Global Warming

[rjs330]

1. Carbon isotope ratios show that the increase from pre-industrial CO2 from 280 ppm to just over 400 ppm currently, contains a fossil fuel (AGW) signature. Straight forward geochemistry.

2. The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been well known for 150 years (Tyndall 1861) and the doubling effect for over 100 years (Arrhenius 1896). Straight forward physics.

If not from fossil fuels and increased CO2, then what shows this to be wrong and what climate forcings are responsible for a full GAT increase of 1 deg C?

Why did the ice age happen? Why has the earth been warming ever since? Why was the medieval period so hot? Natural causes of course that had nothing to do with us. The sun, winds, seas and currents, cloud cover, all these natural phenomenon could be very large and significant reasons for change. CO2 is not proven to be the predominant factor. People interpret data to mean something and often bias comes into play. CO2 lags behind temperature change so it cannot be a major cause.

Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change

 

[RickG]

Why did the ice age happen?

I gather you are talking about the Milankovitch cycles where we had glacials and interglacials. The current cycle is heading toward an interglacial, but we are warming instead.

Why has the earth been warming ever since?

The majority of warming over the past 150 years has been due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 at an average rate of 2 ppm per year.

Why was the medieval period so hot?

The MWP is documented in tree rings in the upper northern hemisphere latitudes and specific to that, thus it is regional not global.

Natural causes of course that had nothing to do with us. The sun, winds, seas and currents, cloud cover, all these natural phenomenon could be very large and significant reasons for change.

No one on the planet Earth has been able to show any natural cause(s) being attributed to the current warming trend. Keep in mind that CO2 is a natural cause. However, the increase of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution is shown to be from the combustion of fossil fuels, thus the source is anthropogenic (human). We know this as I previously described, by way of carbon isotope ratios unique to fossil fuels.

CO2 is not proven to be the predominant factor. People interpret data to mean something and often bias comes into play. CO2 lags behind temperature change so it cannot be a major cause.

Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change

I will be happy to discuss that article in detail, pointing out its problems, with you if you wish. Furthermore, CO2 does not lag in temperature in the way previously thought. It is true early analysis of Antarctic ice cores seemed to demonstrate this, but new techniques and mythology have now bridged the gap showing CO2 and temperature rise in closer unison. One of the most important aspects of this is to understand that the initial warming is due to Milankovitch Cycles, which releases the CO2 which amplifies.

Global proxy temp (blue)
Antarctic Ice-core temp record (red)
Atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots)

Sources I recommend for understanding better: CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation Shakun et al. (2012)

 

[Heissonear]

Why did the ice age happen? Why has the earth been warming ever since? Why was the medieval period so hot? Natural causes of course that had nothing to do with us. The sun, winds, seas and currents, cloud cover, all these natural phenomenon could be very large and significant reasons for change. CO2 is not proven to be the predominant factor. People interpret data to mean something and often bias comes into play. CO2 lags behind temperature change so it cannot be a major cause.

Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change

As you point out it is obvious that the Earth has warmed since the last ice age. No manmade CO2 needed.

But now we have Extremists Scientists. For them even 150 ppm of additional CO2 will ruin civilization and other life on Earth. CO2 has become an impurity and horrifying to put in Earth's atmosphere . Man has "poluted" the Earth by CO2. So they think and promote. They think the additional CO2 will bring Catastrophic Warming. But they have only failed predictions of their terror predictions. They have become scaremongers. And what they promote is propaganda of their predictions.

Meanwhile, evidence shows the recent warming since the Little Ice Age and extra Anthropologic CO2 is a blessing, and farmers know it.

It is not doom and gloom. Far from it. Eco-Extremists have a sour mesage and mind. I learned early in natural science classes to avoid these types of people. They have a bent. And they try to spread such bent upon others.

History is going to show this hijack of climate science. It became climate activism.

You will know them by their fruit: science follows activism, they are Activist foremost, and it shows.

 

[rjs330]

I gather you are talking about the Milankovitch cycles where we had glacials and interglacials. The current cycle is heading toward an interglacial, but we are warming instead.


The majority of warming over the past 150 years has been due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 at an average rate of 2 ppm per year.


