global warming

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Locked
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

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: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

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: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

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.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

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.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

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?
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

I think this debate has run it's course. I'm really tired of repeating myself and hearing you repeat yourself. There was a point where this debate got me to do some additional research and learn some new things. :geek: So thanks for that. :thanks: :anjali:
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

I don't want to repeat myself either (unless there is new good point or new participant who doesn't want to read entire thread).
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara »

Buckwheat wrote:I think this debate has run it's course. I'm really tired of repeating myself and hearing you repeat yourself. There was a point where this debate got me to do some additional research and learn some new things. :geek: So thanks for that. :thanks: :anjali:
Hi, Buckwheat,
Thanks for your contributions here. FWIW, Alex's responses to you were exactly the same as his responses to me in the New Normal thread - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963.
Alex123 wrote:I don't want to repeat myself either (unless there is new good point or new participant who doesn't want to read entire thread).
Hi, Alex,
I would be really happy if you could finish by saying either
(1) why you think your own knowledge, your own research and your own "found it on the internet" factoids outweigh the combined research of thousands of fully trained, hardworking and conscientious climatologists;
or
(2) that you have been wrong all along and now accept that AGW is real and is a significant threat to life on this planet.

I do not want you to repeat yourself yet again :rolleye: but just to answer this one crucial question.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: global warming

Post by Dan74 »

The underlying assumption proven wrong here and elsewhere, is that people engage and impartially evaluate the information put to them, when it is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

It's hard for all of us but I hope we all make an effort...
Karaniya Metta Sutta wrote:By not holding to fixed views, The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, Being freed from all sense desires, Is not born again into this world.
_/|\_
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: global warming

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

How about a new angle here, Alex:

Image

Why do you think this is? What possible explanation do you have for this consensus? How can you explain literally 99% of peer-reviewed climatologists being just incredibly, obviously wrong? Do you think it is reasonable to believe that, while the monolithic majority of scientists in any field support AGW, you and a few people funded by the companies and organizations causing global warming are actually in possession of the true knowledge?
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: global warming

Post by BlackBird »

Alex123 wrote:
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.
Having not read this whole thread, could someone please point me in the direction of a post which refutes this kind of argument? To me it seems to have a decent logic to it.

metta
Jack
"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

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: global warming

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

BlackBird wrote:Having not read this whole thread, could someone please point me in the direction of a post which refutes this kind of argument? To me it seems to have a decent logic to it.

metta
Jack
Alex will not acknowledge that the problem is not absolute temperature but instead temperature increase relative to time. We are seeing a thousand year's worth of normal temperature increase in 100 years. Because we are unnaturally accelerating warming through human action, the planet, not to mention humanity itself, does not have the thousands of years usually offered to adapt and change in the face of these rising levels of heat.

Imagine a man who weighs 110 pounds, which would be considered for most people underweight.

If he gained sixty pounds through safe and sane exercise and diet over the course of a year or two, then he would be at a healthy weight.


If he gained forty pounds in two weeks by binging on potato chips and cake, then he would be horribly unhealthy - even though his weight was in the end lower than the first case.


Do you understand what I'm trying to say? The problem that all climatologists are dealing with is not just how hot the planet is - the planet has been just fine at much higher temperatures than we have today. The problem is the artificial increase in warming speed that does not allow for natural and sustainable adaptation. The data Alex is posting has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is how human behavior can accelerate and distort natural warming patterns to the detriment of both humans themselves and the planet at large.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara »

BlackBird wrote:
Alex123 wrote:...
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.
Having not read this whole thread, could someone please point me in the direction of a post which refutes this kind of argument? To me it seems to have a decent logic to it.

metta
Jack
As I've repeatedly said to Alex, (1) what happened in the very distant past is totally irrelevant to us now since we didn't have to live in those conditions (and couldn't have) and (2) at the time scales of his favourite graphs, our current change is so rapid that it won't even be visible - the width of a vertical line on his millions-of-years charts is a period of maybe one million years, i.e. 10,000 times longer than the AGW change we are talking about.
But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

Kim O'Hara wrote:As I've repeatedly said to Alex, (1) what happened in the very distant past is totally irrelevant to us now since we didn't have to live in those conditions (and couldn't have)
And as I've said before: The earth doesn't care about us and our preferences are not its natural guiding principle. Climate is what it is and developed for 4.5 billion years prior to us and after us. Either species adapt to climate or die out.
Kim O'Hara wrote: and (2) at the time scales of his favourite graphs, our current change is so rapid that it won't even be visible - the width of a vertical line on his millions-of-years charts is a period of maybe one million years, i.e. 10,000 times longer than the AGW change we are talking about.
But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

And for Earth that is 4.5 billion years old (and can theoretically go for another number of billion of years) even 1 million incriments are very small periods of times, nothing to say about mere 1,000 years.

Geological timescales are huge. 1,000 years is insignificant to 4.5 billion years.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:\Alex will not acknowledge that the problem is not absolute temperature but instead temperature increase relative to time.
How do we know that similar OR higher increases in temperature didn't occur in the past?

How do we know that there are no mechanisms to slow temperature rise?

Why do we even think there is problem with temperature rise? We are in interglacial, a bounce back from extreme lows is inevitable.

If current temperature was higher than USUAL temperature (which occured over MANY millions of years , 22C for example) then there could be a problem.

If current CO2 levels were higher than USUAL levels such as above 1,000ppm (or even 3,000+), then I'd be concerned.
Locked