This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

a reply to: loveguy

It is measurable. O2 levels are decreasing, however currently at a tiny level.

a reply to: loveguy

This increase in CO2 is already in the Earth's atmosphere. From 1998-2016 CO2 levels increased by 39ppm. If there was any truth to the claim that CO2 causes massive warming, we would have seen an increase in temperatures of ~0.4 degrees.

But from 1998-2016 temperatures only increased by ~0.1 degrees. And we are not even talking about the other changes occurring to Earth, and our sun which also affects our climate.

a reply to: jrod

First of all, yes there are camps... There is the AGW camp, or people who "believe" mankind is the cause of climate change/Global Warming, and there are those who are skeptical of the AGW claims because observations have shown time, and time, and time again that the AGW premise is wrong. You don't side with "science"... Science is about skepticism, not about "consensus", or trying to silence those who would disagree with you because the evidence they present disagree with "your beliefs".

BTW, we are talking about CO2, not about CH4. So stop trying to now change your narrative. In fact you have stated, several times throughout the years "that because CO2 is increasing it must be it causing the warming"... Of course you have said this in other words but that has been your position. CO2 increases, mankind is the cause for all the increase of CO2, and thus we have seen an increase in warming so it must be CO2, hence mankind causing it. That's your position. But this is wrong.

As for your claim that skeptics will try to manipulate the science because it would hurt the profit"... Just because a person is a skeptic doesn't mean "they must own oil/coal shares"... That's yet another BS claim of the many you keep making...

Yet again... CO2 levels have increased by 39 ppm in 18 years and we don't see the increase in warming claimed by the AGW camp that CO2 causes...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: loveguy

This increase in CO2 is already in the Earth's atmosphere. From 1998-2016 CO2 levels increased by 39ppm. If there was any truth to the claim that CO2 causes massive warming, we would have seen an increase in temperatures of ~0.4 degrees.

But from 1998-2016 temperatures only increased by ~0.1 degrees. And we are not even talking about the other changes occurring to Earth, and our sun which also affects our climate.

(A) you are taking a giant outlier, the massive 1997–98 El Niño and comparing it to the weaker 2015–16 El Niño.
(B) you are basing the increase on what - that bull# spouted by Dr Roy Spencer?

You want to know something? Here is a comparison of two of Roy Spencer's sets. One being the 'new' 6.0 and the other being the 'old' 5.6 version. This is ONE MONTH - November; notice how much it has changed between the two:



Clearly he doesn't know what the hell he is doing, so why in God's name would you trust this guy with your future?

a reply to: Greven

So...you obviously didn't notice that both graphs use different parameters for the plotted data?...

Let me give you a hint. Look at the numbers on the left side of the graphs and maybe you will understand why.

originally posted by: Greven
...
(A) you are taking a giant outlier, the massive 1997–98 El Niño and comparing it to the weaker 2015–16 El Niño.
...

What?... The 2015-2016 Super El Niño, which actually started in 2014, was stronger than the 1997-1998 Super El Niño...

i mean, even the graphs shows this.



The spike to the right shows the 2015-2016 Super El niño.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

So...you obviously didn't notice that both graphs use different parameters for the plotted data?...

Let me give you a hint. Look at the numbers on the left side of the graphs and maybe you will understand why.

Let me give YOU a hint, I made the graphs in some crappy software, since I'm missing something better at the moment.
Maybe this will help you - November 1990 in the Arctic:
UAH 6.0: -1.34
UAH 5.6: -2.15

That's on that chart above. See the difference?

Hell, if you don't believe me, go make your own and look at the vast differences between the two data sets:
6.0: www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
5.6: www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Now don't give me some crap after you've responded like this - tell me why the hell Dr. Spencer should be trusted.

e: HOLY CRAP look at the difference in October 2016 Arctic between the two sets:
6.0: 1.63 :NEW
5.6: 2.53 :OLD

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven
...
(A) you are taking a giant outlier, the massive 1997–98 El Niño and comparing it to the weaker 2015–16 El Niño.
...

What?... The 2015-2016 Super El Niño, which actually started in 2014, was stronger than the 1997-1998 Super El Niño...

i mean, even the graphs shows this.

The spike to the right shows the 2015-2016 Super El niño.

It really wasn't stronger.
Although, it looks like I was a little off, and it appears they have revised strength to put them roughly equal.

a reply to: Greven

Did you even look at the data you posted?...

