NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are citing prehistoric CO2 levels, way before man walked the Earth. That is misleading, it is as if you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Q: When is CO2 not CO2?

A: Apparently when man generates it - it appears to be far, far deadlier when generated from human activity than when generated in the wild.

Yes and no. The molecules are nearly the same except for a slight isotopic shift and have the same geophysical effect. The huge difference was that the natural flows of carbon in the biosphere were balanced in and ot.

Now, humans are introducing a major, new flow, which has never been previously seen in the geological history of the planet.

If human contributions were insignificant, then we would see a flat Keeling curve dominated by seasonal natural variation. We emphatically do not.

Can you seriously NOT see the selection bias at work in your own claim here? CO2 levels at up to 1800 PPM are apparently "irrelevant" because they happened before man came along, and are therefore somehow magically less effective as a "deadly greenhouse gas" than CO2 levels at 400 PPM that are the current and alarming norm now that man is here?

Yes, they are irrelevant because

a) the planet didn't have to support 9 billion people using the agriculture & the climate we have today.

b) the question isn't whether "life" will survive, that's a given, the question is whether a pleasant and productive and safe human civilization supporting a titanic number of apex predators can survive successfully given a rate of increase and level unprecedented in geological and human history.

Q: What is it about the appearance of mankind on the scene that suddenly made CO2 so deadly to climate?

The ability to dig and burn fossil fuels at a rate thousands of times faster than they were deposited by natural phenomena in long geological past.

A: Selection Bias, where CO2 can only be selected as "deadly" if mankind is present.

Your contention of how bad CO2 is for plants has already been dealt with. All I can add is that when CO2 levels were 4 times higher than present, plant life flourished and tropical rainforest covered most of the Earth.

That would be pretty bad---tropical rain forest is much less productive for human needs than temperate arable land. Why did advanced human civilization thrive in Mediterranean and East Asia, and not in central Brazil or Africa?

Certainly bad for fisheries, productive fish for humans are in the Northern and Southern cold regions, not in stagnant tropical regions.

Where do you think all that evil coal came from? It came from those rain forests growing exponentially and working overtime tying all that CO2 up in coal deposits to be released by Mean Old Man much later, after Mean Old Man figured out just how to make that same CO2 far more deadlier per molecule, apparently... at least 4 times deadlier, it appears.

Yup, and we're reversing that.

Oh yeah, don't forget that the Sun is now brighter than it was back then thanks to long-term changes in stellar dynamics, so way back then at 1800 ppm, the solar insolation was less. So whatever level of greenhouse forcing that was 'acceptable' back in geological time is less acceptable today because the Sun's brighter.

When those CO2 levels dropped there was a world wide rain forest collapse (at the boundary between the Carboniferous and the Permian), because lower CO2 levels are so much better for plants, I guess. Either that, or because mankind had not come along so that evil could be selected for when talking about CO2 levels vs. climate.

Changing the climate of the planet to a state never seen before in the evolutionary history of humans, at a rate never seen in geological history, is an insanely dangerous idea.

a reply to: nenothtu
Comparing today's CO2 levels to ancient prehistoric levels is comparing essentially comparing apples to oranges, a logic fallacy. The dynamics were much different then, and today we are responsible for a huge source of CO2 source as a result of burning fossil fuels for energy. Ocean acidification is happening, this is not a good sign.

Also trying to claim excess CO2 is good because it's plant food is a fool's argument and yet another logic fallacy.(appeal to nature)

It seems like your side is not convinced by research, facts, and observations but will cling to logic fallacies, ignore relevant information, and if all else fails resort to personal attacks on those who are alarmed by the changes human activity is causing to this planet.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu
Comparing today's CO2 levels to ancient prehistoric levels is comparing essentially comparing apples to oranges, a logic fallacy. The dynamics were much different then, and today we are responsible for a huge source of CO2 source as a result of burning fossil fuels for energy. Ocean acidification is happening, this is not a good sign.

So I was correct then - you somehow think CO2 does not act like CO2 unless it comes from a human burning fossil fuels, and want to hide behind a claim that "dynamics were much different then" somehow - but without, of course, elaborating on just how you think they were different. That's cute. So where did all that nasty CO2 come from for us to release in burning those fossil fuels?

