NASA: Only 10 Years Till Irreversable Climatic Danger Point

Originally posted by Muaddib

So now your friends are trying to make the CO2 lag dissapear too?... like they tried "their dissapearing act of the Roman Warming period, the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age"?...

So what's new huh?...

Not really, it is actually more difficult to explain if the CO2 precedes the temperature increase. If we find that CO2 precedes the initial warming, we need to somehow explain what initiated the emission of CO2. It is more likely that the lag is not as long as currently suggested.

With a lag, it is easier to explain, and is more consistent with what we know. Only people who have issues with logical fallacies think the lag is actually a problem, it is easily explained by positive feedback (i.e. orbital effects induce warming, which eventually initiates a release of CO2, that, as a GHG, further increases temperatures).

But to suggest that because CO2 lags a temperature increase, that CO2 cannot induce warming is a logical fallacy of immense proportions. Although, I've told you this numerous times by now.

OK, I guess no matter what I say I'm wrong. This is why I like to stay away from threads like this, because no matter how much I try to stay away from one side and find some sort of compromise between the warring factions, someone always misinterprets what I say.

And just so you know I wasn't just talking about CO2. I'm glad people like to put words in my mouth.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Hawker9]

Originally posted by Hawker9
...................
And just so you know I wasn't just talking about CO2. I'm glad people like to put words in my mouth.

I wasn't "puting any words in your mouth".... You yourself said, and i quote:

Originally posted by Hawker9Well, like I said before, the CO2 produced by humans probably does have some impact - large or small - on the whole deal, and, like I also said before, better safe than sorry. Plus, what harm could it do if we tried to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions? The least it would do is make the air we breathe just a little bit healthier.

You just have to go back a page to read what you yourself said.

Originally posted by melatonin
...........
Only people who have issues with logical fallacies think the lag is actually a problem, it is easily explained by positive feedback (i.e. orbital effects induce warming, which eventually initiates a release of CO2, that, as a GHG, further increases temperatures).

Yes it is a problem when the whole claim from the "let's blame mankind crowd" is that anthropogenic CO2 caused the current warming...when there is no proof of this.

Only the people that "want to blame mankind" would dismiss the fact that CO2 according to the geological record, and even according to the present warming, CO2 has always lagged temperature increases, meaning CO2 increases in the past have always been an effect, and not a cause, of Climate Change.

Originally posted by melatonin
But to suggest that because CO2 lags a temperature increase, that CO2 cannot induce warming is a logical fallacy of immense proportions. Although, I've told you this numerous times by now.

To suggest that CO2 must be causing lots of warming because it began to increase, and continued to increase after temperatures have been increasing for hundreds of years before CO2 levels changed, is the worse "logical fallacy" anyone can make.

Everytime i have shown research which disproves your claim, and which show that even a doubling of CO2 on Earth atmosphere, although there will be some differences, it won't increase temperatures much as for example in the U.S. temperatures would increase at the most, with a doubling of CO2 of about 700 ppm, by 0.014C....

But even if i show research from scientists from around the world all which say "the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming period, were warmer than the 20th century and CO2 levels were lower, and that those two periods plus the Little Ice Age were global events you keep excerpting from Mann, and associates all who want to blame mankind because apparently they don't want to lose their jobs which depends on people believing in anthropogenic Global Warming.


[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yes it is a problem when the whole claim from the "let's blame mankind crowd" is that anthropogenic CO2 caused the current warming...when there is no proof of this.

Strawman.

It is suggested to be one significant cause, not the only cause.

Only the people that "want to blame mankind" would dismiss the fact that CO2 according to the geological record, and even according to the present warming, CO2 has always lagged temperature increases, meaning CO2 increases in the past have always been an effect, and not a cause, of Climate Change.

Logical fallacy.

Chickens cause eggs, and eggs cause chickens.

To suggest that CO2 must be causing lots of warming because it began to increase, and continued to increase after temperatures have been increasing for hundreds of years before CO2 levels changed, is the worse "logical fallacy" anyone can make.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, of course it causes warming. As you can see from the new study I posted, the period of lag is not set in concrete.

