Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

And to tackle the point I made about the Sun being the overwhelming issue concerning temperature on this planet...

The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
The oceans are a known heat sink
Cooling oceans cause cooling atmosphere

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... /

Note the beautiful final paragraph...
'Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science.'

reply to post by melatonin

Yeah, because 'real' science requires the complex methodology of looking out your window and seeing if it's snowing in winter and noting you don't own snow tires, lol Yeah, it's true. I deny what you think is real science is anything of the sort.

GEE and here I thought being on the Dean's list in college and a lab manager for thirty years meant I might have an inkling about what science is, sorry.

Oh and careful not to take any drugs since I am not a "scientist"

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Mez353
Melatonin didn't understand the article concerning rebounding (a point he asked me to tackle).

It's just not relevant. This was your comment:

Given no thought to the fact that any warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice age

The article is about isostatic rebound of the Earth's crust, and how this may relate to sea level rises. Says nothing about how warming is or is not due to a recovery from the LIA.

And then you decide to regurgitate more denier memes, lol.

“The corrections for deformations of the Earth’s crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year,” said Vermeersen, whose team worked with NASA’s Jet Propulsation Laboratory and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.

“We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.”

'The debate is important because of fears that Earth’s biggest reservoirs of ice, capable of driving up ocean levels by many metres (feet) if lost, are melting much faster than global-warming scenarios had predicted.'

So what's what's your point and how exactly is a main argument of global warming (rate of sea level rise due to polar melting of the ice caps) not relevent?

www.nsstc.uah.edu...

LIMITS ON CO2 CLIMATE FORCING FROM RECENT
TEMPERATURE DATA OF EARTH
David H. Douglassa and John R. Christyb
aDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
bDepartment of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama
in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA

Summary
The recent atmospheric global temperature anomalies of the Earth have been shown to
consist of independent effects in different latitude bands. The tropical latitude band
variations are strongly correlated with ENSO effects. The maximum seen in 1998 is
due to the El Niño of that year. The effects in the northern extratropics are not
consistent with CO2 forcing alone
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010 K/decade was estimated from data
in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols
climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth 185
CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g K/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If
the underlying trend is due to CO2, then g ~1. Models giving values of g greater than
1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This
negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the
observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

reply to post by Mez353

And to tackle the point I made about the Sun being the overwhelming issue concerning temperature on this planet...

It does not mater what information you give Melatonin, nothing penetrates. You can use science, you can use the money trail or anything else, his belief is very firmly entrenched. I gave up arguing the science with him over a year ago.

Melatonin will STILL insist CAGW is true as a glacier buries his home.

Originally posted by Mez353
And to tackle the point I made about the Sun being the overwhelming issue concerning temperature on this planet...

It's certainly one major player.

The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
The oceans are a known heat sink
Cooling oceans cause cooling atmosphere.

All true.

But they don't relate to what you posted, again. You said:

Influence of the Sun totally ignored

Which is wrong. I notice like a good skeptic seeking out evidence you went to check the IPCC WG1 report to see if solar activity is one forcing which climate science takes account of...

....What? You didn't? You went to a blog post by some random dude which doesn't actually answer the point? Oh, I see.

Try WG1 Chapter 2 (2.7.1 p.188). I did suggest it would cure your ignorance...

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used
in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995)
have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating
that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance
increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally
suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and
Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical
results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar
forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric
changes associated with solar variability, including during the
solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and
Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et
al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke,
2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005).

www.ipcc.ch...

Yeah, you were wrong. Climate scientists are well aware of the potential for influence from the sun, and accept it has influenced climate recently. This, obviously, also shows another comment you made to be wrong:

Attribution of the warming trend to human activities only and no natural source

I assume we agree the sun is one of the natural climate forcings?

ABE:

Originally posted by Mez353
So what's what's your point and how exactly is a main argument of global warming (rate of sea level rise due to polar melting of the ice caps) not relevent?

