Eaarth

[cfg83]

Arragonis -

Originally Posted by Arragonis

...

There are several levels of socialism just as there are several levels of Conservatism, Libertarianism and even AGW Skepticism - ranging from its all an evil conspiracy to we just don't know. Painting a whole continent as being socialist is far too simplistic.

...

I forget where I read it, but there was a study comparing political platforms in the USA and Europe. Their conclusion was that a "normal" USA Democrat is to the right of a "normal" European conservative.

I'm a Lefty in the USA. The sad part from my POV is that the Left and the Right *need* each other to keep the other honest. If you live in a political-monoculture you typically end up with a worst-case-scenario.

CarloSW2

[NeilBlanchard]

I'm going to ignore your strawman arguments, and your personal insults.

The insulating effect of our atmosphere is what slows down the heat loss back out into space. The Moon lack any significant atmosphere, so it gets very cold.

It is the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere which is most responsible for insulating the Earth, and slowing down the heat loss to a point where the temperature is livable. By changing the level of carbon dioxide rapidly by a significant amount greater than at any time during human existence or indeed higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years -- can only mean that temperatures will increase to be hotter than at any time during that period of time.

We can look back at even earlier history to see what happened, and when, in relation to the carbon dioxide levels. At the point about 65 million years ago, when the island that became what we call India finished moving out of the southern hemisphere, and ran into the southern part of Asia -- the level of volcanic activity diminished, and the rate of weathering increased.

Carbon dioxide was at about 1,000PPM at the point -- and there was no permanent ice anywhere on Earth, and it was essentially tropical everywhere on Earth -- with alligators etc., living in the place we now call Alaska. Then the level of carbon dioxide began to drop, as the weathering process occurred. When carbon dioxide level reach about 450PPM, then Antarctica started to freeze up. Later, when the levels dropped lower, the Arctic froze up.

So, we know about what level these critical things happen. Those thresholds are what all the concern is about. Again, these things happen because of chemistry and physics, and they will occur whether or not all humans agree with it or not.

When the people who know the most about the climate get very concerned, then we should all be very concerned, too.

Do you think you can second guess Stephen Hawking on his area of expertise? How about a vulcanologist? Or, an oceanographer? Or, a geologist? Would you argue with Craig Venter about DNA?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I'm going to ignore your strawman arguments, and your personal insults.

So let me get this straight...

You somehow think that solar irradiance (defined as the amount of solar output that is delivered at a unit area per unit time) is some sort of a strawman argument? Especially when the solar irradiance data shown can easily be seen to be correlated to the rise in average temperature and the rise in average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration?

Are you now going to claim that increased solar output causing higher temperatures on Earth, is just a strawman argument?

It's not an insult if it happens to be correct, Neil. You are now directly ignoring direct scientific data showing a valid and credible cause of rising temperatures, from a reputable source, and are continuing to blame Mankind for global warming. Not an insult, just an observation.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The insulating effect of our atmosphere is what slows down the heat loss back out into space. The Moon lack any significant atmosphere, so it gets very cold.

And very HOT, Neil. You forgot that.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere which is most responsible for insulating the Earth, and slowing down the heat loss to a point where the temperature is livable. By changing the level of carbon dioxide rapidly by a significant amount greater than at any time during human existence or indeed higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years -- can only mean that temperatures will increase to be hotter than at any time during that period of time.

WRONG!!!

It is water vapor that is most responsible for the greenhouse effect. Even real pro-AGW scientists agree with that.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We can look back at even earlier history to see what happened, and when, in relation to the carbon dioxide levels. At the point about 65 million years ago, when the island that became what we call India finished moving out of the southern hemisphere, and ran into the southern part of Asia -- the level of volcanic activity diminished, and the rate of weathering increased.

Carbon dioxide was at about 1,000PPM at the point -- and there was no permanent ice anywhere on Earth, and it was essentially tropical everywhere on Earth -- with alligators etc., living in the place we now call Alaska. Then the level of carbon dioxide began to drop, as the weathering process occurred. When carbon dioxide level reach about 450PPM, then Antarctica started to freeze up. Later, when the levels dropped lower, the Arctic froze up.

So, we know about what level these critical things happen. Those thresholds are what all the concern is about. Again, these things happen because of chemistry and physics, and they will occur whether or not all humans agree with it or not.

When the people who know the most about the climate get very concerned, then we should all be very concerned, too.

You are again confusing cause and effect, Neil. Just like I knew you would.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Do you think you can second guess Stephen Hawking on his area of expertise? How about a vulcanologist? Or, an oceanographer? Or, a geologist? Would you argue with Craig Venter about DNA?

Why do you continue to persist with these pleas to authority, Neil? By your own logic, you should not question the thousands of climatologists who are skeptical of AGW.

Originally Posted by t vago

Solar irradiation estimates from NOAA. First set here. (Are you going to claim that NOAA is now tainted?)


Total solar irradiance from 1855 AD to 1982 AD.

Diid Maankind caause the Suun to increase its ouutput duuring the tiime we weere buurning foossil fuuels, Neeil?

Second set here. (Well, Neil? Are you?)

Total solar irradiance from 1852 AD to 2007 AD.

Those curves above and below the main curve represent one standard deviation from the main curve.