Everytime i have shown research which disproves your claim, and which show that even a doubling of CO2 on Earth atmosphere, although there will be some differences, it won't increase temperatures much as for example in the U.S. temperatures would increase at the most, with a doubling of CO2 of about 700 ppm, by 0.014C....

We're slowly whittling this down now, this is a little less misleading than when you normally quotemine this article, which is actually based on a climate model, I assume you think this climate model is perfect but all others can be ignored.

Pielke Sr's study is focused on central US grasslands, nothing more.

Climate sensitivity on a global scale is estimated to be 2-4.5'C.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by forestlady


here do you get this 33.3% figure?
I HAVE examined both sides. Your science to me, doesn't hold water. I didn't say one thing in this thread that would indicate I'm close-minded. You OTOH choose to ridicule those who don't agree with you and then say it doesn't matter to you.

Where do you get "a consensus"? My figure is from an independent poll of working scientists. It's likely more like 40% by now. Again, believe what you choose if you have examined the facts. I only want to get my message to people who may want to hear it. I only ridicule Al Gore because he ironically is my cousin, our politics are as different as night and day and I don't believe or trust anything he says about anyone or anything.

If it makes one happy and somehow feel superior to believe that humans have caused climate change, then they should believe it with all their heart.

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who claim they have found it."

If I use your axiom as a guideline then I should seriously doubt you since you claim to have the truth of global warming.


[edit on 1-6-2007 by grover]

The Earth's Climate, 4.5 billion years of change and counting. Get used to it or find somewhere else to live. The thought of preserving anything in a dynamic system is rediculous. Oh and as for consensus, anytime science becomes religion on the basis of consensus, it usually means there isn't adequate research or proof.

Its a way to lock in the vague and unrealized as fact by means repetitive linquistics. Much like how a 30 year old computer model with an error rate of about 300% has become the basis for "facts". I don't even know why the hell all the money was spent of gathering actual data because we had already fabricated "facts" we needed for our little political scare tactic.

I agree, if it makes you feel good to blame yourselves for what you perceive is a manmade disaster, by all means, knock yourselves out. In 50 years, it will have been replaced by the next big threat used to keep us all teetering on the verge of disaster.

Originally posted by grover
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who claim they have found it."

If I use your axiom as a guideline then I should seriously doubt you since you claim to have the truth of global warming.


[edit on 1-6-2007 by grover]

I don't claim to know the whole truth about anything, climate change or anything else. I merely study the phenomena, and call them like I see them. It's called "having an opinion" in most circles. So we agree to disagree, that's no skin off my nose. Again, believe as you will.

This thread is going nowhere, so this is my final post here.

Originally posted by melatonin

Strawman.

It is suggested to be one significant cause, not the only cause.

Strawman.

The "Let's blame mankind crowd" have since the beginning been claiming "it is because of anthropogenic CO2 that the climate is changing"...hence such a statement implies that anthropogenic CO2 caused the current Climate Change, which is wrong, and even with CO2 increasing, there is no definite proof that it will cause the massive warming the "Let's blame mankind crowd" keep claiming it will cause.

Originally posted by melatonin
Logical fallacy.

Chickens cause eggs, and eggs cause chickens.

Logical fallacy at it's worse... just because CO2 is an effect of warming, it doesn't mean it causes all the warming you, Mann and associates claim it causes.

Originally posted by melatonin
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, of course it causes warming. As you can see from the new study I posted, the period of lag is not set in concrete.

As i have posted in several occasions with proof, during the current warming CO2 lagged the temperature increase by 260+ years, so the CO2 lag is real.

Originally posted by melatonin
We're slowly whittling this down now, this is a little less misleading than when you normally quotemine this article, which is actually based on a climate model, I assume you think this climate model is perfect but all others can be ignored.

It shows that you are cherry picking your data claiming CO2 will raise temperature by several degrees... If anyone has been misleading and providing flawed data is you, which includes the "numbers you keep extracting out of nowhere claiming that 100% of CO2 is anthropogenic...when not even Mann and associates would try to claim that...