...
1998 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.5 -0.1 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4
...
2016 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8
...

You are going to tell me temperatures weren't warmer in the 2016 Super El Niño?

Last i checked 2.2 is warmer than 2.1, 2 is warmer than 1.8, 1.6 is warmer than 1.4, etc. The 2015-2016 ENSO was a stronger Super El Niño than the one in 1998.

a reply to: Greven

BTW, you should give a link to where you got those graphs from Dr. Roy Spencer so we can see what you are talking about.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: ColCurious
You, and some others seem to be suggesting that "somehow" it takes more than 18 years for CO2 to absorb heat and warm the atmosphere...

No. Listen:

It takes far more than 18 years to account for the feedback lag = the time it takes for continuous CO2-emissions to impact the already naturally occurring climate-cycles.
Also, you need a wider timeframe to account for various relative contributions of natural forcings and chemical interactions (like saturation of buffers) that also mask the contribution of CO2 to global warming.
This inertia (inherent in the climatesystem of our planet) is the reason CO2-emissions and increase in global mean temperature do not correlate in a linear way.

Regarding your use of the term "AGW-camp":
This terminology only aims to suggest that there is multiple camps that are somehow on par, and that "the jury is still out" on the effect of CO2-emissions... which isn't even remotely true.
We have overwhelming and convincing scientific evidence - what your "camp" produces is either misinterpreting or misapplying this data.
If there was new evidence that would challenge the current consensus - it would be considered.

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: buddah6

originally posted by: buddah6
The "Left" has to declare CO2 to be a green house gas so they can tax your breath. They are so determined to tax Americans into poverty and distribute their wealth to the rest of the world.

If this was a left-vs-rightwing issue, how do you explain green-conservative pragmatists accepting the contribution of science and rationalism?

***Please don't make this a left-right issue... it only makes your rightwing look stupid - and might have a negative effect on conservatism as a whole.

Firstly, I don't even know what a "green-conservative pragmatist" is! I don't know what was contributed to whomever. What I do know is in science there must be a element of scientific proof as to a claim not a presidential declaration to prove that CO2 is a green house gas and it's acceptable levels.

You declared my statement makes right wing look stupid. Again it is a declaration not scientifically proven. NASA says that the atmosphere contains 450 PPM CO2 per their website. You say that this level is dangerous. I will ask you a question and you may answer with your information. What is the indoor air quality guidelines in the US and Germany.

Our EPA set these guidelines for a healthy environment for our families and children. You will see that 600 ppm is the level that only require outside ventilation for schools and office buildings. 1500 PPM is the level that requires mechanical ventilation. Allowable CO2 levels in Europe is much higher with having the highest acceptable levels of CO2.

This is not a right or left wing position...it's what is right or wrong. Be careful not use the Ostrigocranial effect in discussing the politics in AGW.

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Why isn't CO2 increasing temperatures by half (~0.4 degrees) if from 1998-2016 CO2 levels have increased by 39ppm?

Because CO2 and °C do not correlate in a linear way.
You're disregarding climate sensitivity (feedback lag) and the relative contributions of natural forcings (like the function of oceans as CO2 buffers - to name one). Your timeframe here is just way too short.

So what timeframe will do? Doesn't the ice core data(400-800KY) shows co2 lags temperature by +-800 years?
So the recent T rise has nothing to do with co2 increase?

a reply to: Greven

you are taking a giant outlier, the massive 1997–98 El Niño and comparing it to the weaker 2015–16 El Niño.

There wasn't so much difference between the 97/98 el niño and the 15/16.
ggweather.com...

More detailed ONI


and Temperature comparison with a normal year 2004-2005





www.cpc.noaa.gov...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

Did you even look at the data you posted?...

...
1998 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.5 -0.1 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4
...
2016 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8
...

You are going to tell me temperatures weren't warmer in the 2016 Super El Niño?

Last i checked 2.2 is warmer than 2.1, 2 is warmer than 1.8, 1.6 is warmer than 1.4, etc. The 2015-2016 ENSO was a stronger Super El Niño than the one in 1998.

Did YOU look at the data? Clearly you glanced at it, but you seem to have forgotten that there are two years in the 1997-1998 El Niño; it was at its strongest in 1997:

1997 -0.5 -0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3

Note the multiple 2.3 indices. See the post by intergalactic fire. They were basically the same.