We are NOT responsible for a "huge source" - that CO2 was once free - all of it, not just what we've found so far to burn - and was trapped by the plant life it apparently killed off in your world view. How exactly does it take up the CO2 if it was dead? Where did those rain forests come from, and why did they not die off until the CO2 levels dropped to almost as low as they are now?

Also trying to claim excess CO2 is good because it's plant food is a fool's argument and yet another logic fallacy.(appeal to nature)

Call it whatever you like - I know what observations indicate.

It seems like your side is not convinced by research, facts, and observations but will cling to logic fallacies, ignore relevant information, and if all else fails resort to personal attacks on those who are alarmed by the changes human activity is causing to this planet.

I dunno. I might consider some relevant information if any is ever presented. I've already been through research and "facts", and have made observations of my own, all of which point in quite a different direction from what you are trying to present them as.

I cannot help what anyone else is alarmed by. I cannot tailor my life based upon their fears. Those fears would seem to me to be their own lookout, not mine.

Parting question - do you know what causes rain forests, and what causes desertification, what sort of conditions make a climate go one way and not the other?

a reply to: nenothtu

Plenty of information on the topic at hand for you to check out. It is futile to post the same information over and over again. If one is truly interested in researching the topic and hand, there are plenty of sources information available.

What you asked and then answered was essentially a trick question, no point responding to it.

One consequence of the rising CO2 is acidification of the ocean. Figure out why some of us are concerned.

originally posted by: nenothtu

We are NOT responsible for a "huge source" - that CO2 was once free - all of it, not just what we've found so far to burn - and was trapped by the plant life it apparently killed off in your world view.

Do you know how very long ago that was? I'm not sure there were even placental mammals then.
Over all the ice ages, dozens, all that carbon was completely trapped underground. And was already old, old old.

Pre-humans started grunting and after a few hundred millenia could skin a rabbit.

How exactly does it take up the CO2 if it was dead? Where did those rain forests come from, and why did they not die off until the CO2 levels dropped to almost as low as they are now?

No scientist has ever asserted that biological life will be extinguished with more CO2, that's ridiculous and not true.

Remember, the question is about how good the climate will be for humans.

Also trying to claim excess CO2 is good because it's plant food is a fool's argument and yet another logic fallacy.(appeal to nature)

Call it whatever you like - I know what observations indicate.

The observations also indicate that it can have significant effect on planetary climate and ocean acidification in the levels we are emitting.

It seems like your side is not convinced by research, facts, and observations but will cling to logic fallacies, ignore relevant information, and if all else fails resort to personal attacks on those who are alarmed by the changes human activity is causing to this planet.

I dunno. I might consider some relevant information if any is ever presented. I've already been through research and "facts", and have made observations of my own, all of which point in quite a different direction from what you are trying to present them as.

I cannot help what anyone else is alarmed by. I cannot tailor my life based upon their fears. Those fears would seem to me to be their own lookout, not mine.

When it involves the health of global civilization for hundreds of years, ignorance is criminal.

Parting question - do you know what causes rain forests, and what causes desertification, what sort of conditions make a climate go one way and not the other?

Over the long run, patterns of rain, humidity and temperature, i.e. climate, interacting with ecology.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: nenothtu

We are NOT responsible for a "huge source" - that CO2 was once free - all of it, not just what we've found so far to burn - and was trapped by the plant life it apparently killed off in your world view.

Do you know how very long ago that was?

Roughly 318 million years ago. CO2 was still CO2, even at that remote date, and still behaved like CO2 does - this is not new physics.

I'm not sure there were even placental mammals then.

There were not, and that is irrelevant. Plancental mammals are not a requirement to define a biome.

Over all the ice ages, dozens, all that carbon was completely trapped underground. And was already old, old old.

That is correct. Ice ages are unpleasantly cold. They may have mentioned that in school - which is why it is a mystery to me that politicians don't want to emerge from them. Ice ages are what happen when the CO2 becomes as deficiently out of balance as it is currently. Although the planet is struggling to correct that, politicians seem not to like that idea.

Pre-humans started grunting and after a few hundred millenia could skin a rabbit.

Well, that - and, apparently, create masses of CO2 that were somehow not here before, and toss them into the atmosphere.

How exactly does it take up the CO2 if it was dead? Where did those rain forests come from, and why did they not die off until the CO2 levels dropped to almost as low as they are now?

No scientist has ever asserted that biological life will be extinguished with more CO2, that's ridiculous and not true.

Remember, the question is about how good the climate will be for humans.

Ah. I see. What IS anthropocentrism without the anthros? I see your point. Humans do seem to be spectacularly unadaptable, but in all of nature for as long as there has been life, the mantra has been "adapt or die". If humans can't get that accomplished, it matters little whether they are killed by heat or by cold, they will be killed either way.

It does, however, explain to me why it is so important to some that people be seen as "affecting their planet" to such an extent. it seems to be an urge to see humans as somehow more relevant. They are not, but folks are welcome to think so if they want to.

Do you realize just how little of the Earth's surface would be covered by human if every single one of them were gathered to the same area?

Call it whatever you like - I know what observations indicate.

The observations also indicate that it can have significant effect on planetary climate and ocean acidification in the levels we are emitting.

I would say it would be more accurate to say "has had" and "will have again" instead of "can have". Unfortunately for AGW theory, most of the "has had" happened without any human input at all - we weren't even here at the time, as you observed above.

I dunno. I might consider some relevant information if any is ever presented. I've already been through research and "facts", and have made observations of my own, all of which point in quite a different direction from what you are trying to present them as.

I cannot help what anyone else is alarmed by. I cannot tailor my life based upon their fears. Those fears would seem to me to be their own lookout, not mine.

When it involves the health of global civilization for hundreds of years, ignorance is criminal.

Oddly, perhaps, I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I sometimes bestir myself to combat it. Now, what "alarms" folks and what is actually unhealthful are two very different things, and that may be where we differ in opinion. I simply refuse to feed unfounded fears - in others OR in myself.

Parting question - do you know what causes rain forests, and what causes desertification, what sort of conditions make a climate go one way and not the other?

Over the long run, patterns of rain, humidity and temperature, i.e. climate, interacting with ecology.

Precisely! That is rather a general description - presumably to avoid the unpleasant admissions of just which interactions do what, but still on the whole accurate as far as it goes. 6,000 years ago, there was no Sahara Desert - there was also no Amazon Rain Forest at that time. What do you suppose changed to cause those to come into being? You don't really have to answer that if you don't want to, because it is pretty complex, and spans a length of time both before and after their formation.

One thing it was not was AGW.

Climate changes, and always has, due to a complex dance of factors. It changed long before humans arrived, and will continue to change long after they are gone. Humans do not yet have, and likely never will have, the numbers to affect that change to any great degree, and certainly not to as great a degree as they like to think they can. They will breed themselves into starvation long before they reach the numbers required for that, and will go extinct while wondering whether to start their SUV or not.

Humanity need to work WITH the planet if it expects to survive, not against it as seems to be the current vogue. Humanity WILL learn to adapt, or it will die trying to "fix" a climate that it cannot significantly affect at all, arguing all the way to the grave whether it ever really had an effect.

The planet itself will not care, and will go on just as it always has , but without humanity along for the ride.

You mentioned ice ages in the beginning of this post. My wife is of the opinion that this interglacial has peaked, and we are once again on the downhill swing to another glacial episode. I, on the other hand, don't think so - but that may just be wishful thinking. If she turns out to be right, this will have been one of the coldest interglacials in the record, all while people are worrying that they are somehow overheating the planet. The irony in that is staggering. Don't take my word for it - check the records yourself. I only mention that because mankind seems to be supremely uncomfortable with the facts of the vast bulk of Earth's history, and only wants to focus on the extremely recent, geologically speaking, frozen bits of it. I've just given you something to examine in those frozen bits that may make you feel a little better.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

Plenty of information on the topic at hand for you to check out. It is futile to post the same information over and over again. If one is truly interested in researching the topic and hand, there are plenty of sources information available.

What you asked and then answered was essentially a trick question, no point responding to it.

There are no trick questions - either you know, or you don't. It sounds like you may know, and simply not want to admit it, because it does extreme violence to you contention.

I don't think I am the one here that should be visiting "information".

One consequence of the rising CO2 is acidification of the ocean. Figure out why some of us are concerned.

No, but thanks for asking. If you have a concern, spit it out. Articulate it. Don't ask me to read your mind to find what you are concerned about. I'm not a mind reader.

a reply to: nenothtu

So now your argument is CO2 is CO2. The same laws of physics apply.

Radiative forcing, ocean acidification has happened in the past too.

Physics is physics.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

So now your argument is CO2 is CO2. The same laws of physics apply.

Radiative forcing, ocean acidification has happened in the past too.

Physics is physics.

Exactly, but not "now it is..." - my argument has not changed.

a reply to: nenothtu
Here are some simple questions about the climate change debate:

Are we(humans) releasing a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Are we observing an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

As a result of the excess CO2 are we observing the oceans becoming more acidic as a result of carbonic acid?

Does CO2 result in radiative forcing when exposed to sunlight?(hint, this can actually be tested in a lab)

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu
Here are some simple questions about the climate change debate:

Are we(humans) releasing a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Are we observing an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

As a result of the excess CO2 are we observing the oceans becoming more acidic as a result of carbonic acid?

Does CO2 result in radiative forcing when exposed to sunlight?(hint, this can actually be tested in a lab)

No.

Yes.

Maybe.

Probably.


Now my question: why do you believe any of that to be a BAD thing? So much so, that you are entirely unwilling to work with the planet and insist on trying to work against it?

Who do you really think will win that battle - you, or the planet?

a reply to: nenothtu

The first question was "Are we(humans) releasing a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? " and you answered "No."

We are indeed releasing large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere, far more than any natural phenomenon.

Who do you really think will win that battle - you, or the planet?

I am not in a battle with the planet. I recognize that we as a species are causing great harm that will likely make survival of our offspring much more difficult on this planet.

You insist I am trying to work against the planet, that is just YOU spinning what I write into an argument you can knock down. It does NOT represent my view of human induced climate change.

It takes an incredible blind leap of of whatever you want to call it to not see the great changes that man is responsible for on this planet.

Its April here in central New Zealand, which is Autumn.
The temperatures are like mid Winter, we have the heating on in the evening now and in in the morning.
I can't recall it being so cold this early in the year in the last 50 years.
The weather office advises us to wear 3 layers of clothes when outdoors.
The seasons have been arriving later and later each year for the last 50, and Summer is getting shorter.
Global Warming my azz!, its the Ice Age again.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

The first question was "Are we(humans) releasing a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? " and you answered "No."

We are indeed releasing large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere, far more than any natural phenomenon.

"Large" is a relative and subjective term. Just ask the average guy who thinks he's a porn star. Better yet, ask his wife. I still answer "no", we are not releasing a "large amount" of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I am not in a battle with the planet. I recognize that we as a species are causing great harm that will likely make survival of our offspring much more difficult on this planet.

You insist I am trying to work against the planet, that is just YOU spinning what I write into an argument you can knock down. It does NOT represent my view of human induced climate change.

It takes an incredible blind leap of of whatever you want to call it to not see the great changes that man is responsible for on this planet.

You are working against the direction the planet is going, therefore you ARE trying to work against the planet. I guarantee the planet is going to win, regardless of the amount of hubris you put into the effort. When we do that - think we can somehow win against an entire planet - THAT is what will make life rougher on our descendants.

So, you still think puny humans can wreck an entire planet, and Super Human will come along and save the day, force the planet to do what HE wants it to do? That's cute. Go on trying to stick your finger in the dike like the little Dutch boy - me and mine will be finding ways to survive the flood. Your offspring may indeed have a hard time - mine will be survivors. That's how I raised them. We work with what IS, rather than what we wish WAS.

Trying to build a dike didn't work out so well for New Orleans. The storm and the ocean came anyhow.

Nature has a way of doing that.

originally posted by: nenothtu
You are working against the direction the planet is going, therefore you ARE trying to work against the planet. I guarantee the planet is going to win, regardless of the amount of hubris you put into the effort. When we do that - think we can somehow win against an entire planet - THAT is what will make life rougher on our descendants.


So, you still think puny humans can wreck an entire planet, and Super Human will come along and save the day, force the planet to do what HE wants it to do? That's cute. Go on trying to stick your finger in the dike like the little Dutch boy - me and mine will be finding ways to survive the flood. Your offspring may indeed have a hard time - mine will be survivors. That's how I raised them. We work with what IS, rather than what we wish WAS.

Trying to build a dike didn't work out so well for New Orleans. The storm and the ocean came anyhow.

Nature has a way of doing that.

How in the hell did you come up with this. You are again misrepresenting what I write into something that is insanely stupid. If I didn't know better I would say you are trying to build a strawman.

The amount of CO2 the humans release is far greater than all the volcanoes and all the other natural sources of CO2, yet you are seriously going to try and tell me(and the third person reader) that we are NOT releasing large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere when the observable evidence is overwhelming that we are.

You are either blinded by your own ignorance and arrogance(Dunning-Kruger effect) or you are serving an agenda. We have tipped the balance on this planet, some of us like to believe that we are smart and ambitious enough to Recognize we have a problem that we created in regards to our atmosphere and ocean's chemistry.

The first step to fixing a problem is recognizing there is a problem.

originally posted by: jrod

How in the hell did you come up with this. You are again misrepresenting what I write into something that is insanely stupid. If I didn't know better I would say you are trying to build a strawman.

But you Do know better. That's progress.

The amount of CO2 the humans release is far greater than all the volcanoes and all the other natural sources of CO2, yet you are seriously going to try and tell me(and the third person reader) that we are NOT releasing large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere when the observable evidence is overwhelming that we are.

None of which changes the fact that "large" is a subjective and relative measurement, by no means absolute. A ping pong ball is "large" compared to a gnat. Not so much so when compared to an elephant.

You are either blinded by your own ignorance and arrogance(Dunning-Kruger effect) or you are serving an agenda. We have tipped the balance on this planet, some of us like to believe that we are smart and ambitious enough to Recognize we have a problem that we created in regards to our atmosphere and ocean's chemistry.

You should go on believing that. For some people, belief is all they have.

The first step to fixing a problem is recognizing there is a problem.

Fix away. Don't expect me to help, because that would involve ME buying into the lie. Ain't gonna happen.

originally posted by: nenothtu


...

You should go on believing that. For some people, belief is all they have.

....

Fix away. Don't expect me to help, because that would involve ME buying into the lie. Ain't gonna happen.

What am I believing that is a lie? Do you seriously believe that human activity has NOT caused, and continues to cause many great problems on this planet, especially in regards to our environment.

Why are you so damn sure you have NOT bought into the lie?

a reply to: Phage

I have no reason to think otherwise.

I have...Billions of reasons in fact.

a reply to: jrod

Again, do you think we currently have "excess" co2? We are still below the IPCC's "warning" level of 550, which still isn't considered excessive amounts...

I already linked you a paper showing that plants thrive in co2 up to 1200 PPM, and that commercial greenhouses today keep their co2 around 1000 PPM. The only fallacy here is that you don't understand half the stuff you spout on about and the other half you only quote what you've read on skeptical science and seen on the T.V. show Cosmos.

Considering all I have linked for the most part is peer reviewed science, I find you are the one using logic(al) fallacies. In this case a perfect red herring. Your argument is the false statement that "your side" (my side?) does not accept science, when that is all that I have used to support my argument. It appears you are the one who refuses to accept science. By all means though, use blog posts by people who barely passed high school to educate yourself on how much co2 plants need for life...

a reply to: jrod

Asking if human activity has caused harm to the planet is NOT the same thing as asking if humans have caused the warming. They are completely separate questions.

I authored a post on how man has destroyed his habitat and what can be done to reverse it. That post was a transcript of testimony to congress by LEADING climate scientists. All of them authored part of the IPCC reports and contributed to the US' own climate policy. All of them downplayed man's contribution to warming, even one who was one of the fathers of the current AGW fear environment.

Again, I have never, not once, claimed the earth is not warming. I just disagree with man's contribution.