more than peeing in the ocean raises sea levels.

Even if human took credit for all of the contributions of all living organisms, we would still far wildly short of being able to affect Earth's global climate on a catastrophic level.

 

How many of them are right? That you cannot tell us.

 

I would say that a preacher or politician who made a statement based on physics would be much more likely to be right than one who made a statement based on fear, predjudice, superstition, religion, or politics.

Wouldn't you?

 

yes and no. No-one has denied that the sun influences climate BUT the solar signal is getting swamped by the CO2 feedbacks

Linky??? Mind you if the electromagnetic field has been stable for millennia - why is the climate changing?

Linky?? Ref?? And you forgot a few - like albedo and atmospheric composition

Really? When we have evidence that bacteria have changed the entire composition of the atmosphere in the past?

But our contribution is cumulative

No, I would say dismissing the fact that humanity is burning 83 million tons of oil per day and deforesting the planet at historical rate might be considered arrogance

Ah! The dirty bedroom excuse "But MUUUUUM I didn;t do it!!"

Define catastrophic level

 

Since politicians like Gore are making statements based on fear and prejudice, you have a point.

 

And people like Monckton are making money off of denialism - your point??

 

ironicaly gore's name is never brought up by anyone on our side of the debate...enevitably it's denierland desperately searching for the most microscopic scrap of evidence to support their loony ideas, that resort to bloggers, non experts, charlatans, schils and loons... they lost the intelligence war before the debate even began, which is a sad reflection of our educational systems that such a profound scientific ignorance should still exist...

 

I have this thing - if they mention Gore I counter with Monckton. I even challenge many to prove who is the bigger "liar" - a couple of rounds of Monckton and every one backs off because his claims are so looney tunes that even the denialists find them hard to swallow

 

...and that only accounts for 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is only .03% of the atmosphere.

 

Yep, and it all depends on what that handlers of the so-called scientists want to disseminate from the data.

 

Dinosaurs and other prehistoric plants and animals existed for millions of years with CO2 levels much higher than today.

 

False. It accounts for over 40% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and it was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs lived, in spite of the fact that the Sun was a lot cooler then. Can you explain that?

 

But not in the tropics. Plus there was time for adaptation

 

I don't think so: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Because CO2 levels were way higher back then than they are today.

 

He's flat-out wrong. Which is why he could never get that page past peer-review: anybody with the slightest bit of knowledge of the carbon cycle would laugh him out of the room.

Human fossil carbon emissions since the industrial revolution amount to 365 billion tons through 2010 ( http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems ). Burning that much carbon creates 1.33 trillion tons of CO2. (It also reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere -- and by even greater amounts, since much of that carbon is in hydrocarbon molecules which also produces water when burned. The reduction in atmospheric oxygen has been observed, and is consistent with the amount of fossil fuel burned by humans. If there is some other way climate deniers can explain the observed reduction in atmospheric oxygen, we would all be very interested to hear it. But don't bother looking on denier blogs for the answer, because those "scientists" aren't interested in problems they can't lie about.)

Since the total mass of the atmosphere is 5.15e18 kg, and the amount of CO2 we have added is 1.33e15 kg, we have added 259 parts per million of CO2 by mass, which is 171 ppm by volume. That's what we know we've added to the air since 1750, from industrial records. But we also know from ice core records and contemporary reccords (here, here, here) that the actual amount atmospheric CO2 increase since 1750 is only 110 ppmv through 2010. Which means that the oceans and soils must be acting as a net sink for some of the anthropogenic CO2 we have created, and cannot therefore be acting as a net source for CO2.

In other words, we are responsible for 100% of the atmospheric CO2 increase. Conservation of Mass demands it. Case closed.

Exactly. It's the rate of climate change that causes extinction, not CO2, because species don't have time to adapt. And the current rate of change is about ten times faster than the fastest rate we experienced coming out of the last ice age.

 

That's the fact that the deniers continually ignore when they pull out their "it was higher" argument.

 

So the IPCC has reduced the rate of increase with AR5 by half from previous ARs. What do you think they will do 7 years from now?

 

I am proud to be a climate stability denier.

Anthrpogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is one of the most ridiculous propositions in history. Human contributions to global climate are vanishingly insignificant.

THE EMPERER HAS NO CLOTHES.

 

"the world is flat"

 

And yet another unsubstantiated claim from a Merchant of Doubt

 

Sorry you are not up on your reading. Sucks to be you.

 

and we're catastophically heating it up.

 

A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.

Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a “subtropical species.”

Skeptics of manmade climate change say there is no evidence the Earth is warming. A UN report on the scientific data behind global warming released in September indicated that global surface temperatures have not increased for the past 15 years, but scientists who believe climate change due to man is occurring say it has merely paused because of several factors and will soon resume.

The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink” to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.

Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science.

“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”