Temperatures were warmer in 2016, but it wasn't because of El Niño. So, what's that leave you with? Global warming.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

BTW, you should give a link to where you got those graphs from Dr. Roy Spencer so we can see what you are talking about.

Easily for the version 6.0:
See the "Lower Troposphere" link, that's what the LT part of TLT means.
You have to go back more than a year to see him posting the 5.6 version, to March of 2015:
uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)

a reply to: intergalactic fire

The problem with CO2 in ice cores is the uncertainty of the dating because CO2 doesn't freeze on Earth... hence it can move and that's why there are those the massive error ranges, placing it before warming, after warming, or even at the same time.

This is a long argued skeptic point. Now you don't hear about that part so much... you hear skeptics claiming CO2 came after warming, despite the range allowing for it to come before or even at the same time. I guess people pick and choose what evidence they accept, even amongst data that they themselves use.

As to the correction, thanks for the images. I did catch it later, but I had not seen it recently and was a bit off in my off-the-cuff remark.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So what you just said there is that all of those actual Climate Scientists with PHDs and more are wrong, but somehow you figured it out? Seriously...is that what you're saying? You're definitely smarter than me...that's a given, but I'm having a hard time believing you are smarter than most of the Climate Scientists on earth.

Also keep in mind that you said. "AGW Camp" and those that are skeptical or believe in science. That's not quite true. As one who believes in Science, I research and keep finding other, new, more, more research that is telling me that man is the source of global Warming. It's not a camp, or a group or a crowd, if you are believing what scientists are telling you. And most of the arguements against AGW that I find or research skeptical comes from fossil fuel funded scientists, that should be a red flag, right there.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Why isn't CO2 increasing temperatures by half (~0.4 degrees) if from 1998-2016 CO2 levels have increased by 39ppm?

Because CO2 and °C do not correlate in a linear way.
You're disregarding climate sensitivity (feedback lag) and the relative contributions of natural forcings (like the function of oceans as CO2 buffers - to name one). Your timeframe here is just way too short.

So what timeframe will do? Doesn't the ice core data(400-800KY) shows co2 lags temperature by +-800 years?
So the recent T rise has nothing to do with co2 increase?

Ice Core data does not include any period of time in which humans were digging and burning fossilized coal. During all that time, the coal was locked underground and inert.

Because things are different now, the result is different now. The result is what was predicted by scientists decades ago. Roger Revelle mentioned global warming from fossil fuel emissions in an environmental report to the Johnson administration in 1968 and predicted it would be experimentally clear by 2000. It was experimentally clear a few years earlier than that (in the science community, by early-mid 90's the debate on the primacy of greenhouse warming over other effects was finished).

The existence of other influences on temperature in the past when human civilization, or even homo sapiens did not exist, does nothing to negate the positive radiative forcing from increased CO2 that is directly measurable in laboratory and in situ in the atmosphere and has been done so for decades to a century.

When extremely secure physics says X, and a naive interpretation of paleo-climatology indirect records says Y, but there is another plausible interpretation which is compatible with X (and happens to agree with professional modeling)---go with X.

Stuff that happened 400,000 years ago and we have indirect evidence of is less informative than stuff regarding physics and observations NOW.

originally posted by: Greven
This is a long argued skeptic point. Now you don't hear about that part so much... you hear skeptics claiming CO2 came after warming, despite the range allowing for it to come before or even at the same time. I guess people pick and choose what evidence they accept, even amongst data that they themselves use.

Emotionally motivated denialists pick and choose based on the result.

Scientists pick and choose and weight based on experience in science: believe the laws of physics first, and uncertain geological observations less.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: jrod

Then, if that were true "that CO2 causes massive warming" why didn't temperatures increase by ~0.4 degrees when CO2 levels increased from 1998 -2016 by 39ppm?

Because some of the excess heat went into the oceans, which is a temporary phenomenon because of conservation of energy. Generally 90% of the excess from GW goes to ocean. Your 'temperatures' are a partial measurement of the Earth.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

Look at the charts and data. They go up from 1998.

Oceans can store and transport heat up to thousand year timescales.

There are also volcanic effects, effects from non-CO2 greenhouse gases, effects from cooling actions from humans, and land use changes. All of them are being considered by scientists who do it for a living and need actual numbers.