I live in west Texas, and in our area the rainy season which normally causes floods was a whopping total of 2 tiny storms. I didn't even get wet while outside. Compare that to last year where it rained so hard that some streets turned into RIVERS. Multiple times.
@VicariousExtrospect I live in Houston and during the summer where we normally average a couple days of rain (and by rain I mean a heavy T-storm) and we had four actual storms and a few incidents of spritzing over the entire summer. Normally schools have flood days off, and they didn't this last year
In my state in Australia, we're coming out of a drought that began in the mid-90s. Now we're flooding, with some of the most severe weather on record. Is climate change real? Heck yes.
Your backside is warming. Co2 is a harmless atmospheric gas. Nasa is in on the fraud too, I know all about the Hanson idiot. Try again maybe you have more propaganda up your sleeve but no proof as usual. B.sc Biology/Earth and Environmental Science by the way and yes I have also studied Thermodynamics. You are just arrogant,ignorant and cannot think for yourself. The Pacific is cooling as is every level of the atmosphere. Where is the proof of AGW? Concensus means nothing .
It is not happening, The fact is that the Planet is cooling, the models are wrong the agenda is silly and the public do not believe this crap any more. Co2 is the product of a warming Planet caused by an active phase of the Sun. I challenge anyone to give me proof that C02 produced by man has had any effect on the climate. A cooling Pacific Ocean will have a cooling effect on the planet and has nothing at all to do with man. Atmospheric co2 enrichment benefits all life on the Planet.
@kileer7 Please stop parroting propaganda. I assume you enjoy being baby fed this tripe but I do not. For another laugh America and Canada refuse to take part in any warming agenda at Durban. LOL
@kileer7 "@david222444 Don't speak, I know just what you're saying, so please stop explaining, don't tell me cause it hurts. Hush, hush, darling ROFL"
Thumbing up this guy for appropriate use of "No Doubt" reference.
Perhaps kileer7 was laughing at the false, absurd, & illogical comment of 776281.
He thinks a drought in Texas proves that CO2 isn't plant food. That IS laughable. & a perfect example of why so many get caught up in the madness & delusion of the crowd swallowing CAGW.
He might correct:
the USDA:"Extra CO2 by itself will stimulate some growth because plants have more FOOD for photosynthesis."
the commercial growers who fertilize to 1000ppm of CO2.
@david222444 Go to the NASA climate website and click on key indicators. Basic facts: The earth is warming, it is caused by the greenhouse effect and we are accelerating it. It is not anyones brains job to do your thinking for you. Read a basic physics book kid, you know nothing of science
@RealOldOne2 Tell you what. If we got through the next decade without a warming trend (barring a major volcanic event) I would have to seriously reconsider the science of AGW.
So what about you? What would convince you this is real and a serious concern? (As every scientific organization on the planet states.)
@robhoneycutt "What would convince you this is real and a serious concern?"
Part 1: real - I've already said that I do accept that AGW is real. But the empirical science says that it's a minor contributor to warming b/c it's a minor addition to the atmosphere & the hard science of physical chemistry & biology says the earth's natural systems can't discriminate against it as it flows through the oceans & biosphere.
It's only your models that says it's catastrophic.
Part 2: serious concern - If global temps rose rapidly & caught up to their previously projected levels & hard science based on empirical data ruled out natural causes such as solar, cosmic rays, clouds, ENSO, AMO, AO, etc., that would cause me to reconsider.
Merely to have a temp increase in the next decade would not, however, because it could be caused by the same natural factors (even if we do not know all of them) that have caused past warmings.
@RealOldOne2 I own a copy of the Mackay book. It is interesting. I see far more reason than delusion in many who have studied and understand the basics of AGW. Sadly, I tend to see the opposite in the converse. But it is true that one MUST always question, instead of blindly accept.
Yes, everyone while in the throws of madness thinks it can't be wrong. Delusion is not recognized until well after the fact.
Like Mackay says: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
That's happening now, one by one. The climate is not cooperating w/the CAGWers. Temps are in stasis while CO2 relentlessly climbs. It's a TRAVESTY!
@RealOldOne2 The problem with this argument, ROO, is that the whole reason we use science is to check ourselves. Yes, humans tend to come to the conclusions they prefer, but we use the scientific method to test ourselves and try to understand when we are fooling ourselves. Science has done this in spades over AGW and the result is that this is real.
@robhoneycutt Rob, I'm sure you're convinced. Everyone caught up in the crowd is convinced. And perhaps it's too much to expect you to see it until well after CAGW has been swept into the dustbin of history. You may even be one of the one's who will never quit believing.
But at least be objective enough to evaluate the CAGW movement with the objective scientific criteria of social psychology.
Tell me, which of the 8 symptoms of groupthink(Wiki) do you think are not true of CAGW?
@greenman3610 Hey Peter, how ya doin'? Been a while.
"groupthink"
Nice quip, but I don't think the 8 symptoms of gp-think fit your gravity example.
When's your Climategate 2 vid coming out? I can't wait!
Hope you & the family had a great Thanksgiving & I wish you all a merry Christmas if we don't talk before then. & I hope you don't get too much snow or cold this winter in MI. Actually I'd prefer it a little warmer & less snow to shovel.
@RealOldOne2 Tell you what, ROO. What would give me pause to consider whether AGW was real or not would be if the next decade showed no warming or even cooling and we started to see a statistically significant trend (barring a major low lat volcanic event).
What about you? What would convince you that all the climate scientists are right?
@robhoneycutt I'd agree. If the next 10 years (barring volcanic) show a significant sideways or downward trend in temp (recent news, though, is that 2011 is the hottest La Nina year on record), I'd re-consider.
But I'd go one further: if I saw solid and convincing evidence why AGW theory can't be true or why it couldn't cause more than 1 degree C warming (over today) by 2100 - I'd happily re-evaluate. I just haven't seen anything even close to it. And yes, AGW sucks. Who'd WANT to believe it?
@jimbills The latest statement I read said that warming is "virtually certain" over the next decade according to a recent IPCC statement. And in IPCC parlance that means a 99% chance.
@RealOldOne2 Why don't you apply the same 8 symptoms of groupthink to the skeptic position? Use the GOP as an example: how, exactly, would a GOP Congressman be handled by his fellow Republicans for agreeing with AGW theory?
You're very correct in that "everyone while in the throws of madness thinks it can't be wrong. Delusion is not recognized until well after the fact."
It probably feels like you're a maverick in a den of crazies here on Peter's videos. What would it be like on Watt's Up?
Ernst-Georg Beck is not looking very impressive either. I can only find papers published in E&E and only a couple at that. I don't think I'd even classify him as a climate scientist based on these credentials.
For comparison you might look at Richard Alley. Over 400 published papers. Most published in the highest quality journals. Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters... etc. A lifetime spent studying and researching specifically in the field of climate.
@robhoneycutt Both the Jaworowski and Ball papers rely heavily on Beck's data - in effect, they're really the same source. Going back to Beck, he's showing wild, massive swings in CO2 in the 19th century - this doesn't match with the relatively smooth curve of late 20th century measurements to now.
Even Beck's paper references Beck ("Beck 2007"). Question: what/where from are the sources for Beck's sparse chemical analysis data of 63 samples?
@RealOldOne2 Thanks for that - it was what I was asking for. Beck's paper referenced an earlier source of his (it did say "63", but my bad).
You realize that 64K of those 75K samples were taken in Germany from 1939-1941, right? What's the likelihood that Nazi Germany at war had elevated levels of CO2?
Good questions, but I don't know, I haven't considered it & don't know how one would evaluate it. It's 70 yrs ago & data is probably extremely limited. But still a valid question.
@RealOldOne2 Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and call the Beck paper (and by relation the Ball and Jawoworski papers) "junk science".
Beck has 3 CO2 peaks in his historical timeline going back to about 1800: ~1820, ~1860, ~1940. 1820 relies on a crazy low amount of source data from a city (Innsbruck) and 1860 does the same with bit more data (Rostock, London, Manchester). 19th century European cities had massive coal and wood pollution - of course they'd have > CO2 readings than Mauna Loa.
Call it what you want. I have more confidence in a few real, empirical, physical measurements(of a few ppm accuracy) than in all the reconstructions which rely on numerous assumptions that can't be proven b/c they're in the past, including the stomata that support higher CO2.
CAGW is classic group-think. Compare the elements.
Read Charles Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds', 1841.
CAGW is the real junk science & the latest chapter
@RealOldOne2 The 1940 time relies 95%+ on measurements in Germany - the epicenter of the greatest war in history. It's only logical to assume CO2 readings from that region at that time would show elevated CO2.
The rest of the Beck chart (Figure 5) doesn't vary widely from more accepted sources.
Isn't it logical that the Earth developed a wholly self-sustaining CO2 throughput over billions of years that is simply being overwhelmed by man's "small" output (of 30+ gigatons/year)?
Assuming that the Earth itself is suddenly producing more CO2 buildup than it ever has in the past million years MUST be explained by MORE than Youtube comment hypothesis when man-made FF release explains the CO2 buildup WITH evidence and solid theory - backed by 90%+ consensus.
Welcome you all to the LATEST RELIGION (MAN-MADE of course!!) on this planet: AGW (aka MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING)!! Here are a few TID-BITS about this LATEST MAN-MADE RELIGION:
1. Who is GOD in AGW? MAN!
2. Who is the main RELIGIOUS HEAD? Al Gore!
3. Is there an AFTER-LIFE? Yes. CO2-FREE Heaven and a CO2-FILLED HELL depending on the payment of the CARBON TAX!
4. Is there a JUDGEMENT DAY aka DOOMS DAY? Of course, YES when the GOOD and BAD HUMANS are judged based upon the payment of CARBON TAX!
Welcome you all to the LATEST RELIGION (MAN-MADE of course!!) on this planet: AGW (aka MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING)!!! Here are a few TID-BITS about this LATEST MAN-MADE RELIGION:
1. Who is GOD in AGW? MAN!
2. Who is the main RELIGIOUS HEAD? Al Gore!
3. Is there an AFTER-LIFE? Yes. CO2-FREE Heaven and a CO2-FILLED HELL depending on the payment of the CARBON TAX!
4. Is there a JUDGEMENT DAY aka DOOMS DAY? Of course, YES when the GOOD and BAD HUMANS are judged based upon the payment of CARBON TAX!
@robhoneycutt I'm not the only one who has suggested that natural variability is a key factor in what the climate is doing. Mike Mann suggested it too based on their models, but Trenberth said that the empirical measurements (radiation budget, clouds, ocean data) were "wonting" & "lacking".
Don't get me wrong, the 'team' doesn't agree w/my position, but when they're not in public, they do make some honest admissions that it's NOT case closed, settled science like they portray in public.
@robhoneycutt Is this part of that “OVERWHELMING” evidence?
Oct2009 email#1255532032
"Hi Tom[Wigley]
. . .we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
@RealOldOne2 Funny though how both Wigley and Trenberth are convinced that man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming. Huh?
You might note that this is a repeat email from the 2009 release of emails. Trenberth is speaking of the "travesty" that we can't effectively track the heat energy in the climate system. He has published papers saying exactly the same thing.
Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO"
“, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES”
@RealOldOne2 What you should be taking from these emails is that the scientists are actively discussing the issues related to climate change. ALL of these guys accept the fact that AGW is real.
“data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin [Trenberth]”
These past few have all been from Oct2009 email#1255532032.
@robhoneycutt "overwhelming evidence" So please rank the following of Trenberth’s points in order of most OVERWHELMING: a- Where did the heat go? b- how does the albedo change overall(changes in cloud)? c- the unfortunately WONTING CERES data? d- the unfortunately WONTING cloud data? e- the LACKING ocean data? f- not being CLOSE to knowing where the energy is going? g- not knowing whether clouds are changing? h- not being CLOSE to balancing the energy budget? (cont)
@RealOldOne2 Dude, there are well over 100,000 published papers that come to the conclusion that AGW is real. There are very very few that challenge that position. Almost ALL actively publishing climate scientists agree that AGW is real.
@RealOldOne2 Have you spent any time at all reading Trenberth's work? Listen to him speak? You're taking quotes WAY out of context without understanding what they mean. Trenberth clearly believes that AGW is real. What you're pulling up are quotes of him discussing the challenges of tracking the climate system.
@RealOldOne2 I'm very familiar with Trenberth's comments. I've read the relevant papers where he's talking about the problems tracking heat energy in the climate system. He is NOT challenging whether or not the planet is warming nor whether we are the cause.
@robhoneycutt "NOT challenging whether or not the planet is warming nor whether we are the cause"
Go back & read my 'disclaimer' that I included to eliminate to raise the strawman that you just did. I already said they didn't agree w/me. You're just trying to deflect your inability to defend & denial of the uncertainties & holes in the empirical evidence.
As I've said many times to you before. All you have is MODELS. You have yet to produce the empirical evidence I've asked you for. KT said why!
Nice try, but NO! That was a passing comment in response to one of your numerous attempts to change the subject, build a strawman & other attempt to avoid discussing the inconvenient admissions of the state of climate science & it's empirical measurements (clouds, ocean data, energy balance, radiation budget, etc). That's all part of the climate science subjects from the climate scientist that I posted.
Rob, it sounds like you are the one in denial. Denial that natural climate variability could be all that we are seeing. Denial that there are so many uncertainties. Denial that we don't have convincing evidence that man is causing the warming. Denial that you are so wrapped up in confirmation bias that you can't recognize or even acknowledge any contrary evidence, but dismiss it out-of-hand. Denial that you defend the indefensible.
@RealOldOne2 Well then, by that definition pretty much the entire scientific community is in denial. Almost all publishing climate scientists are in denial. Every National Academy is in denial. Almost every scientific organization on the planet is in denial.
@RealOldOne2 Nice try but you're grasping at straws. By the same logic maybe the whole scientific community is in denial about evolution or relativity. Could be, but the chances are infinitesimally small.
I posted scientific comments about climate from climate scientists and you start going on about evolution & relativity.
Lets discuss the science like an adult.
You're acting like a child throwing a tantrum, in front of everyone.
Your behavior is indicitave of someone exhibiting an irrational reaction to their 'belief system' being challenged. But all I've done is post science. What does that tell you?
@RealOldOne2 Your interpretation of my comments is amusing. I was making a point that you claiming that the entire scientific community is somehow in denial is, quite frankly, absurd. Remember, your comment was "DING DING DING... BINGO." So, your contention is that everyone else is in denial. It's just you and a small band of climate rebels who have it all figured out.
@RealOldOne2 There are absolutely ways you can rationally disagree. Problem is you are rejecting very basic science. You're rejecting aspects of climate science that even prominent skeptics accept. This whole issue about CO2 levels is really just silly. You're hung up on wanting to find a lie when the issue is not even close to being controversial. No one challenges that the Dome C data is accurate. No one challenges the Mona Loa data. ...But you find it somehow reprehensible.
@robhoneycutt The trouble is, if you accept that humans cause the rise in CO2, you're stuck. There's no good evidence any more that sensitivity is low enough to ignore. So now, all over the web, it's the warming oceans that are outgassing natural CO2. Never mind that measurements show that the oceans are taking up carbon, not losing it, or that there's no "model" in mind for spontaneously warming the oceans quickly enough to explain modern CO2 rise.
@robhoneycutt Physics seems to only apply to anthro CO2: “natural” means “random” to deniers.
Good luck with ROO; he's gone from being sensible but wrong on Great Lakes, to pushing the 1974 CIA report, to buying into the natural CO2 rise meme. I’m going back to the real world for a while.
Yes, but you're making even discussion impossible because you refuse to discuss the uncertainties & problems in the science. Please discuss & rank Trenberth's 10 factors.
Perhaps you should take a time-out to calm down, take a blood pressure pill, sip an adult beverage, sleep on it & come back tomorrow ready to discuss science.
I'll gather some more evidence to discuss after we're finished w/Trenberth etal 2009##1255532032
@RealOldOne2 How about you drop the sophomoric concern trolling. Stick to the science.
I do not see the point to ranking Trenberth's factors. No problem discussing them.
While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and read Trenberth's published research on the same topic that is being discussed in the emails.
I'll again remind you that Trenberth, like almost all climate scientists, believes AGW is real. He is discussing the challenges of tracking heat energy in the climate system.
@RealOldOne2 Uncertainties? We can't even get to the uncertainties because you can't even accept the most basic science. Prior to you bringing up Trenberth we were discussing the rate of change in atmospheric CO2. As best I could make out you are claiming that CO2 has NOT been rising in the past 150 years. How can you start talking about uncertainties when you can't even get past this?
@RealOldOne2 Back to the CO2 issue. Here is a great, and very well notated, animated graph showing CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. watch?v=bbgUE04Y-Xg
@robhoneycutt Right. I don't see how someone can see that and not be concerned. The only feasible lines of skepticism (imo) are major climate insensitivity to CO2 or proof of negative feedbacks. The only times I've seen these points argued are from a handful of non-peer-reviewed (or debunked) studies by guys directly or indirectly paid by the FF industry. There is a recent study by Andreas Schmittner that claims the models are too extreme - but even that study points to 1.7 - 2.6 C w/ doubling.
@jimbills The interesting thing about the Schmittner study is that, even if this study nailed it, ultimately it doesn't make much difference from a policy standpoint. It means there may be a little more breathing room but not that much more. All the same issues are in play and we need to start reducing CO2 output soon.
Everything I've read says Schmittner is a good study but it's just another data point among a very wide range of climate sensitivity studies.
@robhoneycutt Yeah, even just a 2 degree C global temp rise translates to significant change over higher latitudes. I've seen a handful of reports claiming that the Schmittner study underestimates negative feedbacks - but I think this is where the science gets a bit uncertain on the predictive level (at least from what I as a layman can see).
@jimbills Schmittner et al. is a fine study and a great example of how to send climate science forward. However, it (a) focuses on getting from glacial to interglacial, and so ignores feedbacks that might be more critical at temperatures higher than interglacial (e.g., methane release from melting permafrost); (b) it relies on proxies for ice-age ocean temperature that have large error bars, and (c) it has a very simplified atmosphere (needed to speed up runs).
@robhoneycutt Your comment to @RealOldOne2: "Back to the CO2 issue. Here is a great, and very well notated, animated graph showing CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years"!
Forget the "HARRY POTTER" TEMPERATURES of 800,000 years ago, could you please give the following VERY VERY SIMPLE DATA on the TEMPERATURE of the PLACE where you residence in as below (for example) from 1980 till 2011??!!!
YEAR ---- PLACE ---- TEMPERATURE (degree celcius/fahrenheit)
No games. Go back and re-read what Kevin Trenberth wrote about the climate system & measurements of its elements. It's all in the my posts. Read it again. No need for me to post it again. Quit the dodges please. Act like an adult & discuss the science.
@RealOldOne2 Dude, for the eleventh time now. I've read Trenberth's work. I know this topic quite well. Trenberth is lamenting their capacity to track the heat energy in the climate system. He's being like a good bookkeeper who wants to account for where every penny goes. The climate is highly complex and figuring out the entire energy budget is incredibly challenging. BUT the fact remains that he's NOT saying he's unsure about AGW. He states over and over and over that it is real.
@RealOldOne2 You might want to take this up with Trenberth. The TOA data is clearly showing a radiative imbalance. Everything that Trenberth is talking about is below that. Where is the heat going in the climate system. I've stated this several times now. Go read his papers on this topic.
@RealOldOne2 I clearly do not defend the indefensible. There are many uncertainties involved. But there are a great many aspects that are very certain. What you are doing though is rejecting everything. Saying none of it exists. No rise in CO2. No affect on global temps.
@robhoneycutt "I clearly do not defend the indefensible"
There's another example of your denial.
You have yet to admit that the SkepticalScience chart which purported to be "Atmospheric CO2 EPICA Dome C ice core" data was WRONG in showing the plot up to 370ppm when in fact there is NO Dome C ice core data above ~280ppm.
@RealOldOne2 No, the chart is not wrong. The chart is Dome C with the modern data appended. The point STILL is that Dome C shows CO2 varying about 7% over the course of the holocene. Then CO2 goes from 280 to 395ppm today. A 40% increase in just 150 years.
Why is this so hard to grasp? Why are you rejecting such fundamental and simple data? This is not even close to being a controversial claim. It is basic well accepted data.
It doesn't matter if PART of the chart was correct.If part of it was bogus, that makes the whole CHART wrong.
The chart purported to be ICE CORE data. Yes, part of it was, but PART of it WAS NOT. Unless you can show me Dome C ice core DATA that goes from 280 to 370ppm, the chart is BOGUS. It claims to be ALL ice core data & it's NOT.
The truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.
@RealOldOne2 The chart is just Dome C with the modern direct measurements tacked on. Nothing controversial. Nothing bogus. Two well accepted data sets. You just can't handle the truth.
The chart, to be legit, should have had two DIFFERENT lines(colors, dots/solid, etc) and the appropriate data sets plotted w/the appropriate symbols, or at minimum should have said ". .ice core & instrumental". But it WASN'T plotted that way, nor did it give ANY indication that it was anything other than ice core data.
Why can't you just admit SS posted a FLAWED misrepresentative chart? Amazing!
@RealOldOne2 Yes, I agree. Different data sets should be clearly identified on plots. Having said that, modern CO2 levels are 30% higher than the higher CO2 levels through the last 800+ ky. Get over it.
I might come back to this if you can provide any peer-reviewed evidence of your "opinion" of where the anomalous CO2 is coming from. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.
@541iceman I asked you 3 serious questions. Do you plan to respond? No problem if you choose not to, I'll search for the answers elsewhere. I just thought that you might have the answers since I think you work in this field.
"opinion"
Hypothesis. I pointed both CZ & rob to Spencer's discussion. There's science there, empirical data & discussion of it. Can you point out where that science is flawed?
No it's not peer-reviewed, but we've seen from the experts that even pathetic papers get thru p-r.
@541iceman The caption for the graphic I gave ROO reads, "Fig 4 - Adjusted EPICA Dome C data with modern CO2 record appended." Admittedly that doesn't come through on the link I originally gave him so he couldn't have known that, but also he wouldn't accept it when I told him this was made clear in the original article.
@541iceman There was an interesting question that I thought came up in the discussion yesterday that you might know the answer to. Do you know why most of the ice core records end anywhere from 150 years ago or earlier? I rarely see any ice core data the runs up through the past century.
@robhoneycutt The main issue is that the top ~100 m of core from cold sites is not yet consolidated ice, so (a) it is still fairly permeable (exchanging gas with the atmosphere) and (b) hard to get a workable core. People routinely use shallow cores from warmer sites for other things (annual precip variability, dust, aerosol particles as proxies for sea ice presence), but not for CO2.
Why, because I posted a discussion of climate science by a climate scientist?
I make no disparaging remarks about you or the scientist, I MERELY POSTED THEIR VERBATUM DISCUSSION!
Take a deep breath. Look at how you have reacted. Numerous posts without A SINGLE ONE discussing the science. Changing the subject, calling me a denier numerous times, everything BUT discussing the science.
@RealOldOne2 Yes, you posted the dissuasion without even comprehending what you were posting. The "travesty" Trenberth is discussing is their current inability to track heat energy as it moves though the climate system. They are NOT discussing whether it exists or not.
Mass extinctions on the earth have never resulted from too much carbon dioxide in the air. That is the gas of life. Plants taking in to do photosynthesis.
90% of life died at the end of the Permian due to insufficient carbon dioxide in the air. 85% of life on earth, including the dinosaurs, died at the end of the Jurassic duty, to strike in Mexico . The classic mass extinction event on earth
August 2010 Harvard University recorded in new scientist that there have been no increase in global carbon dioxide for two centuries. Due to photosynthesis.
He is vacuum deceleration, and worldwide plants will still consume all mankind's carbon emissions. To form new life on earth. Ask any biology teacher. To the ignorant of biology's carbon cycle is to be very stupid indeed.
@RealOldOne2 "So NATURE rules the climate after all, not CO2!" How are Nature and CO2 independent?
Natural variability does indeed dominate short term climate volatility. Meanwhile, the planet steadily accumulates thermal energy. Higher surface temperatures are inevitable because nature “likes” equilibrium. Despite uncertainties about specifics, there is and will be an the increasing number of weather extremes with increasing magnitude as the baseline climate changes.
@AustinCZ You're correct. That was a broad stroke & could have been more explicit. Try this: Natural variability rules the climate, not man via his minor(~4% of Nature's) release of CO2.
"dominate short term climate volatility" Yes, AND long term climate changes. 100% of earth's past warmings, including the recent Minoan, Roman, & Medieval, and 100% of earth's ice ages were caused by natural variability. But NOW man is dominating climate? No, we're just living in the current natural warm period.
@RealOldOne2 “Natural variability rules the climate, not man via his minor(~4% of Nature's) release of CO2.”
Man’s 4% (30 gigatonnes per year) is *released* into the annual 750 gigatonnes *cycling* through the atmosphere annually. Burning fossil fuels disrupts the geological carbon cycle – which is measured in geological, not biological, time. Net result, the atmosphere now has 40% more CO2, and counting. That’s not minor.
@RealOldOne2 “ 100% of earth's past warmings, including the recent Minoan...."
Your history in correct correct. There are many energy flow forcings. Typically CO2 is a feedback. However, in the PETM mass extinction event about 50 million years ago, CO2 was the lead-off batter. Humans are now doing the same many times faster. If one decides we aren’t wise enough to comprehend that our actions have consequences, then I’ll accept that what's starting to happen now is “natural”.
@AustinCZ I think the problem we see with climate change deniers is that the solutions to the problem are one's that have been promoted by democrats (and the left wing in general) for many decades now. The same reason they just HATE Obama being president (the same way they hated Clinton being president) makes them hate and dismiss climate change. It sets up an almost impenetrable cognitive dissonance.
Thing is, ultimately they are going to lose on all counts. Energy, climate and politics.
@robhoneycutt In pretending there is no problem, it's inevitable that energy prices will rise to higher and higher levels (shattering the economy) and we'll continue to warm the atmosphere (causing further economic repercussions). Protecting the status quo only destroys the status quo is this case.
It won't JUST be the Republicans and conservatives who suffer because of this - it will be all of us. And sadly, the least economically prepared will be the most vulnerable.
@robhoneycutt “Liberal” messengers need more help from people who speak Republicanese. The longer our mythical “invisible hand” of the free market hides behind energy market externalities, the more visible it will be when reality hits the fan. Now that Australia's carbon tax acknowledges climate science, American ignorance proudly stands alone.
There's peer-reviewed science(Sluijs etal 2007) that says CO2 didn't get up to bat until game was over. "The lag of ~3,000 years between the onset of warming. .and the carbon isotope excursion is consistent with the hypothesis that bottom water warming caused the injection of 13C-depleted carbon by triggering the disassociation of submarine methyl hydrates, but the cause of the early warming remains uncertain"
@RealOldOne2 So, are you suggesting that the rise in modern CO2 levels is a function of ocean warming? And if so, what is causing the ocean warming? And if this is the case then also look at the EPICA Dome C CO2 record here: tiny cc/dxkck
What would cause the CO2 level to change so dramatically?
What doesn't follow? I just answered your 3 questions. You don't like brief answers & economy of words?
Is this better?
1) yes, some of the rise
2) the sun is the primary source of ocean temp rise
3) I believe that the changes in CO2 came from some combination of the natural sources in the oceans & the flora, but since I know you're a CO2 guy, yes, the cave man thing was a little sarcasm in response to your pedantic & ostentatious behavior.
@RealOldOne2 Ah, got it. You were answering a previous post. (I don't follow the threaded version.)
In reference to #2, that doesn't fit. Over the past 30 years we've been in a solar minimum. And if warming was due to the sun you'd expect a pronounced 11 year cycle and you don't see that. In addition that's not consistent with stratospheric cooling which indicates warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.
@RealOldOne2 And in regards to #3, you have to be joking. A combination of natural sources? The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is currently about 10,000X that seen in any paleoclimate data!
@RealOldOne2 You might want to look at the EPICA Dome C data again. What could possibly happen to, just by chance correlate with the start of the industrial revolution, cause such a massive change in atmospheric CO2? What else besides us? The sun has warmed the oceans before and never has it caused this rate of change in CO2.
I admit that since I already had the EPICA Dome C data, I didn't follow your link. But when I just did I was ROFLOL! SkepticalScience! There's your problem. Gosh & I thought you were a real scientist.
The data I have is from a little more credible source: NOAA/NASA bit(dot)ly/tCYE3s
The most recent data from EPICA Dome C is over 9,000 yrs ago. I didn't know the industrial revolution started when Fred Flintstone was working at the Slate Rock & Gravel Company!
@RealOldOne2 The chart on Skeptical Science is consistent with the data you linked to. Here is another chart from someone else if you're going to be picky: tiny cc/wqm4q
@RealOldOne2 Follow my other link, ROO. You found the data set that ends 9000 years ago. There is another data set that includes the holocene. Or just google "epica dome c holocene."
@robhoneycutt "Have you even read any of Mann's papers?"
Yes! But the sequels are never as good as the original.
I esp. like Mann etal 1994 temp reconstruction paper:"Though expanded uncertainties PREVENT DECISIVE CONCLUSIONS for the period PRIOR TO AD 1400" Mann can't make decisive concl. about the MWP, but YOU know for a fact that it's warmer NOW.
Of course that's before he learned the hokey-stick spicing trick.
I AM looking forward to 'best of MM from the CG mails' & his prison memoirs though
@RealOldOne2 Come on ROO, listen to you. You're saying that older science takes precedence over newer science? There are more than one Mann paper. There are more than one multi proxy reconstructions. They all come to essentially the same conclusions.
Yes, in Mann's case, older honest science that acknowledges uncertainties & unknowns does take precedence over newer shoddy, junk science based on faulty statistically methods & reconstructions w/spliced in instrumental data.
@RealOldOne2 No, you're being obtuse. Newer science takes precedence. Stop whining about Mann 1999 and get up to date. And definitely get off of FAR. They're working on 5AR now!
Even his cohorts recognized Mann’s work was junk science. Here is what Ray Bradley, one of Mann’s co-authors said to Keith Briffa, who is a dendroclimatology expert:
“Also- -& I’m sure you’ll agree- -the Mann/Jones GRL paper was TRULY PATHETIC and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.”
Emphasis mine, except for quote marks around reconstruction. They’re Bradley’s. source:cg2 email#3373
@RealOldOne2 re: email#3373... Well, there goes the idea that all the climatologists are a "Team" and are in on a big conspiracy. You might try reading the full email instead of the snippet from the hacker. Those were comments made in private back in 2003 and were the opinion of one scientist.
I read the entire context, not just a snippet from the leaker.
"private" not anymore.
"2003"- yes, contemporaneous comments are usually more accurate than later recollections.
"one scientist"- not just any 'one scientist' but a previous co-author & he expected that the expert in the field would agree w/him that Mann's/Jones's paper was "PATHETIC" & "shouldn't have been published"
Indicative w/other mails that Mann had quit being a scientist because of "the cause".
@RealOldOne2 Come on ROO. You're a smart enough guy! Have an honest debate. You've now digressed into a personal attack.
You will please note that I have not disparaged anyone in this debate so far. You, on the other hand, have disparaged everyone whom you disagree with. Me, Ice, Mann, Schmidt, Jones...
@robhoneycutt "personal attack" You're pretty thin-skinned if you're offended by a little humor & sarcasm.
“I have not disparaged anyone” Rob, let me help you w/your selective memory. From your second post here: “climate change DENIERS” “almost impenetrable cognitive dissonance”
“disparaged. . .Me, Ice, Mann, Schmidt, Jones”
You & Ice? Nope, just a little humor & sarcasm.
Mann, Schmidt & Jones? They've discredited & brought reproach upon themselves. Read the mails- they’re a disgrace to science.
@robhoneycutt "Sorry ROO but you are clearly a denier"
You think that is not disparaging? You just tar someone w/holocaust label. Can you please stop getting into gutter-level name-calling? It’so sad you have to stoop to that level. Why DO you resort to ugly name calling?
Especially after from our previous history you know that I DON'T deny climate change.
@RealOldOne2 If you choose to associate the term "denier" with holocaust denier then that is your prerogative. Denial is a legitimate clinical term that aptly describes exactly this situation. It is in itself a defense mechanism consistent with denial to make such an association where one is clearly not intended.
@RealOldOne2 Definitely not misapplying the term. Any negativity to the term is assumed by you and not my responsibility. Here's a definition from wikipedia (which I double checked with my psychiatrist stepmother for accuracy): Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
@RealOldOne2 What you are denying is the overwhelming evidence showing that man-made CO2 is warming the planet driving potentially serious changes in the climate system.
1) The evidence is not overwhelming that the additional CO2 is from man. You show where the science that shows most of the warming could be explained by the observed increase in temp is flawed. Or are you denying that increasing temp can cause an increase in CO2?
2) The evidence is not overwhelming that CO2 is causing the observed warming. You must show that it couldn't be natural variation.
@robhoneycutt And iceman’s 1st post: “this is how we know you’re not a scientist”
Well, in fact I am a scientist, so iceman was WRONG & I think he knows it. Iceman’s ‘conclusion’ was ridiculous. You have to have every dataset, or at least the one he is using in order to be a scientist? His ‘conclusion’ was NOT based on any factual information, but merely his personal inferences(which is poor science). IMO it was just an attempted insult, tho I could be wrong & it was faulty logic & thinking.
@RealOldOne2 You certainly don't act like a scientist. A good scientist would check and see if they had the right data. A good scientist doesn't "ROTFLOL."
I live in west Texas, and in our area the rainy season which normally causes floods was a whopping total of 2 tiny storms. I didn't even get wet while outside. Compare that to last year where it rained so hard that some streets turned into RIVERS. Multiple times.
VicariousExtrospect 2 months ago
@VicariousExtrospect I live in Houston and during the summer where we normally average a couple days of rain (and by rain I mean a heavy T-storm) and we had four actual storms and a few incidents of spritzing over the entire summer. Normally schools have flood days off, and they didn't this last year
SephieRothe 1 month ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
In my state in Australia, we're coming out of a drought that began in the mid-90s. Now we're flooding, with some of the most severe weather on record. Is climate change real? Heck yes.
Clarrisani 2 months ago
Your backside is warming. Co2 is a harmless atmospheric gas. Nasa is in on the fraud too, I know all about the Hanson idiot. Try again maybe you have more propaganda up your sleeve but no proof as usual. B.sc Biology/Earth and Environmental Science by the way and yes I have also studied Thermodynamics. You are just arrogant,ignorant and cannot think for yourself. The Pacific is cooling as is every level of the atmosphere. Where is the proof of AGW? Concensus means nothing .
david222444 2 months ago
It is not happening, The fact is that the Planet is cooling, the models are wrong the agenda is silly and the public do not believe this crap any more. Co2 is the product of a warming Planet caused by an active phase of the Sun. I challenge anyone to give me proof that C02 produced by man has had any effect on the climate. A cooling Pacific Ocean will have a cooling effect on the planet and has nothing at all to do with man. Atmospheric co2 enrichment benefits all life on the Planet.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 ROFL!
kileer7 2 months ago
@kileer7 Afraid global warming fanatics are the laughing stock but they are too stupid to realise it yet.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 LMAO!
kileer7 2 months ago
@kileer7 Please stop parroting propaganda. I assume you enjoy being baby fed this tripe but I do not. For another laugh America and Canada refuse to take part in any warming agenda at Durban. LOL
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 Jeez LOL!
kileer7 2 months ago
@david222444 Don't speak, I know just what you're saying, so please stop explaining, don't tell me cause it hurts. Hush, hush, darling ROFL
kileer7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kileer7 "@david222444 Don't speak, I know just what you're saying, so please stop explaining, don't tell me cause it hurts. Hush, hush, darling ROFL"
Thumbing up this guy for appropriate use of "No Doubt" reference.
xdassinx 2 months ago
@david222444
Perhaps kileer7 was laughing at the false, absurd, & illogical comment of 776281.
He thinks a drought in Texas proves that CO2 isn't plant food. That IS laughable. & a perfect example of why so many get caught up in the madness & delusion of the crowd swallowing CAGW.
He might correct:
the USDA:"Extra CO2 by itself will stimulate some growth because plants have more FOOD for photosynthesis."
the commercial growers who fertilize to 1000ppm of CO2.
Yes, CO2 IS plant food.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@david222444 Go to the NASA climate website and click on key indicators. Basic facts: The earth is warming, it is caused by the greenhouse effect and we are accelerating it. It is not anyones brains job to do your thinking for you. Read a basic physics book kid, you know nothing of science
scienceandhiphop2011 2 months ago
Blows the CO2 is plant food argument out of the water
776281 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Tell you what. If we got through the next decade without a warming trend (barring a major volcanic event) I would have to seriously reconsider the science of AGW.
So what about you? What would convince you this is real and a serious concern? (As every scientific organization on the planet states.)
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "What would convince you this is real and a serious concern?"
Part 1: real - I've already said that I do accept that AGW is real. But the empirical science says that it's a minor contributor to warming b/c it's a minor addition to the atmosphere & the hard science of physical chemistry & biology says the earth's natural systems can't discriminate against it as it flows through the oceans & biosphere.
It's only your models that says it's catastrophic.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt
Part 2: serious concern - If global temps rose rapidly & caught up to their previously projected levels & hard science based on empirical data ruled out natural causes such as solar, cosmic rays, clouds, ENSO, AMO, AO, etc., that would cause me to reconsider.
Merely to have a temp increase in the next decade would not, however, because it could be caused by the same natural factors (even if we do not know all of them) that have caused past warmings.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt
Thanks for your feedback on Wang2011. Just saw it yesterday afternoon. I’ll respond in email.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 I own a copy of the Mackay book. It is interesting. I see far more reason than delusion in many who have studied and understand the basics of AGW. Sadly, I tend to see the opposite in the converse. But it is true that one MUST always question, instead of blindly accept.
jimbills 2 months ago
@jimbills "see far more reason than delusion"
Yes, everyone while in the throws of madness thinks it can't be wrong. Delusion is not recognized until well after the fact.
Like Mackay says: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
That's happening now, one by one. The climate is not cooperating w/the CAGWers. Temps are in stasis while CO2 relentlessly climbs. It's a TRAVESTY!
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 The problem with this argument, ROO, is that the whole reason we use science is to check ourselves. Yes, humans tend to come to the conclusions they prefer, but we use the scientific method to test ourselves and try to understand when we are fooling ourselves. Science has done this in spades over AGW and the result is that this is real.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Rob, I'm sure you're convinced. Everyone caught up in the crowd is convinced. And perhaps it's too much to expect you to see it until well after CAGW has been swept into the dustbin of history. You may even be one of the one's who will never quit believing.
But at least be objective enough to evaluate the CAGW movement with the objective scientific criteria of social psychology.
Tell me, which of the 8 symptoms of groupthink(Wiki) do you think are not true of CAGW?
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2
probably the same "groupthink" that is true of those who believe in gravity.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610 Hey Peter, how ya doin'? Been a while.
"groupthink"
Nice quip, but I don't think the 8 symptoms of gp-think fit your gravity example.
When's your Climategate 2 vid coming out? I can't wait!
Hope you & the family had a great Thanksgiving & I wish you all a merry Christmas if we don't talk before then. & I hope you don't get too much snow or cold this winter in MI. Actually I'd prefer it a little warmer & less snow to shovel.
I commend you for allowing free discussion.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Tell you what, ROO. What would give me pause to consider whether AGW was real or not would be if the next decade showed no warming or even cooling and we started to see a statistically significant trend (barring a major low lat volcanic event).
What about you? What would convince you that all the climate scientists are right?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt I'd agree. If the next 10 years (barring volcanic) show a significant sideways or downward trend in temp (recent news, though, is that 2011 is the hottest La Nina year on record), I'd re-consider.
But I'd go one further: if I saw solid and convincing evidence why AGW theory can't be true or why it couldn't cause more than 1 degree C warming (over today) by 2100 - I'd happily re-evaluate. I just haven't seen anything even close to it. And yes, AGW sucks. Who'd WANT to believe it?
jimbills 2 months ago
@jimbills The latest statement I read said that warming is "virtually certain" over the next decade according to a recent IPCC statement. And in IPCC parlance that means a 99% chance.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Why don't you apply the same 8 symptoms of groupthink to the skeptic position? Use the GOP as an example: how, exactly, would a GOP Congressman be handled by his fellow Republicans for agreeing with AGW theory?
You're very correct in that "everyone while in the throws of madness thinks it can't be wrong. Delusion is not recognized until well after the fact."
It probably feels like you're a maverick in a den of crazies here on Peter's videos. What would it be like on Watt's Up?
jimbills 2 months ago
Excellent video.
kileer7 2 months ago
Ernst-Georg Beck is not looking very impressive either. I can only find papers published in E&E and only a couple at that. I don't think I'd even classify him as a climate scientist based on these credentials.
For comparison you might look at Richard Alley. Over 400 published papers. Most published in the highest quality journals. Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters... etc. A lifetime spent studying and researching specifically in the field of climate.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Both the Jaworowski and Ball papers rely heavily on Beck's data - in effect, they're really the same source. Going back to Beck, he's showing wild, massive swings in CO2 in the 19th century - this doesn't match with the relatively smooth curve of late 20th century measurements to now.
Even Beck's paper references Beck ("Beck 2007"). Question: what/where from are the sources for Beck's sparse chemical analysis data of 63 samples?
jimbills 2 months ago
@jimbills "63 samples" LOL!
No, >30 authors & over 75,000 determinations!
bit(dot)ly/vfg4rN
Please study the info that I've given you more closely.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Thanks for that - it was what I was asking for. Beck's paper referenced an earlier source of his (it did say "63", but my bad).
You realize that 64K of those 75K samples were taken in Germany from 1939-1941, right? What's the likelihood that Nazi Germany at war had elevated levels of CO2?
jimbills 2 months ago
@jimbills yw.
"Nazi Germany?"
Good questions, but I don't know, I haven't considered it & don't know how one would evaluate it. It's 70 yrs ago & data is probably extremely limited. But still a valid question.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and call the Beck paper (and by relation the Ball and Jawoworski papers) "junk science".
Beck has 3 CO2 peaks in his historical timeline going back to about 1800: ~1820, ~1860, ~1940. 1820 relies on a crazy low amount of source data from a city (Innsbruck) and 1860 does the same with bit more data (Rostock, London, Manchester). 19th century European cities had massive coal and wood pollution - of course they'd have > CO2 readings than Mauna Loa.
jimbills 2 months ago
@jimbills "junk science"
Call it what you want. I have more confidence in a few real, empirical, physical measurements(of a few ppm accuracy) than in all the reconstructions which rely on numerous assumptions that can't be proven b/c they're in the past, including the stomata that support higher CO2.
CAGW is classic group-think. Compare the elements.
Read Charles Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds', 1841.
CAGW is the real junk science & the latest chapter
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 The 1940 time relies 95%+ on measurements in Germany - the epicenter of the greatest war in history. It's only logical to assume CO2 readings from that region at that time would show elevated CO2.
The rest of the Beck chart (Figure 5) doesn't vary widely from more accepted sources.
jimbills 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
err, perturbation.
Isn't it logical that the Earth developed a wholly self-sustaining CO2 throughput over billions of years that is simply being overwhelmed by man's "small" output (of 30+ gigatons/year)?
Assuming that the Earth itself is suddenly producing more CO2 buildup than it ever has in the past million years MUST be explained by MORE than Youtube comment hypothesis when man-made FF release explains the CO2 buildup WITH evidence and solid theory - backed by 90%+ consensus.
jimbills 2 months ago
Comment removed
jimbills 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Welcome you all to the LATEST RELIGION (MAN-MADE of course!!) on this planet: AGW (aka MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING)!! Here are a few TID-BITS about this LATEST MAN-MADE RELIGION:
1. Who is GOD in AGW? MAN!
2. Who is the main RELIGIOUS HEAD? Al Gore!
3. Is there an AFTER-LIFE? Yes. CO2-FREE Heaven and a CO2-FILLED HELL depending on the payment of the CARBON TAX!
4. Is there a JUDGEMENT DAY aka DOOMS DAY? Of course, YES when the GOOD and BAD HUMANS are judged based upon the payment of CARBON TAX!
rationalindian10 2 months ago
Welcome you all to the LATEST RELIGION (MAN-MADE of course!!) on this planet: AGW (aka MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING)!!! Here are a few TID-BITS about this LATEST MAN-MADE RELIGION:
1. Who is GOD in AGW? MAN!
2. Who is the main RELIGIOUS HEAD? Al Gore!
3. Is there an AFTER-LIFE? Yes. CO2-FREE Heaven and a CO2-FILLED HELL depending on the payment of the CARBON TAX!
4. Is there a JUDGEMENT DAY aka DOOMS DAY? Of course, YES when the GOOD and BAD HUMANS are judged based upon the payment of CARBON TAX!
rationalindian10 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 "overwhelming evidence"
You just made my point for me. You are clearly in denial.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt I'm not the only one who has suggested that natural variability is a key factor in what the climate is doing. Mike Mann suggested it too based on their models, but Trenberth said that the empirical measurements (radiation budget, clouds, ocean data) were "wonting" & "lacking".
Don't get me wrong, the 'team' doesn't agree w/my position, but when they're not in public, they do make some honest admissions that it's NOT case closed, settled science like they portray in public.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Is this part of that “OVERWHELMING” evidence?
Oct2009 email#1255532032
"Hi Tom[Wigley]
. . .we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin"[Trenberth]
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Funny though how both Wigley and Trenberth are convinced that man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming. Huh?
You might note that this is a repeat email from the 2009 release of emails. Trenberth is speaking of the "travesty" that we can't effectively track the heat energy in the climate system. He has published papers saying exactly the same thing.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt (2) KT to MM
"Mike[Mann]
Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO"
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt (3) KT to MM
“, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES”
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 What you should be taking from these emails is that the scientists are actively discussing the issues related to climate change. ALL of these guys accept the fact that AGW is real.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt (4) KT to MM
“data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin [Trenberth]”
These past few have all been from Oct2009 email#1255532032.
There's thousands more!
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Dude, there are well over 100,000 published papers that come to the conclusion that AGW is real. There are very very few that challenge that position. Almost ALL actively publishing climate scientists agree that AGW is real.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 You seem to think that all the scientists out there are scratching their heads wondering if this is real or not. They are not.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt (cont)
i- the FACT that we can NOT account for WHAT IS HAPPENING in the climate system or finally
j- the fact that IT IS A TRAVESTY!
Forgive me, but it just doesn't seem to me that it's as 'OVERWHELMING" as you say. And that's just from a single e-mail. There's thousands more.
That's the testimony of one of the world's leading climate scientist, but I'm anxiously waiting to you hear all your answers and ranking.
ps why don't you cc: Kevin. Sounds like he could really use the help.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Have you spent any time at all reading Trenberth's work? Listen to him speak? You're taking quotes WAY out of context without understanding what they mean. Trenberth clearly believes that AGW is real. What you're pulling up are quotes of him discussing the challenges of tracking the climate system.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "You're taking quotes WAY out of context"
Yeah, I expected that one. That's why I quoted THE WHOLE CONTIGUOUS SECTION of Trenberth's comments from that email.
So the 'taking it out of context' talking point doesn't hold water.
When you the whole contiguous section, you're not taking a clip out of context.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 I'm very familiar with Trenberth's comments. I've read the relevant papers where he's talking about the problems tracking heat energy in the climate system. He is NOT challenging whether or not the planet is warming nor whether we are the cause.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "NOT challenging whether or not the planet is warming nor whether we are the cause"
Go back & read my 'disclaimer' that I included to eliminate to raise the strawman that you just did. I already said they didn't agree w/me. You're just trying to deflect your inability to defend & denial of the uncertainties & holes in the empirical evidence.
As I've said many times to you before. All you have is MODELS. You have yet to produce the empirical evidence I've asked you for. KT said why!
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 So, a warming troposphere with a cooling stratosphere. Not a model. Fact. Empirical evidence. It is measured.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "troposphere"
There you go again changing the subject.
Discuss the science I posted. Your Top10 list. I'm waiting.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Nope. You changed the subject to model and empirical evidence. I was just responding.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "You changed the subject to model"
Nice try, but NO! That was a passing comment in response to one of your numerous attempts to change the subject, build a strawman & other attempt to avoid discussing the inconvenient admissions of the state of climate science & it's empirical measurements (clouds, ocean data, energy balance, radiation budget, etc). That's all part of the climate science subjects from the climate scientist that I posted.
Are you ready to discuss science yet? Top10?
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 I'll say it once again. You are clearly in denial. In a big way.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "convincing evidence" Nope.
Rob, it sounds like you are the one in denial. Denial that natural climate variability could be all that we are seeing. Denial that there are so many uncertainties. Denial that we don't have convincing evidence that man is causing the warming. Denial that you are so wrapped up in confirmation bias that you can't recognize or even acknowledge any contrary evidence, but dismiss it out-of-hand. Denial that you defend the indefensible.
Yes, deep denial.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Well then, by that definition pretty much the entire scientific community is in denial. Almost all publishing climate scientists are in denial. Every National Academy is in denial. Almost every scientific organization on the planet is in denial.
Or maybe it's you.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "by that definition pretty much the entire scientific community is in denial"
BINGO!
DING, DING, DING!
Now you've got it. That's exactly what YOU'RE doing to the "deniers" as you & Trenberth like to tar them.
You're using denial in exactly the same way that I just used it.
So if I'm improperly using it SO ARE YOU!
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Nice try but you're grasping at straws. By the same logic maybe the whole scientific community is in denial about evolution or relativity. Could be, but the chances are infinitesimally small.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "evolution or relativity"
Puuuhleeeeeze.
Quit changing the subject.
I posted scientific comments about climate from climate scientists and you start going on about evolution & relativity.
Lets discuss the science like an adult.
You're acting like a child throwing a tantrum, in front of everyone.
Your behavior is indicitave of someone exhibiting an irrational reaction to their 'belief system' being challenged. But all I've done is post science. What does that tell you?
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Your interpretation of my comments is amusing. I was making a point that you claiming that the entire scientific community is somehow in denial is, quite frankly, absurd. Remember, your comment was "DING DING DING... BINGO." So, your contention is that everyone else is in denial. It's just you and a small band of climate rebels who have it all figured out.
Forgive me but this is absurd beyond belief.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "your contention is that everyone else is in denial"
NO, NO, NO.
Re-read what I said after that.
The BINGO DING DING DING was that I used it EXACTLY the same as you did, hoping you'd see that.
Not anything to do w/who has it all figured out. Just that you are inconsistent in your application of denial.
Disagreeing w/something is not denial.
We disagree on the evidence & how it should be interpreted. I've been trying to get you to discuss the evidence, but so far you haven't.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 There are absolutely ways you can rationally disagree. Problem is you are rejecting very basic science. You're rejecting aspects of climate science that even prominent skeptics accept. This whole issue about CO2 levels is really just silly. You're hung up on wanting to find a lie when the issue is not even close to being controversial. No one challenges that the Dome C data is accurate. No one challenges the Mona Loa data. ...But you find it somehow reprehensible.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt The trouble is, if you accept that humans cause the rise in CO2, you're stuck. There's no good evidence any more that sensitivity is low enough to ignore. So now, all over the web, it's the warming oceans that are outgassing natural CO2. Never mind that measurements show that the oceans are taking up carbon, not losing it, or that there's no "model" in mind for spontaneously warming the oceans quickly enough to explain modern CO2 rise.
541iceman 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Physics seems to only apply to anthro CO2: “natural” means “random” to deniers.
Good luck with ROO; he's gone from being sensible but wrong on Great Lakes, to pushing the 1974 CIA report, to buying into the natural CO2 rise meme. I’m going back to the real world for a while.
541iceman 2 months ago
@541iceman "physics . . . "
I expected better from you than those cheap shots. Bird of a feather I guess.
1) care to show me where I said those things about physics & "natural" means "random"?
2) wrong on GL- waiting for your response to my comments on Wang2011
3) 1974 CIA report is historical fact even tho it disturbs you(left out the climagegate emails- they're facts too)
4) natural CO2 rise 'meme' - you don't think CO2 is released during warming?
I'm in the real world w/all its uncertainties.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "rationally disagree"
Yes, but you're making even discussion impossible because you refuse to discuss the uncertainties & problems in the science. Please discuss & rank Trenberth's 10 factors.
Perhaps you should take a time-out to calm down, take a blood pressure pill, sip an adult beverage, sleep on it & come back tomorrow ready to discuss science.
I'll gather some more evidence to discuss after we're finished w/Trenberth etal 2009##1255532032
Good night, sleep tight.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 How about you drop the sophomoric concern trolling. Stick to the science.
I do not see the point to ranking Trenberth's factors. No problem discussing them.
While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and read Trenberth's published research on the same topic that is being discussed in the emails.
I'll again remind you that Trenberth, like almost all climate scientists, believes AGW is real. He is discussing the challenges of tracking heat energy in the climate system.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Uncertainties? We can't even get to the uncertainties because you can't even accept the most basic science. Prior to you bringing up Trenberth we were discussing the rate of change in atmospheric CO2. As best I could make out you are claiming that CO2 has NOT been rising in the past 150 years. How can you start talking about uncertainties when you can't even get past this?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Back to the CO2 issue. Here is a great, and very well notated, animated graph showing CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. watch?v=bbgUE04Y-Xg
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Right. I don't see how someone can see that and not be concerned. The only feasible lines of skepticism (imo) are major climate insensitivity to CO2 or proof of negative feedbacks. The only times I've seen these points argued are from a handful of non-peer-reviewed (or debunked) studies by guys directly or indirectly paid by the FF industry. There is a recent study by Andreas Schmittner that claims the models are too extreme - but even that study points to 1.7 - 2.6 C w/ doubling.
jimbills 2 months ago
@jimbills The interesting thing about the Schmittner study is that, even if this study nailed it, ultimately it doesn't make much difference from a policy standpoint. It means there may be a little more breathing room but not that much more. All the same issues are in play and we need to start reducing CO2 output soon.
Everything I've read says Schmittner is a good study but it's just another data point among a very wide range of climate sensitivity studies.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Yeah, even just a 2 degree C global temp rise translates to significant change over higher latitudes. I've seen a handful of reports claiming that the Schmittner study underestimates negative feedbacks - but I think this is where the science gets a bit uncertain on the predictive level (at least from what I as a layman can see).
jimbills 2 months ago
@jimbills Schmittner et al. is a fine study and a great example of how to send climate science forward. However, it (a) focuses on getting from glacial to interglacial, and so ignores feedbacks that might be more critical at temperatures higher than interglacial (e.g., methane release from melting permafrost); (b) it relies on proxies for ice-age ocean temperature that have large error bars, and (c) it has a very simplified atmosphere (needed to speed up runs).
541iceman 2 months ago
@541iceman The NYT has a pretty good article about Schmittner titled "How Much Will the Earth Warm Up?"
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@jimbills err, underestimates "positive" feedbacks. Search "media misleads on flawed climate sensitivity study". Also, thanks, Iceman.
jimbills 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt Your comment to @RealOldOne2: "Back to the CO2 issue. Here is a great, and very well notated, animated graph showing CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years"!
Forget the "HARRY POTTER" TEMPERATURES of 800,000 years ago, could you please give the following VERY VERY SIMPLE DATA on the TEMPERATURE of the PLACE where you residence in as below (for example) from 1980 till 2011??!!!
YEAR ---- PLACE ---- TEMPERATURE (degree celcius/fahrenheit)
1980 ---- NY ---- 25
rationalindian10 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 "But all I've done is post science."
Perhaps you can repost any science that you've presented. I've not seen any.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Perhaps you can repost any science"
No games. Go back and re-read what Kevin Trenberth wrote about the climate system & measurements of its elements. It's all in the my posts. Read it again. No need for me to post it again. Quit the dodges please. Act like an adult & discuss the science.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Dude, for the eleventh time now. I've read Trenberth's work. I know this topic quite well. Trenberth is lamenting their capacity to track the heat energy in the climate system. He's being like a good bookkeeper who wants to account for where every penny goes. The climate is highly complex and figuring out the entire energy budget is incredibly challenging. BUT the fact remains that he's NOT saying he's unsure about AGW. He states over and over and over that it is real.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 The fact remains that the overwhelming evidence points to AGW.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "The fact remains that the overwhelming evidence points to AGW"
I'm waiting for you to rank Trenberth's factors from 1 to 10. Come on, make your top 10 list!
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Not my responsibility. I leave that to the researchers. I'm not a researcher.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Not my responsibility"
I don't know what you're talking about. And at this point it doesn't matter until you discuss the science that I posted. Another attempt to deflect.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 You might want to take this up with Trenberth. The TOA data is clearly showing a radiative imbalance. Everything that Trenberth is talking about is below that. Where is the heat going in the climate system. I've stated this several times now. Go read his papers on this topic.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Here is one source for the rate of change data: tiny cc/viqtv
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 I clearly do not defend the indefensible. There are many uncertainties involved. But there are a great many aspects that are very certain. What you are doing though is rejecting everything. Saying none of it exists. No rise in CO2. No affect on global temps.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "I clearly do not defend the indefensible"
There's another example of your denial.
You have yet to admit that the SkepticalScience chart which purported to be "Atmospheric CO2 EPICA Dome C ice core" data was WRONG in showing the plot up to 370ppm when in fact there is NO Dome C ice core data above ~280ppm.
Yes, you're in denial that it was a bogus chart.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 No, the chart is not wrong. The chart is Dome C with the modern data appended. The point STILL is that Dome C shows CO2 varying about 7% over the course of the holocene. Then CO2 goes from 280 to 395ppm today. A 40% increase in just 150 years.
Why is this so hard to grasp? Why are you rejecting such fundamental and simple data? This is not even close to being a controversial claim. It is basic well accepted data.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "No the chart is not wrong"
WOW, you're still in denial about this one rob.
It doesn't matter if PART of the chart was correct.If part of it was bogus, that makes the whole CHART wrong.
The chart purported to be ICE CORE data. Yes, part of it was, but PART of it WAS NOT. Unless you can show me Dome C ice core DATA that goes from 280 to 370ppm, the chart is BOGUS. It claims to be ALL ice core data & it's NOT.
The truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.
Miss one & it's a LIE!
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 The chart is just Dome C with the modern direct measurements tacked on. Nothing controversial. Nothing bogus. Two well accepted data sets. You just can't handle the truth.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "chart. . .Nothing bogus"
Deep denial lingers, defending the indefensible.
The chart, to be legit, should have had two DIFFERENT lines(colors, dots/solid, etc) and the appropriate data sets plotted w/the appropriate symbols, or at minimum should have said ". .ice core & instrumental". But it WASN'T plotted that way, nor did it give ANY indication that it was anything other than ice core data.
Why can't you just admit SS posted a FLAWED misrepresentative chart? Amazing!
Top10???
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Yes, I agree. Different data sets should be clearly identified on plots. Having said that, modern CO2 levels are 30% higher than the higher CO2 levels through the last 800+ ky. Get over it.
I might come back to this if you can provide any peer-reviewed evidence of your "opinion" of where the anomalous CO2 is coming from. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.
541iceman 2 months ago
@541iceman I asked you 3 serious questions. Do you plan to respond? No problem if you choose not to, I'll search for the answers elsewhere. I just thought that you might have the answers since I think you work in this field.
"opinion"
Hypothesis. I pointed both CZ & rob to Spencer's discussion. There's science there, empirical data & discussion of it. Can you point out where that science is flawed?
No it's not peer-reviewed, but we've seen from the experts that even pathetic papers get thru p-r.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@541iceman The caption for the graphic I gave ROO reads, "Fig 4 - Adjusted EPICA Dome C data with modern CO2 record appended." Admittedly that doesn't come through on the link I originally gave him so he couldn't have known that, but also he wouldn't accept it when I told him this was made clear in the original article.
Par for the course here.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@541iceman There was an interesting question that I thought came up in the discussion yesterday that you might know the answer to. Do you know why most of the ice core records end anywhere from 150 years ago or earlier? I rarely see any ice core data the runs up through the past century.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt The main issue is that the top ~100 m of core from cold sites is not yet consolidated ice, so (a) it is still fairly permeable (exchanging gas with the atmosphere) and (b) hard to get a workable core. People routinely use shallow cores from warmer sites for other things (annual precip variability, dust, aerosol particles as proxies for sea ice presence), but not for CO2.
541iceman 2 months ago
@541iceman Thanks, Ice. I was sure there had to be a good reason or two.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Honestly, this is exactly why I call you a denier. You can not find it in you to accept even the most basic and well accepted data.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "why I call you a denier"
Why, because I posted a discussion of climate science by a climate scientist?
I make no disparaging remarks about you or the scientist, I MERELY POSTED THEIR VERBATUM DISCUSSION!
Take a deep breath. Look at how you have reacted. Numerous posts without A SINGLE ONE discussing the science. Changing the subject, calling me a denier numerous times, everything BUT discussing the science.
Let's discuss science can we? Like adults.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Yes, you posted the dissuasion without even comprehending what you were posting. The "travesty" Trenberth is discussing is their current inability to track heat energy as it moves though the climate system. They are NOT discussing whether it exists or not.
Have you read Trenberth's papers on this topic?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt Discussion, not dissuasion. (Stupid auto correct.)
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
Two produced free water use vacuum desalination of sea water. 10% of the price of high pressure deceleration
JonThm 2 months ago
A rise in free carbon dioxide in the air is impossible with green plants
JonThm 2 months ago
Carbon dioxide is the gas of life. Green plants turn into new life on earth. No rise of this gas in the air is possible because of photosynthesis or
JonThm 2 months ago
@JonThm Please look at the data at co2now(dot)org.
jimbills 2 months ago
Mass extinctions on the earth have never resulted from too much carbon dioxide in the air. That is the gas of life. Plants taking in to do photosynthesis.
JonThm 2 months ago
90% of life died at the end of the Permian due to insufficient carbon dioxide in the air. 85% of life on earth, including the dinosaurs, died at the end of the Jurassic duty, to strike in Mexico . The classic mass extinction event on earth
JonThm 2 months ago
August 2010 Harvard University recorded in new scientist that there have been no increase in global carbon dioxide for two centuries. Due to photosynthesis.
JonThm 2 months ago
He is vacuum deceleration, and worldwide plants will still consume all mankind's carbon emissions. To form new life on earth. Ask any biology teacher. To the ignorant of biology's carbon cycle is to be very stupid indeed.
JonThm 3 months ago
@greenman3610 have you seen this?
watch?v=p0JM2dnQHfw
ejbh3160 3 months ago
This video makes a strong case for natural climate variability dominating the climate.
Everyone in the video attributes the Texas drought to LaNina.
LaNina is caused by LOWER than avg SST.
IPCC AR4 states:"Recent WARMING is strongly evident at all latitudes in SSTs over each of the oceans" so CO2 induced GW causes INCREASED SSTs.
Conclusion: natural variability is overwhelming the effects of CO2 & causing the lower SSTs & LaNina conditions.
So NATURE rules the climate after all, not CO2!
RealOldOne2 3 months ago
@RealOldOne2 "So NATURE rules the climate after all, not CO2!" How are Nature and CO2 independent?
Natural variability does indeed dominate short term climate volatility. Meanwhile, the planet steadily accumulates thermal energy. Higher surface temperatures are inevitable because nature “likes” equilibrium. Despite uncertainties about specifics, there is and will be an the increasing number of weather extremes with increasing magnitude as the baseline climate changes.
AustinCZ 2 months ago
@AustinCZ You're correct. That was a broad stroke & could have been more explicit. Try this: Natural variability rules the climate, not man via his minor(~4% of Nature's) release of CO2.
"dominate short term climate volatility" Yes, AND long term climate changes. 100% of earth's past warmings, including the recent Minoan, Roman, & Medieval, and 100% of earth's ice ages were caused by natural variability. But NOW man is dominating climate? No, we're just living in the current natural warm period.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 “Natural variability rules the climate, not man via his minor(~4% of Nature's) release of CO2.”
Man’s 4% (30 gigatonnes per year) is *released* into the annual 750 gigatonnes *cycling* through the atmosphere annually. Burning fossil fuels disrupts the geological carbon cycle – which is measured in geological, not biological, time. Net result, the atmosphere now has 40% more CO2, and counting. That’s not minor.
AustinCZ 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 “ 100% of earth's past warmings, including the recent Minoan...."
Your history in correct correct. There are many energy flow forcings. Typically CO2 is a feedback. However, in the PETM mass extinction event about 50 million years ago, CO2 was the lead-off batter. Humans are now doing the same many times faster. If one decides we aren’t wise enough to comprehend that our actions have consequences, then I’ll accept that what's starting to happen now is “natural”.
AustinCZ 2 months ago
@AustinCZ I think the problem we see with climate change deniers is that the solutions to the problem are one's that have been promoted by democrats (and the left wing in general) for many decades now. The same reason they just HATE Obama being president (the same way they hated Clinton being president) makes them hate and dismiss climate change. It sets up an almost impenetrable cognitive dissonance.
Thing is, ultimately they are going to lose on all counts. Energy, climate and politics.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt In pretending there is no problem, it's inevitable that energy prices will rise to higher and higher levels (shattering the economy) and we'll continue to warm the atmosphere (causing further economic repercussions). Protecting the status quo only destroys the status quo is this case.
It won't JUST be the Republicans and conservatives who suffer because of this - it will be all of us. And sadly, the least economically prepared will be the most vulnerable.
jimbills 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt “Liberal” messengers need more help from people who speak Republicanese. The longer our mythical “invisible hand” of the free market hides behind energy market externalities, the more visible it will be when reality hits the fan. Now that Australia's carbon tax acknowledges climate science, American ignorance proudly stands alone.
AustinCZ 2 months ago
@AustinCZ "CO2 was the lead-off batter"
There's peer-reviewed science(Sluijs etal 2007) that says CO2 didn't get up to bat until game was over. "The lag of ~3,000 years between the onset of warming. .and the carbon isotope excursion is consistent with the hypothesis that bottom water warming caused the injection of 13C-depleted carbon by triggering the disassociation of submarine methyl hydrates, but the cause of the early warming remains uncertain"
Ocean warming caused atmospheric C change. Hmm
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 So, are you suggesting that the rise in modern CO2 levels is a function of ocean warming? And if so, what is causing the ocean warming? And if this is the case then also look at the EPICA Dome C CO2 record here: tiny cc/dxkck
What would cause the CO2 level to change so dramatically?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt
1) some
2) sun
3) must have been cavemen & their fires
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Non-sequitor much? Or just sarcasm? Or a combination thereof?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "non-sequitor[sic]"
What doesn't follow? I just answered your 3 questions. You don't like brief answers & economy of words?
Is this better?
1) yes, some of the rise
2) the sun is the primary source of ocean temp rise
3) I believe that the changes in CO2 came from some combination of the natural sources in the oceans & the flora, but since I know you're a CO2 guy, yes, the cave man thing was a little sarcasm in response to your pedantic & ostentatious behavior.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Yes, I caught my misspelling right after I posted.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Ah, got it. You were answering a previous post. (I don't follow the threaded version.)
In reference to #2, that doesn't fit. Over the past 30 years we've been in a solar minimum. And if warming was due to the sun you'd expect a pronounced 11 year cycle and you don't see that. In addition that's not consistent with stratospheric cooling which indicates warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 And in regards to #3, you have to be joking. A combination of natural sources? The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is currently about 10,000X that seen in any paleoclimate data!
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 You might want to look at the EPICA Dome C data again. What could possibly happen to, just by chance correlate with the start of the industrial revolution, cause such a massive change in atmospheric CO2? What else besides us? The sun has warmed the oceans before and never has it caused this rate of change in CO2.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Dome C data again"
I admit that since I already had the EPICA Dome C data, I didn't follow your link. But when I just did I was ROFLOL! SkepticalScience! There's your problem. Gosh & I thought you were a real scientist.
The data I have is from a little more credible source: NOAA/NASA bit(dot)ly/tCYE3s
The most recent data from EPICA Dome C is over 9,000 yrs ago. I didn't know the industrial revolution started when Fred Flintstone was working at the Slate Rock & Gravel Company!
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 The chart on Skeptical Science is consistent with the data you linked to. Here is another chart from someone else if you're going to be picky: tiny cc/wqm4q
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "chart on [SS] is consistent"
No, the data ends ~9,000 yrs ago. The SS chart plots it to today. That is NOT consistent.
Oh I forgot you believe in the Mannian hokey-stick trick.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Follow my other link, ROO. You found the data set that ends 9000 years ago. There is another data set that includes the holocene. Or just google "epica dome c holocene."
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Have you even read any of Mann's papers?
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Have you even read any of Mann's papers?"
Yes! But the sequels are never as good as the original.
I esp. like Mann etal 1994 temp reconstruction paper:"Though expanded uncertainties PREVENT DECISIVE CONCLUSIONS for the period PRIOR TO AD 1400" Mann can't make decisive concl. about the MWP, but YOU know for a fact that it's warmer NOW.
Of course that's before he learned the hokey-stick spicing trick.
I AM looking forward to 'best of MM from the CG mails' & his prison memoirs though
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Come on ROO, listen to you. You're saying that older science takes precedence over newer science? There are more than one Mann paper. There are more than one multi proxy reconstructions. They all come to essentially the same conclusions.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "older science takes precedence"
Yes, in Mann's case, older honest science that acknowledges uncertainties & unknowns does take precedence over newer shoddy, junk science based on faulty statistically methods & reconstructions w/spliced in instrumental data.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 No, you're being obtuse. Newer science takes precedence. Stop whining about Mann 1999 and get up to date. And definitely get off of FAR. They're working on 5AR now!
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "obtuse. . .whining about Mann"
Even his cohorts recognized Mann’s work was junk science. Here is what Ray Bradley, one of Mann’s co-authors said to Keith Briffa, who is a dendroclimatology expert:
“Also- -& I’m sure you’ll agree- -the Mann/Jones GRL paper was TRULY PATHETIC and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.”
Emphasis mine, except for quote marks around reconstruction. They’re Bradley’s. source:cg2 email#3373
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 re: email#3373... Well, there goes the idea that all the climatologists are a "Team" and are in on a big conspiracy. You might try reading the full email instead of the snippet from the hacker. Those were comments made in private back in 2003 and were the opinion of one scientist.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "email#3373"
I read the entire context, not just a snippet from the leaker.
"private" not anymore.
"2003"- yes, contemporaneous comments are usually more accurate than later recollections.
"one scientist"- not just any 'one scientist' but a previous co-author & he expected that the expert in the field would agree w/him that Mann's/Jones's paper was "PATHETIC" & "shouldn't have been published"
Indicative w/other mails that Mann had quit being a scientist because of "the cause".
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Come on ROO. You're a smart enough guy! Have an honest debate. You've now digressed into a personal attack.
You will please note that I have not disparaged anyone in this debate so far. You, on the other hand, have disparaged everyone whom you disagree with. Me, Ice, Mann, Schmidt, Jones...
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "personal attack" You're pretty thin-skinned if you're offended by a little humor & sarcasm.
“I have not disparaged anyone” Rob, let me help you w/your selective memory. From your second post here: “climate change DENIERS” “almost impenetrable cognitive dissonance”
“disparaged. . .Me, Ice, Mann, Schmidt, Jones”
You & Ice? Nope, just a little humor & sarcasm.
Mann, Schmidt & Jones? They've discredited & brought reproach upon themselves. Read the mails- they’re a disgrace to science.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Sorry ROO but you are clearly a denier. Sorry if you don't like the term but it is a fact.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Sorry ROO but you are clearly a denier"
You think that is not disparaging? You just tar someone w/holocaust label. Can you please stop getting into gutter-level name-calling? It’so sad you have to stoop to that level. Why DO you resort to ugly name calling?
Especially after from our previous history you know that I DON'T deny climate change.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 If you choose to associate the term "denier" with holocaust denier then that is your prerogative. Denial is a legitimate clinical term that aptly describes exactly this situation. It is in itself a defense mechanism consistent with denial to make such an association where one is clearly not intended.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "If you choose"
I think you're being disingenuous now. The "D" word was chosen specifically to carry the negative holocaust message.
"clinical term"
Then you're misapplying it. What is it that I deny?
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 Definitely not misapplying the term. Any negativity to the term is assumed by you and not my responsibility. Here's a definition from wikipedia (which I double checked with my psychiatrist stepmother for accuracy): Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Definitely not misapplying the term"
All those words & you have NOT told me what it is that I'm denying!
So, rob, perhaps you missed it the 1st time I asked, so I'll ask it again so you don't miss it:
WHAT IS IT THAT I'M DENYING?
ps. the caps were to help you not miss it this time, not shouting; (just so you don't take offense)
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 What you are denying is the overwhelming evidence showing that man-made CO2 is warming the planet driving potentially serious changes in the climate system.
robhoneycutt 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt "overwhelming evidence"
Finally. Thank you.
Now here's where you're wrong w/that assertion.
1) The evidence is not overwhelming that the additional CO2 is from man. You show where the science that shows most of the warming could be explained by the observed increase in temp is flawed. Or are you denying that increasing temp can cause an increase in CO2?
2) The evidence is not overwhelming that CO2 is causing the observed warming. You must show that it couldn't be natural variation.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@robhoneycutt And iceman’s 1st post: “this is how we know you’re not a scientist”
Well, in fact I am a scientist, so iceman was WRONG & I think he knows it. Iceman’s ‘conclusion’ was ridiculous. You have to have every dataset, or at least the one he is using in order to be a scientist? His ‘conclusion’ was NOT based on any factual information, but merely his personal inferences(which is poor science). IMO it was just an attempted insult, tho I could be wrong & it was faulty logic & thinking.
RealOldOne2 2 months ago
@RealOldOne2 You certainly don't act like a scientist. A good scientist would check and see if they had the right data. A good scientist doesn't "ROTFLOL."
Not being thin skinned here. Just poi