The MWP is documented in tree rings in the upper northern hemisphere latitudes and specific to that, thus it is regional not global.


No one on the planet Earth has been able to show any natural cause(s) being attributed to the current warming trend. Keep in mind that CO2 is a natural cause. However, the increase of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution is shown to be from the combustion of fossil fuels, thus the source is anthropogenic (human). We know this as I previously described, by way of carbon isotope ratios unique to fossil fuels.

I will be happy to discuss that article in detail, pointing out its problems, with you if you wish. Furthermore, CO2 does not lag in temperature in the way previously thought. It is true early analysis of Antarctic ice cores seemed to demonstrate this, but new techniques and mythology have now bridged the gap showing CO2 and temperature rise in closer unison. One of the most important aspects of this is to understand that the initial warming is due to Milankovitch Cycles, which releases the CO2 which amplifies.

Global proxy temp (blue)
Antarctic Ice-core temp record (red)
Atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots)

Sources I recommend for understanding better: CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation Shakun et al. (2012)

The thing I was pointing out is that there has been much more significant extreme changes in the past that had nothing to do with man made CO2. Natural cycles of the earth have created that change. And despite those changes the earth has survived and life has continued to flourish. CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes. The change has been insignificant in comparison and there are many scientists who believe that there are other causes to the change. But just a look at topics such as this one shows what happens when you bring it up. They are called deniers or not real scientists etc. But the truth is the science is only settled for those who are AGW believers and most of them receive the funding. The rest of the scientists aren't so convinced. Even the 97% consensus is bogus. It's a con game.

Articles/New%20Evidence%20that%20Man-Made%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm

 

[RickG]

The thing I was pointing out is that there has been much more significant extreme changes in the past that had nothing to do with man made CO2. Natural cycles of the earth have created that change. And despite those changes the earth has survived and life has continued to flourish.

I am not ignoring natural extreme climate changes in the geologic past. Fact is, several of the past mass extinctions are attributed to extreme climate change; Permian and Ordovician for example. In fact climate change can be seen in at the end and beginning of all the geologic periods.

CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes.

In my previous post I described the more recent research that shows warming to be in conjunction with CO2 being released during interglacials forced by Milankovitch Cycles. In that post I linked several published papers showing this. I urge you to review them.

The change has been insignificant in comparison and there are many scientists who believe that there are other causes to the change.

Actually the current change is occurring at a rate faster than any described in the paleoclimate data. As for other causes of the current warming trend, please describe them and show how they are causing the current warming.

Even the 97% consensus is bogus. It's a con game.

I've reviewed the article provided in an earlier post making such a claim and pointed out how it misinforms the 97% consensus. In the Cook et al 2013 paper, they reviewed 11,944 papers from 1991 through 2011. Of all those papers 66.4% of them did not pertain to or address AGW. That is not at all unusual as a vast majority of climate science involves past climates (paleoclimatology). That left 33.6% that did address AGW, of which 97.1% affirmed AGW leaving 2.9% that did not. Going one step further, the authors of those papers were contacted and asked what their position concerning AGW in "their paper" was. The results from that actually increased the percentage by a tenth of a percent to 97.2%.

The article providing misinformation concerning the Cook et al 2013 paper took the 66.4% of papers that did not address AGW and treated them as if they had reducing the consensus to around only 30%.

 

[USincognito]

The thing I was pointing out is that there has been much more significant extreme changes in the past that had nothing to do with man made CO2.

And none of the factors that caused past warming are in play today. This has been explained ad nauseum. Why is it so hard for some around here to comprehend. If it weren't for all the CO2 we've been pumping into the atmosphere, we'd actually be in a cooling trend rather than warming.

 

[The Barbarian]

Meanwhile, evidence shows the recent warming since the Little Ice Age and extra Anthropologic CO2 is a blessing, and farmers know it.

You've been hornswoggled on that one:

Nature
510,139–142 (05 June 2014)
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition
Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually2, 3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.

 

[RickG]

You've been hornswoggled on that one:

Nature
510,139–142 (05 June 2014)
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition
Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually2, 3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.

Indeed, there are quite a few published research papers that show that there is a limit to the productiveness of plants with respect to CO2. They may grow bigger, but their nutrition declines, not to mention the problems with ocean acidification. Anything is a pollutant in excess.

 

[The Barbarian]

Indeed, there are quite a few published research papers that show that there is a limit to the productiveness of plants with respect to CO2.

Yep. Because CO2 is rarely the limiting nutrient, that generally means the food will be richer in carbohydrates and lower in minerals, proteins, and other essential nutrients.

They may grow bigger, but their nutrition declines, not to mention the problems with ocean acidification. Anything is a pollutant in excess.

The classic definition of pollution: A resource out of place.

There's a lot of research going on, looking at how much we can breed plants to compensate for this harmful effect. The evidence suggests that it can be alleviated to some extent.

 

[Aldebaran]

You've been hornswoggled on that one:

Nature
510,139–142 (05 June 2014)
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition
Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually2, 3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.

As you can see, this theory is based on a prediction for a time that hasn't even come.

 

[RickG]

As you can see, this theory is based on a prediction for a time that hasn't even come.

Might I suggest reviewing the article in the Journal Nature provided by The Barbarian before passing such judgement? This is not about predictions. It is about in-the-field real-time research in greenhouse conditions where CO2 levels were controlled. And there are quite a few other studies that show the same thing. Here are a few:

Cure and Acock 1986
Leaky et al. 2006
Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000
Salvucci et al. 2001
Stöcklin and Körner 2002
Norby et al. 2010
Larson et al. 2010
Bloom et al. 2010
Taub and Wang 2008
Zhu 2005
Stiling and Cornelissen 2007
Zavala et al. 2008
Eastburn et al. 2010

 

[The Barbarian]

As you can see, this theory is based on a prediction for a time that hasn't even come.

It's not a theory. It's merely the observation that increased CO2 will result in lower nutritional value of crops. Crops were grown in elevated carbon dioxide and their nutritional value was lower. Yes, as CO2 increases, the effect will become greater and greater. But it works now, even if it's not so noticeable.

 

[Aldebaran]

Might I suggest reviewing the article in the Journal Nature provided by The Barbarian before passing such judgement? This is not about predictions. It is about in-the-field real-time research in greenhouse conditions where CO2 levels were controlled. And there are quite a few other studies that show the same thing. Here are a few:

Cure and Acock 1986
Leaky et al. 2006
Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000
Salvucci et al. 2001
Stöcklin and Körner 2002
Norby et al. 2010
Larson et al. 2010
Bloom et al. 2010
Taub and Wang 2008
Zhu 2005
Stiling and Cornelissen 2007
Zavala et al. 2008
Eastburn et al. 2010

But what is not controlled is what conditions will be in the middle of this century. Scientists were telling us in the 70s and 80s what climate conditions would be like by the year 2000, and they got it very, very wrong. In other words, their predictions were based on theories that were incorrect. Let's not keep making the same assumptions and hope for different results.

 

[The Barbarian]

But what is not controlled is what conditions will be in the middle of this century. Scientists were telling us in the 70s and 80s what climate conditions would be like by the year 2000, and they got it very, very wrong.

They said it would be warmer. And it was. Turns out, even in the 70s, most climatologists who made predictions, predicted rising temperatures. Would you like to see the numbers on that?

On the other hand, the deniers said that we'd be seeing colder conditions. And we've had year after year of rising temps.

 

[RickG]

But what is not controlled is what conditions will be in the middle of this century. Scientists were telling us in the 70s and 80s what climate conditions would be like by the year 2000, and they got it very, very wrong. In other words, their predictions were based on theories that were incorrect. Let's not keep making the same assumptions and hope for different results.

What scientists and what did they get wrong? And no, they were not predicting an ice age in the year 2000.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since we're moving deeper into a sunspot minimum, indicating lower temperatures, we should have by now see a cooling trend. Instead, we are seeing record high temperatures. That alone should give any denier pause.

 

[RickG]

They said it would be warmer. And it was. Turns out, even in the 70s, most climatologists who made predictions, predicted rising temperatures. Would you like to see the numbers on that?