Gee, Neil, looks like the Sun increased its output during the same time period as your precious graphs depicting the rise of carbon dioxide. Gee, Neil, looks like the two sets of graphs tend to track each other pretty well. Gee, Neil, looks like the Sun warmed up at about the same time carbon dioxide increased.

Gee, Neil, looks like AGW isn't proven.

You know, I think I'll just cut-n-paste this to every one of my responses to you about Eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarth, Neil. Strawman argument, indeed.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by t vago

Why do you continue to persist with these pleas to authority, Neil? By your own logic, you should not question the thousands of climatologists who are skeptical of AGW.

Ah, but they are the wrong kind of climatologists. Only politically correct ones are credible.

You know, I think I'll just cut-n-paste this to every one of my responses to you about Eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarth, Neil. Strawman argument, indeed.

Not a bad idea. Being a professional activist, (and from what we've seen of the volume of his posting activity,) Neil probably has an archive full of videos and "sources" at his disposal and more time on his hands than you do.

[NeilBlanchard]

So, what will it take for you to acknowledge the fact that we have rapid global climate change?

When the Arctic is ice free in the late summer?

When the Greenland largely melts into the ocean, raising the ocean level many feet?

When all the "perma-frost" melts and releases a torrent of methane?

When California and the southwest USA runs out of water?

When we have the hottest decade, after the hottest decade, after the hottest decade?

What if all those "crazy" IPCC scientists were right, and by the time that you decide to swallow your pride, we have already passed the critical threshold and we are having millions of climate refugees -- people, like you and me, having to leave their homes?

[t vago]

Hm... let me try my own plea to authority. Neil uses it so much, so there must be some credibility associated with it.

Consensus? What consensus?

Oreskes (2004) said she had analyzed "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change'." She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the "consensus" view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position...."

Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, conducted a search of the peer-reviewed literature on the ISI Web of Science database between 1993 and 2003. He found not 928 but more than 12,000 papers mentioning the phrase "climate change". ... According to Dr. Peiser, fewer than one-third of the papers analyzed by Oreskes either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the "consensus", contrary to Oreskes’ assertion that the figure was 75%. In addition, 44 abstracts focused on the natural as opposed to anthropogenic causes of climate change, and did not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human actitivies, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change. More than half of the abstracts did not mention anthropogenic climate change at all and could not, therefore, reasonably be held to have commented either way upon the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes.

Cao et al. (2005) point out that, without the ability to quantify variations in the terrestrial carbon sink both regionally and over time, climate projections are unreliable –

Gerhard (2004), discussing the conflict between observation, theory, and politics, says –

Leiserowitz (2005) reports –

Lai et al. (2005) offer an entirely new hypothesis to explain recent warming of the climate –

Moser (2005) explores the assessment of rising sea levels and in state-level managerial and policy responses to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise in three US states –

Shaviv (2006) considers the cosmic-ray forcing posited by Svensmark et al. (2006), and concludes that, if the effect is real, natural climate variability rather than anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect has contributed more than half of the warming over the past century –

Zhen-Shan and Xian (2007) say that CO2 forcing contributes less to temperature change than natural climate variability, that the anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect –

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, what will it take for you to acknowledge the fact that we have rapid global climate change?

When the Arctic is ice free in the late summer?

When the Greenland largely melts into the ocean, raising the ocean level many feet?

When all the "perma-frost" melts and releases a torrent of methane?

...yawn...

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

When California and the southwest USA runs out of water?

When we have the hottest decade, after the hottest decade, after the hottest decade?

The hottest year recorded in recent history was 1934. That implies all subsequent years were COOLER than 1934. ("NASA's ground-based temperature records for the past 120 years -- which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions -- have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.")

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What if all those "crazy" IPCC scientists were right, and by the time that you decide to swallow your pride, we have already passed the critical threshold and we are having millions of climate refugees -- people, like you and me, having to leave their homes?

You mean, all of those lock-step consensus types, like the ones I showed above? And how will a worst-case estimate rise of 5 cm over 100 years cause me to leave my home here in Ohio?

Stop with the emotional pleas, already, Neil! I can't do emotional like you can.

[roflwaffle]

For the love of Pete, is being polite and/or constructive really that bad? The increase in solar irradiance has probably increased the temperature but it probably hasn't been enough to account for all of the increases. If anyone has a problem w/ the data, for instance the IPCC's stuff, feel free to point out what specifically is wrong.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by t vago

...
The hottest year recorded in recent history was 1934. That implies all subsequent years were COOLER than 1934. ("NASA's ground-based temperature records for the past 120 years ...

umm... which NASA are we talking about, and were they measuring the globe or some points on a continent?
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever - ScienceNOW
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

[t vago]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

The increase in solar irradiance has probably increased the temperature but it probably hasn't been enough to account for all of the increases. If anyone has a problem w/ the data, for instance the IPCC's stuff, feel free to point out what specifically is wrong.

Neil will just ignore it or deride it. Hell, 70+ responses like this have shown this to be the case.

[NeilBlanchard]

Yes please -- show me this (new?) data on NASA's own web site.

As for the rest of it, I'm sure that if those papers have scientific merit, then the accepted science will acknowledge it, and the overall conclusions will be adjusted. This is how the scientific process works.

As I said before, are you in a habit of criticizing scientists outside of your field of expertise? What makes you think you can in this case?

Originally Posted by t vago

Neil will just ignore it or deride it. Hell, 70+ responses like this have shown this to be the case.

You need to reread the post you quoted.