global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:45 am

Alex123 wrote:Hello Blackbird,

BlackBird wrote:Well exaggeration or not, it was still interesting. Another good point the article made was that any plateau would undoubtedly be temporary. I don't really see how it supports Alex's arguments, but perhaps there is not a terrible amount of viable sources out there and this was the best of a bad bunch so to speak..


AGW proponents were screaming how temperatures are going up and will continue to go up. Recent 10 years proved that assertion to be a bit overblown.


Not according to this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

And interestingly relevant to your other number on the Solar argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:53 am

BlackBird wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Hello Blackbird,

BlackBird wrote:Well exaggeration or not, it was still interesting. Another good point the article made was that any plateau would undoubtedly be temporary. I don't really see how it supports Alex's arguments, but perhaps there is not a terrible amount of viable sources out there and this was the best of a bad bunch so to speak..


AGW proponents were screaming how temperatures are going up and will continue to go up. Recent 10 years proved that assertion to be a bit overblown.


Not according to this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

And interestingly relevant to your other number on the Solar argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm



Yes, I've seen that page on solar cycles. Doesn't it contradict their statement that "During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels."

So when it is needed they say that solar output is the cause for lower temperature despite higher levels of CO2, and when they need to blame humans, they say that our tiny (compared to natural) production of CO2 is to blame.


As for
"For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005."

1st) All these records are compared to temperatures of recent interglacial period. For millions of years temperatures were 10C higher than today.
2) What about years 2006-2009 and 2011-2013. Did they break records? Compared to what, Ice age?

3) World temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher before, and ICE ages were rarity. SO what is "usual" temperature and CO2 levels for Earth?
Last edited by Alex123 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:55 am

Alex123 wrote:Hello Blackbird,

BlackBird wrote:Well exaggeration or not, it was still interesting. Another good point the article made was that any plateau would undoubtedly be temporary. I don't really see how it supports Alex's arguments, but perhaps there is not a terrible amount of viable sources out there and this was the best of a bad bunch so to speak..


AGW proponents were screaming how temperatures are going up and will continue to go up. Recent 10 years proved that assertion to be a bit overblown.

Alex,
you should at least have the courtesy, decency and intellectual honesty to read the links we provide in response to your posts.
Do go to http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16568&start=160#p237140, follow the links and then either apologise for continuing to repeat nonsense or explain why you think your case is worth a moment's consideration.

:jedi:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:01 pm

Hello Kim,

Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex,
you should at least have the courtesy, decency and intellectual honesty to read the links we provide in response to your posts.


Buckwheat wrote:"That website is the opinion of a single person with no background in climate science who works for the fossil fuel industry. Why would I believe him over 97% of the of the climate science community."


Buckwheat, If his arguments are good, then I go with the merit of the argument. Not whether he works or doesn't for oil & gas industry. Please note, some people AGAIN use "they work for oil & gas. Thus I don't believe what they say." Graphs and historical data did it for me.

I'd take ONE good arguments from a non climate scientist over 100 climate scientists saying 100 bad ones.

And I believe that oil & gas industry should treat environment well and have it green as possible. Not because of AGW, but because it is right thing to do.

Kim, the whole ad hominem began with you, and your use of "junk science", and "denialist" implying that I deny Holocaust and thus, a Nazi (I hate Nazis). So much for courtesy.

For my calculations, I've tried to be as unbiased as possible and use data from skepticalscience. Our emission of CO2 is so tiny, that natural variability of climate can easily outdo us. Because of our insignificant contributions we can't say that CO2 levels are rising unnaturally fast. If they are rising fast or slow, it is due to natural climate change.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:50 pm

Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003

For the past two decades or more, we have heard much about the global warming of the 20th century being caused by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that is generally attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This story, however, has always been controversial [see Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982) for early pro/con positions on the issue]; and with the retrieval and preliminary analysis of the first long ice core from Vostok, Antarctica -- which provided a 150,000-year history of both surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration -- the debate became even more intense, as the close associations of the ups and downs of atmospheric CO2 and temperature that were evident during glacial terminations and inceptions in that record, as well as in subsequent records of even greater length, led many climate alarmists to claim that those observations actually proved that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming.

This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote -- in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim -- that "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988)."

How has our understanding of this issue progressed in the interim? Our website provides several updates.

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.

So what's the latest on the issue? To our knowledge, the most recent study to broach the subject is that of Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP. The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."

This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation." Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 -- which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world's oceans -- serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.

