Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Chalenge]

There is a documented lowering in solar irradiance.   (It's not the sun.)

What does electromagnetic radiation have to do with global warming anyway? 

[MORAY37]

Assuming that we know all of the causes of those historic changes is something you seem comfortable with.  I do not.  Whether they were solar, core related, cosmic, axis related, or a combination of many factors (as I suspect) we can only specualte.  I do know one thing.  Man did not cause them.

What has man caused?  



What can CO₂ be shown as causal to?


www.usgcrp.gov

[saggs]

What has man caused?  

(Image removed from quote.)

What can CO₂ be shown as causal to?
(Image removed from quote.)

www.usgcrp.gov

I've wanted to stay out of this, but...  OH COME ON!!!!

Shortly after Gore's film came out, and people looked closer at the Co2/temp graph, it became apparent that... ... OMG!!  It's temperature leading Co2, no the other way around.

Now the EPA wants to classify Co2 as a pollutant

Guess we all have to stop exhaling to save the planet.

What that graph DOES show is that temperatures/Co2 are on a 150,000 year long cycle, with other short cycles in between.

So what caused the warming 150,000 years ago?   Mastodon farts?

[Widewing]

While your claim is true, that the "climate has changed at higher rates....etc etc etc", there is no evidence supporting the forcing of climate now based upon those historic changes.  

There is a documented lowering in solar irradiance.   (It's not the sun.)
There is a documented understanding of orbital mechanics. (It's not the earth's current position relative to the sun)
There is not a documented event that supports a change in Earth's climate.  (Volcanism is lower, and there hasn't been an impact in a few thousand years)
Background cosmic radiation, X an Gamma rays, has maintained a lower than historical norm for thousands of years.  (We're in between arms in our galaxy now, in some of the most peaceful areas this solar system has ever been through)

All of that "faster climate change" you noted has been documented to known and understood methods.

Here's my theory... Mankind has only been able to observe the changes in global weather since his technology enabled him to put satellites in orbit to make the observations. Since then, they have observed things that were not possible to see before.

Like small boys who suddenly discover their winkies, they cannot avoid playing with it.

Also, your last chart correlating Co2 vs temperature... Note that Co2 levels follow a rise in temperature. This makes a rise in Co2 an effect, not a cause. It's so obvious. It's also ignored by the Climate Mafia. Note cyclic pattern of temperature rise. This same phenomena had been occurring in recent decades (an extremely narrow slice of relative time). Of course, no one can accurately explain what previously caused the temperature, and hence Co2 levels, to rise in the first place. These days we have industrialized man to blame. The fact is that they're just playing with their newly discovered collective winkies, in a figurative sense.

Has the planet been warming? It has, or at least was (the whole debate brought to light by those stolen e-mails centers on hiding the unexpected decrease in global temperatures). But clearly, Co2 was not leading the rise, but following the rise.

If it is true that Co2 follows a rise in temperature (look at you own chart, please), then the whole theory of Co2 being a primary cause is simply nonsense. Hey, a great prophet said, "when the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch."

One particular notion presented by the warming cult is that warming could cause an ice age. I watched some huckleberry blathering on this on the Weather Channel.

What makes this so incredibly amusing is that there is no more overt way to cover all of the bases. This is like a weather forecast of, “Well folks, tomorrow it will rain… Or not.”

Besides, the current climate conference is nearly pure anarchy. You have the third world nations (mostly lead by utterly corrupt governments) screaming that they want a share of the wealth. Yep, they want the wealthy countries to pay for excess emissions, but they don't want their own emissions monitored to see if they comply. It's a three ring circus in Copenhagen. Today, the representative from Sudan was castigating the United States. The damned Sudan for crisake! A hell hole of murder, Genocide, deliberate engineered starvation and awe inspiring corruption thinks the USA is bad.... How to you say "drop dead Fred" in Arabic?

My regards,

Widewing

[BiPoLaR]

i should invent some garbage and sell it to you guys way over priced 
You guys will buy in to anything the media tells ya.


WE'RE DOOMED!!! RUN!!!

[Chalenge]

Another freon can has been vented to the atmosphere! 

[MORAY37]

I've wanted to stay out of this, but...  OH COME ON!!!!

Shortly after Gore's film came out, and people looked closer at the Co2/temp graph, it became apparent that... ... OMG!!  It's temperature leading Co2, no the other way around.