The 70s was when I was doing my graduate work in the earth sciences with emphasis in paleoclimatology. There were very few papers then that entertained the idea of going back into an ice age then. The reasoning of course was that indeed, we should be because the current Milankovitch Cycle is headed in that direction. However, the majority of papers were looking at warming. In fact, my graduate research project was on the causes and occurrences of continental glaciation (i.e. ice ages). If I'm counted as one of those scientists, I was not predicting an ice age, nor were the papers I was reviewing in my research at the time.

On the other hand, the deniers said that we'd be seeing colder conditions. And we've had year after year of rising temps.

Wally Broecker published a paper in 1975 predicting that the then cooling trend at the time would end within a decade due the reduction of aerosols (sulfate emissions) and that warming would begin due to increasing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. His estimate was that by the end of the 20th century we would have warmed by 0.81 Dec C, pretty much on the mark as we are now a full degree just 16 years into the 21st century.

BROECKER WS, 1975: CLIMATIC CHANGE – ARE WE ON BRINK OF A PRONOUNCED GLOBAL WARMING?
SCIENCE Volume 189, Pages 460-463.

 

[Heissonear]

Alarmism manifested.

Calling CO2 a pollutant and saying it will bring Catastrophic temperature change to Earth.

This is Eco-extremism, where many have lost the ability to see the other "non-extremism" side. A real inability people have.

Where alarmism and extremism and dark viewpoints are the rule of thought. For example, where better crop production by fertilized air is funneled to be viewed as less nutritional.

Once on the Bandwagon things are to be viewed negatively. Seeing things another way is not possible. Everything fits into the alarming and negative Box they built or it is rejected with viable cause. Any other way stays closed, and when presented is downplayed or rediculed.

Play it again Sam! That is, if one can objectively see both viewpoints. We see once on the Catastrophic AGW Bandwagon their is no other view.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alarmism manifested.

Calling CO2 a pollutant and saying it will bring Catastrophic temperature change to Earth.

If you own property on the Gulf Coast, you've already got a catastrophe growing...

Gulf Coast residents crumble under rising homeowners insurance costs
Gulf Coast residents crumble under rising homeowners insurance costs

Reality is unaffected by one's beliefs. And the rising risk of increasingly severe storms (which was predicted by climatologists) is marked by rising insurance losses and consequent rises in premiums for homeowners in affected areas. Deniers do what they can to stop it, but reality moves inexorably forward.

This is Eco-extremism, where many have lost the ability to see the other "non-extremism" side. A real inability people have. Where alarmism and extremism and dark viewpoints are the rule of thought. For example, where better crop production by fertilized air is funneled to be viewed as less nutritional.

Once on the Bandwagon things are to be viewed negatively. Seeing things another way is not possible. Everything fits into the alarming and negative Box they built or it is rejected with viable cause. Any other way stays closed, and when presented is downplayed or rediculed.

Play it again Sam! That is, if one can objectively see both viewpoints. We see once on the Catastrophic AGW Bandwagon their is no other view.

Ah, generic propaganda. So easy to do...

"Climate denial is Eco-extremism, where many have lost the ability to see the other "non-extremism" side. A real inability people have. Where denial and extremism and dark viewpoints are the rule of thought. For example, where crop production by increased carbon dioxide levels has been repeatedly documented to be less nutritional.

Once on the Bandwagon things are to be viewed only in terms of denial. Seeing things another way is not possible. Everything fits into the Denial Box they built or it is rejected with viable cause. Any other way stays closed, and when presented is downplayed or ridiculed.

Play it again Sam! That is, if one can objectively see both viewpoints. We see once on the Denial Bandwagon there is no other view."

So easy to counter. Learn to form a cogent argument, and you'll do better.

 

[Ophiolite]

But now we have Extremists Scientists.

Perhaps its a difference in American English and British English, but "Extremist" suggests to me that such scientists hold a view at the extreme end of the spectrum of views. Since that isn't the case and there is a very strong consensus on global warming perhaps you should modify the expression. I can see the term would work well when singing to the choir, but if your objective is to change hearts and minds your current approach won't work.