In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

References
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.

Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Genthon, C., Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Barkov, N.I., Korotkevich, Y.S. and Kotlyakov, V.M. 1987. Vostok ice core: Climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329: 414-418.

Idso, S.B. 1982. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Idso, S.B. 1988. Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core. Atmospheric Environment 22: 2341-2342.

Idso, S.B. 1989. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291: 112-114.

Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.

Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Smagorinsky, J., Bryan, K., Manabe, S., Armi, L., Bretherton, F.P., Cess, R.D., Gates, W.L, Hansen, J. and Kutzbach, J.E. (Eds.). 1982. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Second Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Yokoyama, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.



Lots of references, and not from one person.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Hi, Alex:

Global warming zealots invariably miss the fact that not all of us see the point in making Al Gore wealthy. We find no pleasure in drooling over his hypocrisy as he flys from coast to coast, and country to country to deliver his lectures regarding the contamination of our planet's atmosphere with decomposition products of jet fuel.

The "inconvenient truth" is that the earth, pleasantly located in The Goldilocks Zone by random physical effects during its formation as all planets throughout the universe are but agglomerations and condensations of rocks, water, and gases. Planets aren't sentient and therefore incapable of fretting gyrations and protestations of the intellectual children on the march for greener horizons, which make up the ranks of global warming zealots. As a result, they don't kick us off their surfaces, because they are incapable of noticing that we are even here.

The fact of global warming only recognized by humans and other life-forms is not in question. What is in question is the contributing causes and whether or not these causes are within our control.

After many years of study and research (over thirty), my conclusion is that the issue is far more complex than us quasi-sentient humans are capable of understanding, let alone solving. Not even the clima-egoists, and the clima-egoist-wanna-bes seem to be able to solve this problem. Otherwise, we would have solved the problem of global long ago as we have with all the other world-wide problems like poverty, starvation, and war. :soap:

In conclusion, I ask you all: "What is the point of our continued bickering due to our attachments and clinging to beliefs, views and perspectives in this regard when Buddha clearly advised us of our priority: the elimination of dukkha" though our own personal unbinding and release?" :buddha1:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:09 pm

Good post, Ron.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:16 pm

Alex123 wrote:AGW proponents were screaming how temperatures are going up and will continue to go up. Recent 10 years proved that assertion to be a bit overblown.

One of many reasons why I don't agree with AGW is that during period in Ordovician (4000-5000), CO2 levels were ~4400 vs current 396.80 and yet the temperature was COLD LIKE TODAY. Kim and Buckwheat's site says that it was because solar activity was low. Great. So solar activity is crucial factor.

Why are we so certain that similar situation will not play out today (solar activity, not merely CO2 determine the temperature)?

And >95% of CO2 is produced by nature anyways. Why we don't complain to it and pray that it stops producing so much CO2?


I provided evidence refuting everything you just said. I would be open to discussion if you provide some counter evidence, though I won't be trusting anything from geocraft.com unless you can also trace of the sources on that site to reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers. Your opinion on this topic is about as worthless as mine. We both have to defer to climate science professions, who are in 97% consensus.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:25 pm

Alex123 wrote:Buckwheat, If his arguments are good, then I go with the merit of the argument. Not whether he works or doesn't for oil & gas industry. Please note, some people AGAIN use "they work for oil & gas. Thus I don't believe what they say." Graphs and historical data did it for me.

I'd take ONE good arguments from a non climate scientist over 100 climate scientists saying 100 bad ones.

And I believe that oil & gas industry should treat environment well and have it green as possible. Not because of AGW, but because it is right thing to do.


:jawdrop: You trust the fossil fuel companies to protect the environment? WOW!!! :rolleye:

That geocraft.com is biased by the oil companies was a secondary point. My real difficulty was that he takes legitimate data, and then draws wild conclusions based on his own opinion and bias, does not bother getting those conclusions checked, and posts them as facts. At skeptical science, even the conclusions are based on peer-reviewed papers.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:33 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Hi, Alex:

Global warming zealots invariably miss the fact that not all of us see the point in making Al Gore wealthy. We find no pleasure in drooling over his hypocrisy as he flys from coast to coast, and country to country to deliver his lectures regarding the contamination of our planet's atmosphere with decomposition products of jet fuel.