Originally posted by melatonin
Pielke Sr's study is focused on central US grasslands, nothing more.

Climate sensitivity on a global scale is estimated to be 2-4.5'C.

Global sensitivity to what? a doubling of CO2?

If CO2 was a mayor gas in the atmosphere those numbers you give might be true. But CO2 is neither a mayor gas, nor is it of course the only gas in the atmosphere.

A slight increase in water vapor levels would increase temperatures more than a doubling of CO2...and we know we are in a warming period which means all GHGs have been increasing naturally as well, even CO2 .

Water vapor exists in larger quantities than CO2 in our atmosphere, and it retains more than twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, yet you, Mann and associates don't try to claim H2Ov is an evil GHG...because 99% of it is natural.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Ya know this really gets tedious... a person starts a thread on the subject of global warming (among others) ,and it is only a matter of time before SOME PEOPLE (and it is often the same people) show up and start ganging up on others who disagree with them and flood the thread with endless posts that have the effect of killing, not just the thread, but even the desire to seriously discuss the matter. Eventually it falls apart into a tit for tat snit match. It has become endemic and has become a determent to ATSNN and any validity it might have.

Can't the moderators do something about this?

Originally posted by grover
...but even the desire to seriously discuss the matter...

No kidding.

I find the entire exercise futile on this board.

Denying ignorance, indeed.

A collaborative effort among the members in the discussion is all that is required to deny ignorance.

As long as what is posted is done so within the boundaries of the terms and conditions of use, there is little the moderating staff can or should do.

If you have questions about the content of any member's contributions to the discussion, then ask, if you think the facts being presented are biased, challenge these points. Through a constructive civil debate, and collaborative discussion, ignorance can and will be denied.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
A collaborative effort among the members in the discussion is all that is required to deny ignorance.

As long as what is posted is done so within the boundaries of the terms and conditions of use, there is little the moderating staff can or should do.

If you have questions about the content of any member's contributions to the discussion, then ask, if you think the facts being presented are biased, challenge these points. Through a constructive civil debate, and collaborative discussion, ignorance can and will be denied.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

I do not question any of that... my objection is that certain members gang up on a thread and essentially kill it by flooding it with never ending posts and browbeating those who disagree with them. It is called bullying.

There are those of us who would like to seriously discuss the issues without being belittled because we disagree with the gang.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
A collaborative effort among the members in the discussion is all that is required to deny ignorance.

I wish more members would renew their commitment to that end. It was what I think brought most of us here in the first place.



EDIT: I'd like to add that I don't see how moderators can fix that... the responsibility rests with the membership.

ATS is a special place and will only remain so if its membership remains vigilant against the nonsense so easily found on other boards. While even I have on occasion lost sight of the difference, I have always believed that denying ignorance and attacking it are two very different exercises.


[edit on 1-6-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

I wish more members would renew their commitment to that end. It was what I think brought most of us here in the first place.

Oh I see...so because other members are posting research and information which refutes your own claims they are not trying to deny ignorance?...

To quote you... ''Yaaaawn!!!"

Originally posted by Muaddib
Strawman.

I know of no serious climatologist who claims that CO2 is the only cause of current warming.

Logical fallacy at it's worse... just because CO2 is an effect of warming, it doesn't mean it causes all the warming you, Mann and associates claim it causes.

Not a logical fallacy at all. You are the one claiming it is an effect not a cause.

Now you are trying to shift those goalposts by saying 'causes all the warming etc'. You first need to understand what it is people like Mann and the vast majority of climatologists are saying.

It is one significant cause, but not the only cause.

As i have posted in several occasions with proof, during the current warming CO2 lagged the temperature increase by 260+ years, so the CO2 lag is real.

I didn't say it wasn't real, the new study suggests the lag is much less than previously thought, it could even be non-existent. Further studies will be required to clarify this issue.

This sort of stuff is not written in stone.

chaff removed/ignored.

Hasn't enough time been spent debating everything but the topic. :shk:
Please stop derailing the thread with comments about each other. This goes for both sides.
This is my second time posting this.
You do a disservice to each other and the topic with these posts.