Again, here was your statement:

Given no thought to the fact that any warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age

You do understand the difference between sea level rises and warming temperatures?

In the prior inter-glacial period about 125,000 years ago, there was no summer ice at the North Pole and the sea level was 15 feet (5m) higher than today. Is this going to happen anyway? Is our temperature just naturally rising and if our own CO2 is helping it along, won't temperature still rise, even when we stop breathing?

IPCC 2007 reports the prior inter-glacial warmth was driven by orbital mechanics that are not present today. Nevertheless, this prior warmth tells us much about what the true impacts will likely be because nearly all the plant and animal species on Earth now were present then also.

www.climatecooling.org...

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.


However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.


This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

www.sciencedaily.com...

lol, do you actually understand even half of what you're posting.

Lets talk about the Knorr study about airborne fraction. Tell me the implications you take from it...

reply to post by melatonin


How condescending you are, however in a nutshell it is about the ability of the earth to absorb CO2. Knorr suggests that the amount (fraction) of airborne CO2 has not differed during the last 160 years due to the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2. In essence, he is implying that the oceanic atmosphere is tuned to absorb CO2 at the rate at which it is required to do so to keep the balance. In addition, the studies concerning the deforestation (and no before you suggest otherwise, I do believe deforestation should cease for other reasons though) relate to the implied theory that these natural 'scrubbers' of CO2, since reduced, cannot provide the same effect of reducing CO2. It appears that this also cannot now be correlated.

reply to post by Mez353


sorry Mel I forgot that the implications of his study would be scientists who are claiming that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a rise in temperatures are now faced with the possibilty that their research is fundamentally flawed. If the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years that could show that human activity has had little or no effect on temperatures.

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by melatonin

 

How condescending you are, however in a nutshell it is about the ability of the earth to absorb CO2. Knorr suggests that the amount (fraction) of airborne CO2 has not differed during the last 160 years due to the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2. In essence, he is implying that the oceanic atmosphere is tuned to absorb CO2 at the rate at which it is required to do so to keep the balance. In addition, the studies concerning the deforestation (and no before you suggest otherwise, I do believe deforestation should cease for other reasons though) relate to the implied theory that these natural 'scrubbers' of CO2, since reduced, cannot provide the same effect of reducing CO2. It appears that this also cannot now be correlated.

edit on 4/12/2010 by Mez353 because: spelling

lol, suddenly acquired a thin-skin? You didn't have any issue hurling insults earlier. Oh well, by the by...

Keep what balance? So the airborne fraction has been fairly consistent in the past. Why's this important? You're just stating what in the articles, really. I would assume it means something more to you?

What was the point of posting it?

Ya get it yet Mel? well do ya? Sit and wait for your master boy!

Originally posted by Mez353
Ya get it yet Mel? well do ya? Sit and wait for your master boy!

I understand the study. I've come across it before.

I'm asking you why you think it's important.

ABE: ahh, you outlined you thoughts here:

sorry Mel I forgot that the implications of his study would be scientists who are claiming that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a rise in temperatures are now faced with the possibilty that their research is fundamentally flawed. If the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years that could show that human activity has had little or no effect on temperatures.

I don't think airborne fraction means what you think it does.

Why would a constant AF imply no effect on temperatures?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Mez353

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by Mez353

 

sorry Mel I forgot that the implications of his study would be scientists who are claiming that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a rise in temperatures are now faced with the possibilty that their research is fundamentally flawed. If the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years that could show that human activity has had little or no effect on temperatures.

Mel, you missed a post numbnuts.

Yeah, I noticed. Most non-'numbnuts' would edit the first post.

I'll give you some help.

Airborne fraction of CO2 is the proportion of human CO2 which remains in the atmosphere. The remainder is taken into the terrestrial and ocean sinks.

Why would a constant AF imply no effect on temperatures?

It is all CO2 not just human, how you think a measure of CO2 can be segregated into human produced or other is beyond me. Guess, and then guess again yeah?

What Knorr concluded is that the 'atmospheric CO2 / oceanic CO2' fraction has not changed... because the amount of CO2 in the oceans has increased quickly enough to keep pace with the atmospheric increase.

On the other hand, recent studies published in the past few months have found that the ratio HAS started to change, suggesting that the oceans are becoming CO2 saturated and thus that atmospheric levels may increase more quickly in the future (maintaining the fractional coefficient). You missed your chance there Mel because you seem to know very little about the subject.

However I digress (slightly) as the mainstay of the Global Warming argument is that increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the average global temperature, and as your friends say this science is settled.

I say it's not been proven as the cause in temperature increase. Temperature increase could cause a rise in the amount of airborne CO2 compared to the amount absorbed by the ocean whereby increased atmospheric CO2 is an affect of increased global temperatures.

Originally posted by Mez353
It is all CO2 not just human, how you think a measure of CO2 can be segregated into human produced or other is beyond me. Guess, and then guess again yeah?

What Knorr concluded is that the 'atmospheric CO2 / oceanic CO2' fraction has not changed... because the amount of CO2 in the oceans has increased quickly enough to keep pace with the atmospheric increase.

On the other hand, recent studies published in the past few months have found that the ratio HAS started to change, suggesting that the oceans are becoming CO2 saturated and thus that atmospheric levels may increase more quickly in the future (maintaining the fractional coefficient). You missed your chance there Mel because you seem to know very little about the subject.

lol. So, for the sake of ease, let say AF is 50%.

In one year we emit 20 Gt CO2 - 10Gt would remain in the atmosphere.
In the next we emit 30 Gt CO2 - 15Gt would remain.

So the atmospheric levels of CO2 are consistently increasing. Indeed, like the example, they have accelerated.

All Knorr notes is that AF appears pretty consistent over the past. Says nothing about the causal effect of CO2 on temperature.

However I digress (slightly) as the mainstay of the Global Warming argument is that increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the average global temperature, and as your friends say this science is settled.

I say it's not been proven as the cause in temperature increase. Temperature increase could cause a rise in the amont of airborne CO2 compared to the amount absorbed by the ocean. Increased atmospheric CO2 is an affect of increased global temperatures.

I don't think that's the implications. Indeed, you are contradicting the study you posted. In fact, the study does not question the GHG nature of CO2.

So you haven't supported this statement:

If the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years that could show that human activity has had little or no effect on temperatures.

Indeed, it's wrong. AF is really just an influence on accumulation of CO2.

You seem to have a habit of being wrong.

I don't expect you to accept this. I expect you to ignore your ignorance like a good denier and now change topic to another meme - much like earlier. Which you effectively have tried already in your last post.

I'm off to have some fun. Probably not as much fun as highlighting your ignorance, but it is getting tedious for now. Ciao.

Ignoramus and again twisted. If you want to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere then stop breathing. I made perfect sense, your inability to understand an argument amazes me. I really don't know how else to explain what it is you believe and why I disagree. Your argument is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. That, in a nutshell is the argument is it not? Enlighten me a little here because if it isn't then I seem to be having a different argument than the one I thought I had.

Enjoy your night out but stay on the well beaten path. Do not attempt to veer from the mainstream by taking a left or right turn as you'll quickly become lost. And down those dark, less trodden alleys and side streets who knows what mysterious entities await. No, better you stay on the well lit and guided paths ahead. Just don't go pissing on any lamposts. Woof!

If gloabl warming is such a threat to humanity then why hasn't decades old suppressed alternative energy that could help 'save the planet' been released yet? Until supressed technology is truly exposed by the powers that be then perhps the planet is in no real danger at all - or alternatively they simply don't care? In the mean time I will continue to find alternative methods to generate power.

Climatologist Ciff Harris and Randy Mann - Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D. (plus graph)
www.longrangeweather.com...