The "inconvenient truth" is that the earth, pleasantly located in The Goldilocks Zone by random physical effects during its formation as all planets throughout the universe are but agglomerations and condensations of rocks, water, and gases. Planets aren't sentient and therefore incapable of fretting gyrations and protestations of the intellectual children on the march for greener horizons, which make up the ranks of global warming zealots. As a result, they don't kick us off their surfaces, because they are incapable of noticing that we are even here.

The fact of global warming only recognized by humans and other life-forms is not in question. What is in question is the contributing causes and whether or not these causes are within our control.

After many years of study and research (over thirty), my conclusion is that the issue is far more complex than us quasi-sentient humans are capable of understanding, let alone solving. Not even the clima-egoists, and the clima-egoist-wanna-bes seem to be able to solve this problem. Otherwise, we would have solved the problem of global long ago as we have with all the other world-wide problems like poverty, starvation, and war. :soap:

In conclusion, I ask you all: "What is the point of our continued bickering due to our attachments and clinging to beliefs, views and perspectives in this regard when Buddha clearly advised us of our priority: the elimination of dukkha" though our own personal unbinding and release?" :buddha1:


f*** Al Gore. Because of his shitty propaganda video, I was turned off AGW for a decade, and only in the last few years have I put in the time to reasearch the real scientific consensus to come to the conclusion that AGW is a clear and present danger.

That global warming is anthropogenic is not is question. Please cite a source.

When did we solve poverty, starvation, and war? The only :quote: problem :quote: with global warming is humans. We are the cause. We are the victims. And we are the idiots who see the evidence and keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

I agree that elimination of dukkha is a priority. I even feel that prioritizing the dhamma is good for the environment. Since adopting the dhamma into my life I have reduced my impact on the environment and reduced my carbon footprint, partly as simply a byproduct that instead of "going out for a good time" now I just sit on a cushion.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:44 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003

... (See above for full text.)


Lots of references, and not from one person.


This entire link is worth reading, but I will quote the especially relevant point:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:09 pm

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:AGW proponents were screaming how temperatures are going up and will continue to go up. Recent 10 years proved that assertion to be a bit overblown.

One of many reasons why I don't agree with AGW is that during period in Ordovician (4000-5000), CO2 levels were ~4400 vs current 396.80 and yet the temperature was COLD LIKE TODAY. Kim and Buckwheat's site says that it was because solar activity was low. Great. So solar activity is crucial factor.

Why are we so certain that similar situation will not play out today (solar activity, not merely CO2 determine the temperature)?

And >95% of CO2 is produced by nature anyways. Why we don't complain to it and pray that it stops producing so much CO2?


I provided evidence refuting everything you just said.


If I understood correctly, the main argument at skepticalscience is that solar activity was lower during late ordovician.

To me this says that, at the very least greaater solar activity is required for warming.

At worst, the there can be ICE AGE at CO2 levels of 3,000-4,400 ppm. This is much higher than current 396.80ppm. I am not scared.



Buckwheat wrote: I would be open to discussion if you provide some counter evidence, though I won't be trusting anything from geocraft.com unless you can also trace of the sources on that site to reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers. Your opinion on this topic is about as worthless as mine. We both have to defer to climate science professions, who are in 97% consensus.


What about post at
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16568&p=237217#p237208

No geocraft.com there
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:18 pm

Buckwheat wrote:[This entire link is worth reading, but I will quote the especially relevant point:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



It says that "for 650,000, atmospheric CO2 levels has never been above this line [300ppm] ...until now".

Alex: And for MILLIONS of years CO2 levels were above 1,000ppm. During Cambrian it reached almost 7,000ppm, and I've heard that even during Ordovician there was up to 7,000ppm of CO2 for a shorter period of time.


The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.


So is AGW main argument based on Mid 19th century? I prefer Science closer to the end of 20th century when we have Ice Core data.

Even IF CO2 has capability of trapping the heat (lots of data suggests that CO2 rise LAGS temperature rise by as much as 800-1200 years) ice age can still occur at levels of >3,000ppm like it did in late Ordovician.

Yes, I know the "skeptical science" response that solar activity was lower... That to me is an admission that CO2 at best is not THE sole cause of temperature rise, and that astronomical events can over ride high CO2. But if we take scientific article (with many sources) that I've posted here CO2 seems to be the EFFECT of temperature change rather than the cause.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:46 pm

Alex123 wrote:To me this says that, at the very least greaater solar activity is required for warming.

At worst, the there can be ICE AGE at CO2 levels of 3,000-4,400 ppm. This is much higher than current 396.80ppm. I am not scared.