Mod Note: Debating Global Warming/ Derailing Threads

Originally posted by melatonin

I know of no serious climatologist who claims that CO2 is the only cause of current warming.

That's disengenious to say the least. How many times have you claimed that people should read the latest IPCC report to "find out the science behind the claims you agree with"?

Several leading scientists, including environmentalists, at least those who don't subscribe to the AGW claim, do not agree with the conclusions in the IPCC report, not even several of the IPCC report leading authors agree with it.

A dangerous climate
By Bob Carter, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:12am BST 11/04/2007Page 1 of 3

The latest IPCC report, published on Friday, is the most alarming yet: not for its claims of human-caused global warming, writes the leading environmental scientist Bob Carter, but for its lack of scientific rigour

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml

Why has “global warming” become such a passionate subject?
– Let’s not lose our cool –
Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks

Printable version (PDF)

The new IPCC Report (2007) states, on page 10, “Most observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Their great effort in making progress in climate change science is certainly commended.

The media in the world is paying great attention mostly to the term “very likely,” meaning the confidence level of more than 90%. However, I, as a scientist, am more concerned about the term “most,” because the IPCC Report does not demonstrate the basis for the term “most.”

www.iarc.uaf.edu...

Originally posted by melatonin
Not a logical fallacy at all. You are the one claiming it is an effect not a cause.

You have been defending and posting links to Real Climate, and the IPCC both which stipulate that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of the current Climate Change/Global Warming.

And BTW, how many other scientists also think that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change?

Let's look at a small list of scientists and authors who have changed their minds from agreeing with the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of the current Climate Change/Global Warming, to being skeptics due to the new data which contradicts such claims.

Dr. Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta, Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences), Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm, Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa.

epw.senate.gov...

And those are without counting the other scientists who have never believed the claims that anthropogenic CO2 are the main cause of the current warming, such as Dr. Akasofu and several other scientists.

Originally posted by melatonin
Now you are trying to shift those goalposts by saying 'causes all the warming etc'. You first need to understand what it is people like Mann and the vast majority of climatologists are saying.

It is one significant cause, but not the only cause.

People like Mann have been rigging the data and claiming events such as the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA, were []bnon-existant as he and associates tried to bury these well known past Climate Change events, and as they are trying to do once more.

Originally posted by melatonin
I didn't say it wasn't real, the new study suggests the lag is much less than previously thought, it could even be non-existent. Further studies will be required to clarify this issue.

Well nomatter how Mann and associates try to claim that "the lag is non-existant" we know that even during the current warming period the lag is apparent and it took over two centuries and a half for CO2 to start increasing, after temperatures had been increasing.

"chaff removed/ignored"...

Originally posted by Muaddib
That's disengenious to say the least. How many times have you claimed that people should read the latest IPCC report to "find out the science behind the claims you agree with"?

Several leading scientists, including environmentalists, at least those who don't subscribe to the AGW claim, do not agree with the conclusions in the IPCC report, not even several of the IPCC report leading authors agree with it.

Are you moving goalposts again?

The IPCC report does not say CO2 is the only cause of current warming.

You have been defending and posting links to Real Climate, and the IPCC both which stipulate that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of the current Climate Change/Global Warming.

And BTW, how many other scientists also think that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change?

They can think whatever they like, if they want to to make a scientific point, we have the scientific literature for that.

Newspaper/magazine articles, unpublished manuscripts, letters and list of names do not science make.

Well nomatter how Mann and associates try to claim that "the lag is non-existant" we know that even during the current warming period the lag is apparent and it took over two centuries and a half for CO2 to start increasing, after temperatures had been increasing.

This study has nothing to do with Michael Mann.

You do realise how silly that statement is? The CO2 that is accumulating has nothing to do with any natural trigger, it is predominately human-sourced. I've been through the Maths of this for you before, we are releasing serveal gigatons, about half of which is being removed from the atmosphere by ocean and terrestrial sinks, the remainder is accumulating.

Otherwise, we would see much more variation in CO2 over the last 1000 years, but we don't. Unless of course you are saying the MWP didn't exist, you can't have it both ways.