Now the EPA wants to classify Co2 as a pollutant

Guess we all have to stop exhaling to save the planet.

What that graph DOES show is that temperatures/Co2 are on a 150,000 year long cycle, with other short cycles in between.

So what caused the warming 150,000 years ago?   Mastodon farts?

Scientifically, the reason has to do with the fact that the previous warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages, as well as other factors.

In other words, historically,  natural warming released CO2, which then contributed to heating the planet, as the matching curves show a causal relationship.  Although, I may have this wrong, as most climate scientists say CO2 always leads in the deep record....

In the present day, CO2 is being released without a reliable uptake mechanism in the environment to mitigate it, and without exterior natural forcing.  It will still serve to magnify temperatures like it always has, though.  

This is why there has been a historical lag in the record.... because there was a natural mechanism behind the release historically.  In this present case, we have demonstrably increased the atmospheric CO2 content, and have reduced the planet's ability to remove it.  Can you argue that?  Attempt to argue that mankind has not raised CO2 levels in the last 200 years?

(Please look at ¹²C/¹³C ratios Pre-industrialization to begin to answer this. In short burning fossil fuels produces a differing ratio than the background natural ratio of these isotopes of carbon, and these can be distinctly measured and compared.  It's still carbon, but the isotopic ratios are different due to the burning of fossil fuels.)

[Delirium]

Attempt to argue that mankind has not raised CO2 levels in the last 200 years?

I can't... in fact, the monotonous bloviating on these forums have likely drowned several polar bears independently, without any other outside influence.

[MORAY37]

I can't... in fact, the monotonous bloviating on these forums have likely drowned several polar bears independently, without any other outside influence.

Then don't participate.  You have a choice.  

Boasting?  Not even close. 

[Chalenge]

Attempt to argue that mankind has not raised CO2 levels in the last 200 years?

What effect upon temperature has the mankind created CO2 levels had? What population limitations would you put in place in order to curb the rising levels? Which countries are causing the greatest problem? Who has the most to gain by controlling CO2 emissions?

If a cow farts in Africa what effect will that have upon the atmospheric temperature of Orlando, Florida? Green Acres, Alabama? What effect upon the soil in my backyard?

I say none.  

[Angus]

I've wanted to stay out of this, but...  OH COME ON!!!!

Shortly after Gore's film came out, and people looked closer at the Co2/temp graph, it became apparent that... ... OMG!!  It's temperature leading Co2, no the other way around.

Now the EPA wants to classify Co2 as a pollutant

Guess we all have to stop exhaling to save the planet.

What that graph DOES show is that temperatures/Co2 are on a 150,000 year long cycle, with other short cycles in between.

So what caused the warming 150,000 years ago?   Mastodon farts?

Reminds me of the sceptic:
"Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans."
Which was countered thus:
"This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago. "
Anyway Chalenge, you mentioned cow farts. While truly, Methane is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, I claim that the big cow-fart theory is a scam! Why? Because BEFORE cows in industrial numbers, you had wildlife in seriously big numbers. In the USA you had the huge heards of Bisons replaced with cattle. A Bison is basically a "cow", - it will even crossbreed with domestic cattle. One big ruminant. phhhrrrtt!
As for the country with the biggest emission, - China. Per person? USA...by far. However the Chinese emit so-and-so much while producing cheap stuff for the fat USA and Euro, so I guess the conference in Copenhagen will be quite a haggle-show
That said, I am going to the cows, and I'll ask all my odd 20 cattle to send you a personal fart 

[Chalenge]

Actually its not cow farts but cow belches that has 'them' up in arms.

Outside of that concerning ice cores: If the polar ice is melted where are the cores coming from? 

[Angus]

Well, that is one big thing. The land based icecaps contain Ice that is up to and even beyond 600.000 years old.
So, them kissing goodbye in some odd 200 years (being careful) is indeed quite unique.

[Anaxogoras]

Angus, the cow/methane issue might have a lot to do with diet.  You forget that many American cows are fed a diet not fit for a stray dog on the street, and those principally fed corn are still worse-off than a grass fed cow. 

[Angus]

I have heard that, but never found data to support it.
Rest asure, I grass-feed mine. But there are more cars in my country than cattle....and we are self sustainable...