These are two of your opinions. Where is your source? Neither of those opinions makes any sense to me.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:52 pm

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:To me this says that, at the very least greaater solar activity is required for warming.

At worst, the there can be ICE AGE at CO2 levels of 3,000-4,400 ppm. This is much higher than current 396.80ppm. I am not scared.

These are two of your opinions. Where is your source? Neither of those opinions makes any sense to me.


Some sources, not from geocraft.com.

The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm).link
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are believed to have been 8 to 20 times their current values. This ought to have prevented anything approaching an ice age."link

"Ought to have" only if CO2 causes temperature change. Lots of science challenges it.

Please note: Glaciation happened even at 4,400ppm average (some claim it was 3,000ppm) CO2.

So our current levels of 396.80ppm are NOT catastrophically high. Do I need more references about temperature and CO2 level of late Ordovician?
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:11 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:[This entire link is worth reading, but I will quote the especially relevant point:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


It says that "for 650,000, atmospheric CO2 levels has never been above this line [300ppm] ...until now".

Alex: And for MILLIONS of years CO2 levels were above 1,000ppm. During Cambrian it reached almost 7,000ppm, and I've heard that even during Ordovician there was up to 7,000ppm of CO2 for a shorter period of time.

I already addressed this and you have added nothing new here.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Alex123 wrote:So is AGW main argument based on Mid 19th century? I prefer Science closer to the end of 20th century when we have Ice Core data.

No argument is based on mid-19th century science. The mid-19th century is when scientists first got an understanding of the heat trapping nature of greenhouse gasses, but it has been the subject of study every since. The quote in question goes on to say that JPL and NASA have had to account for those effects in many instruments, including AIRS, launched in 2002. That is rather modern, don't you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheri ... ed_Sounder

Um, Newton's Law's of Physics are pretty old. Did you stop believing in those, as well?

Alex123 wrote:Even IF CO2 has capability of trapping the heat (lots of data suggests that CO2 rise LAGS temperature rise by as much as 800-1200 years) ice age can still occur at levels of >3,000ppm like it did in late Ordovician.

Yes, I know the "skeptical science" response that solar activity was lower... That to me is an admission that CO2 at best is not THE sole cause of temperature rise, and that astronomical events can over ride high CO2. But if we take scientific article (with many sources) that I've posted here CO2 seems to be the EFFECT of temperature change rather than the cause.

I already addressed this, you are adding nothing new.
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

There is no single cause of global climate. It is a complex interaction of multiple forces. Quit accusing me of saying CO2 is the sole source of anything.

We have taken this debate to the point of ridiculous retetition a few times now. How about we agree to disagree?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:17 pm

Alex123 wrote:The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm).


So a drastic change in CO2 levels caused a glaciation event, and you're trying to use that as evidence that CO2 does not affect climate? The link you give seems to cite this drop in CO2 as the cause of the glaciation event.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:19 pm

This is from another link you just provided:
Sea surface temperatures for the later Ordovician are extremely sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and to not much else.

http://www.palaeos.org/Ordovician#Ordovician_Climate
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:20 pm

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm).


So a drastic change in CO2 levels caused a glaciation event, and you're trying to use that as evidence that CO2 does not affect climate? The link you give seems to cite this drop in CO2 as the cause of the glaciation event.


CO2 levels were MUCH higher than today and there still was ICE age. That is the point.


Buckwheat wrote:This is from another link you just provided:
The results are frustratingly uninformative. Sea surface temperatures for the later Ordovician are extremely sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and to not much else.

http://www.palaeos.org/Ordovician#Ordovician_Climate


Yeh, the results are strange... Ice age couldn't occur if CO2 was as important as some claim it to be.

Buckwheat wrote:There is no single cause of global climate.


I agree. Even IF, even IF, CO2 contributed significantly to climate change, other factors beyond our control could cause ICE Age, even if CO2 was higher than today.

Please show me where you have addressed my quote. You can cut and paste your reply. I would prefer that you keep it brief, to the point, and in your own words.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:42 pm

Buckwheat,

Is this your reply that you refer to?

Buckwheat wrote:I'm going to use one of your own sources to debunk this myth:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm wrote:Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both....

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.



"This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote -- in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim -- that "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988)."

Note the "never precede".

The current temperature IS NOT DUE to current levels of CO2.

"Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."" my longer post

So specific temperature and CO2 caused by it is separated by 400-1000 (or more) years. Thus how can CO2 amplify temperature that was 400-1000 years prior to it?
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests