Global Climate Change is Entirely Man-Made

a reply to: beezzer

The concept of "man made climate change" is absurd.

More doom porn, that will turn out exactly like the rest of teh doom porn of the last 20 years.

I am a retired Geologist, and I maintain that the very basis of IPCC's forecasts are based on a failed hypothesis. By definition, once one's hypothesis has failed (none of their predictions have matched observable data) one must go back to the drawing board.

The basis of the greenhouse effect is faulty. Totally leaves out important criteria and is presented always in a light that emphasises man's role.

a reply to: bbracken677

I am going to follow up with one statement: It is generally accepted (by those same climatologists) that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect (GHE). That leaves 5% for all the other GHGs combined. Of which roughly 3.5% is co2. Of all the co2 in the atmosphere, man is responsible for 3%, as the other 97% of co2 is of natural origins.

Also..it is said that a significant portion of the warmth we feel at the surface is due to the GHE. In other words, without the GHE, this would be one hella cold place. The problem is, their calculations do not (NOT) take into account the warmth that would be present when a gas is under pressure. When one calculates the resultant temperature of gases under the pressure that exists at sea level one accounts for most of the temp that is attributed to GHE.

Does the IPCC model take into account Milankovitch cycles? Umm.. nope. Nor does it take into consideration cosmic ray influence. Those 2 account for the biggest drivers of climate change. To a degree that co2 is almost insignificant.

Glacial growth, global cooling has initiated in the past with co2 levels that have been 10x higher than ours today, and in one case estimated to be 16x the levels of today.

Global warming is not a problem. Global cooling will be a significant problem. At least regarding the survival of our species. Global warming will be an inconvenience. Global cooling will kill billions.

I would like to add that I am not in favor of pollution. We should be good caretakers and citizens of our planet. On the other hand, I do not like the doom porn aspect in which co2 is treated as a pollutant when it is essential to life.

a reply to: bbracken677

One more thing: Our magnetosphere has weakened by over 15% in the last 150 years...it is weakening at an ever increasing rate. What, exactly, do you suppose the effect of that has been, and why does the IPCC not take that into account in their modeling? I can answer that question...you just wont like it.

Remember cosmic radiation, from the sun and galactic? It has a larger correlation to climate than co2 ever hoped to have. Co2 only correlates with an 800-1000 year lag behind temps. In other words, at the end of a glacial cycle, as global warming kicks in, co2 only rises 800-1000 years after temps have begun to rise. Some climate driver that is. We all know (at least, I assume we do) that the ocean retains co2 when cooler and releases when warmer.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: bbracken677

I am going to follow up with one statement: It is generally accepted (by those same climatologists) that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect (GHE).

That's not true.

www.realclimate.org...

And in any case, water vapor and clouds are short-acting feedbacks to longer term drivers and govern the climate sensitivity.

The idea that because water vapor exists and has physics (undeniably true) somehow means that other physics (infrared emissivity of greenhouse gases) doesn't matter is preposterous. The effects of a far, far, far, far, rarer class of gases (CFC's) had major effects in the atmosphere. Back then one part of the political spectrum wasn't so profoundly irresponsible to attack and dissemble strong results of science and the people who worked on them because they didn't like the answer. (Only in the USSR with Lysenkoism, a complete disaster, did that happen before in any developed country----and the USSR was deeply wicked and diseased).

That leaves 5% for all the other GHGs combined. Of which roughly 3.5% is co2. Of all the co2 in the atmosphere, man is responsible for 3%, as the other 97% of co2 is of natural origins.

Also..it is said that a significant portion of the warmth we feel at the surface is due to the GHE. In other words, without the GHE, this would be one hella cold place. The problem is, their calculations do not (NOT) take into account the warmth that would be present when a gas is under pressure. When one calculates the resultant temperature of gases under the pressure that exists at sea level one accounts for most of the temp that is attributed to GHE.

That's circular reasoning because the pressure depends on the temperature in the equation of state. Total energy balance matters. And in any case you can't ignore the forcing from greenhouse gases, it is a measured fact.

Does the IPCC model take into account Milankovitch cycles? Umm.. nope.

What's the magnitude of changes in forcing during 200 years from these astrophysical effects? It can be quantitatively computed. (answer: it's irrelevant)

Nor does it take into consideration cosmic ray influence. Those 2 account for the biggest drivers of climate change. To a degree that co2 is almost insignificant.

Now that's complete baloney.

www.realclimate.org...

originally posted by: bbracken677
e all know (at least, I assume we do) that the ocean retains co2 when cooler and releases when warmer.

You mean like now?

Except the ocean is getting warmer

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

and is retaining more and more carbon (the carbonic acid is what's causing the measured acidification of oceans)

www.skepticalscience.com...

simultaneously!

[because of rapidly increasing anthropogenic additions to CO2, and the global warming which comes from it and other forcing]

Actual observed facts matter, even when they contradict your preferred political outcome.

What the actual science means of course is that if the ocean continues to warm even more (as it has been and will do relentlessly) then the ability to absorb carbon is going to go down and therefore the atmospheric CO2 will go up even faster and faster and global warming will accelerate and get worse, worse than just the current worst-case emission scenarios that assume a constant ocean absorption fraction.

a reply to: mbkennel

First off, please try to use valid sources, if you are going to source or quote. Realclimate is no different than referring to Fox News for factual information. Sure, some of it is right on, but some of it is so biased it hurts.

From Harvard Edu:

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere.

acmg.seas.harvard.edu...

Second, if you tell me I am wrong, you most definitely need to use a different source.

In the case of your remark about circular reasoning, you just take a gas law and insert the correct parameters. You know what the pressure will be at sea level, on average. It is quite easy to calculate the temperature from the formula. You claim that is it circular logic... well then perhaps you should explain that to the various physicists who have proposed just that. If you like, I can post the formula and walk you through it.I have done so repeatedly in other threads.

Your remark about Milankovich cycles being irrelevant is spoken like a true layman.
They are not irrelevant but are the major players in climate change. Try asking someone who knows instead of mouthing the mantra. Milankovitch cycles affect how much sunlight strikes the earth. Its called insolence. If you refuse to believe that insolence plays a part in climate change then we are done talking. I refuse to discuss science with morons.

See the last link at the bottom if you wish to learn about Milankovitch cycles. Irrelevant, eh? I rofl at that.

If GHG are such huge players, then please explain why ice ages have begun with co2 levels 10 and 16 times our current levels? Please explain why, if co2 is the driver, then why do we come out of glaciation when co2 levels are at very low levels and why we enter glacial periods when co2 levels are at relatively higher levels? Perhaps you can explain why co2 levels lag behind temperature changes by 800-1000 years?

Swallow what they tell you, or think for yourself. I have a career of Geology, and before the current fad started it was known that co2 was a feedback, and not a cause of climate change.

You do know that as co2 levels increase the increase in GHE reduces logarythmically, right? In other words, double from 200 ppm to 400ppm results in a change in GHE of X...if you double it again, it most certainly is not 2X.

LOL you claim the cosmic ray influence is baloney, and yet recent (as in...recent) research has shown it to be highly relevant. You really should not pretend to know more than you do.

Realclimate is laughable. Why dont you link me to Guardian articles? Or Daily Caller? LOL I will find the paper on cosmic ray "relevance" and add the link to this post.

Here we go: No BS link here. CERN. (Yeah, what do those bozos know, right?)
indico.cern.ch...

Here is another link regarding why and how glacial periods begin and end:
arxiv.org...

Want more? I have reserch papers out the yingyang, bud. Most are geological in nature, but they also call into question the role that co2 plays...or doesnt play, that is. Co2 is not the driver that is being foisted on us. Co2 is a feedback mechanism...this time around it is augmented by 3% contribution by man. Wont change the coming of the next glacial period, since all the players that contribute to glacials still exist. Most prominant is the layout of the continents and their blockage of currents.

a reply to: mbkennel

Here is another link you may be interested in:


www.sws.uiuc.edu...

a reply to: mbkennel

You are misunderstanding that. The ocean is always a co2 sink. It takes in co2 always, simply because there is lots of life in the ocean that likes co2. You have heard of the concept of the oceanic co2 sink, right? Same concept as the plants on the surface consuming co2 from the atmosphere. That makes for 2 co2 sinks.

What I was talking about was the water itself holding the co2. Perhaps you should research that. A cold ocean stores co2, and as it warms up it is more readily released. This is exactly why co2 levels in the atmosphere drop during glacial periods. This is completely independent of ocean life consuming the co2.

Ask yourself this: Will atmospheric gases be more likely to be released from a pot of cold water, or a pot of hot water?

a reply to: mbkennel

because of rapidly increasing anthropogenic additions to co2, and the global warming which comes from it and other forcing

yeah...all 3% of the total co2 present in the atmosphere.

Global warming has, with the exception of a few pauses/cooling periods, has been the trend since the end of the last glacial period. I suppose man is responsible for that as well?
lol
All that industry and "anthropogenic" additions to co2 10000 years ago must be the cause, no doubt.

Seriously, dude.....

I suppose that when co2 levels in the past have risen (along with temps, but lagging temps by 800-1000 years) was due to some other civilization burning fossil fuels? You know, the ones we dont know about.

Frankly I don't care if AGW is true or not, with the other news going on, its soon to be a completely moot point.

Depopulation will put this issue behind us very soon.

AGW proponents, you have gotten your wish. Man-made global warming will soon be a thing of the past. After we lose a few billion in the next year.

a reply to: lakesidepark

Yeah, lol...I live in Dallas, too.

Man made global warming is a myth. Global warming has been the trend since we came out of the last period of glaciation and will exist until global cooling sets in. That will be the beeyatch. Global warming is good...global cooling bad. Hows that for a scientific statement? LOL

a reply to: mbkennel

Your skepticalscience link is baloney too. Try real unbiased sources, for a change. Grats on using NOAA, even though it doesnt mean what you think it means.

a reply to: bbracken677

I would just like to thank you for being a voice of reason regarding this topic! Keep up the great work! Really fine fine arguments and backed up by solid sources!

I'm pretty much a layman on the topic although I have read up a fair bit on it and it's always been glaringly obvious that it's a load of tosh! And when they have Bill Gates doing talks saying we have to get co2 down to near 0 you just have to PYSL! XD

Anyway, thanks again, twas a great read!

EDIT: Would just like to add that, it is common bloomin knowledge we have had past warm periods and ice ages, so it just strikes me as being so retarded to even use this "climate change" non-sense! When I say this to people that believe the hype they say ahhh yes, but we're making it go faster! hahahah Just too damn funny it hurts!

I then ask them, okay so what are the figures? How long did it take before and how long is this one going to take? XD

Obviously I then get a load of stuttering... Why can they not see that it is just so so silly?

a reply to: bbracken677

The title is not stated as a question, and I did read your post and replied.

This is not a knee jerk reaction at all. I have been posting on the co2 man made stuff for the last several weeks.

Unless your title and original post are miss stated, then I assume the discussion is around whether or not climate change is man made, which is ridiculous any way you look at it. I did not take it that you were sold on that, so don't get me wrong. I replied to your OP, since you started the discussion, and stated my position quite clearly.

Are you sure you aren't having a knee jerk reaction because you obviously haven't realized this is not my thread, title, or OP and my first post on the matter was on page 3.

This is beezzer's thread and it was pretty obvious to me that the premise of the thread was to have a discussion on the possible solutions if we were to "assume" it to be valid. As he clearly stated to you it was not to debate the validity of AGW like in every other thread on the matter.

I am still giving you the benefit of doubt that you didn't quite understand the premise because the alternative would be that your purposefully trying to stifle any meaningful conversation by insight ing the usual bickering about its validity.

If a thread was started that said for the sake of discussion let's assume there is life on Titan would you insist on arguing there is no life on Titan in that thread? I dont think your "that guy" which is why I said "I don't think you understood the OP".

This thread was created to honestly discuss the solutions to man-made climate change.

Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

originally posted by: beezzer
This thread was created to honestly discuss the solutions to man-made climate change.

Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Of course you made it clear Beezer.

I was surprised it went this long without problems.

P

a reply to: beezzer

This thread was created to honestly discuss the solutions to man-made climate change.

Why are you looking for solutions to something you don't believe in?

a reply to: bbracken677

I don't think you should've brought the 'is AGW real or not' argument into this thread. It just distracts from the topic at hand.

I think the purpose of this particular thread was about the OP's attempt to set the argument aside (for argument's sake) and just have people bring some ideas to the table for actual real-world cleaner solutions and smarter technologies, rather than this ridiculous carbon-tax-smoke-and-mirrors scam they're spoon feeding us with.

AGW happening or not, we do need to clean up our act either way.

THAT, at least, is something I think we can all agree on.

Therefore, it's a worthy discussion needed to be kept in a thread all on its own.

LOL

Dang you guys beat me to it while I was typing out my post.