Climate Change

[Bogan]

1a.png

yay, got it!

[Bogan]

a2.png

[Bogan]

Untitled.10.png

One Climategate email proving that climate scientists who oppose this HIGW hoax get sacked. I suppose that is one way to get "97% consensus". I wonder if secret ballots are allowed?

[brian ross]

1a.png

yay, got it!

Interesting comment on your graph, Bogan. It appears to be saying that there has been a recent significant increase in CO^2. As the Earth has been declared to be experiencing hotter and hotter years, it appears to correlate quite well with the increase in CO^2 levels increasing. When you provide a link to a properly authored and published scientific paper which proves the reverse, get back to us. You are a non-scientist. I will always take the scientists' opinion over yours. QED.

Cartoons BTW, prove nothing. Run along, back to your little kiddies' playground, where you belong. If you want to argue with the adults, be adult about it. Produce evidence, please.

[Bobby]

1a.png

yay, got it!

Interesting comment on your graph, Bogan. It appears to be saying that there has been a recent significant increase in CO^2. As the Earth has been declared to be experiencing hotter and hotter years, it appears to correlate quite well with the increase in CO^2 levels increasing. When you provide a link to a properly authored and published scientific paper which proves the reverse, get back to us. You are a non-scientist. I will always take the scientists' opinion over yours. QED.

Cartoons BTW, prove nothing. Run along, back to your little kiddies' playground, where you belong. If you want to argue with the adults, be adult about it. Produce evidence, please.

Brian,
We wouldn't need this discussion if the Govts. of the world
would have put atom bomb and uranium power station research money into
peaceful Thorium power research -
a never ending supply of ultra cheap, clean, safe energy.
It's all bullshit caused by evil in the world.
I can't believe we're still burning stinking coal in 2019.
We have progressed little beyond cavemen.

[Bogan]

You seem to have missed my previous post on this topic, Brian. So for your edification, I will post it again.

Brian, all that your graph shows is that in the last 800,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has been extremely low, and now it is beginning to rise. If you had included temperatures against CO2 levels in with your graph, then you might have discovered how little CO2 and temperatures co relate.

Anyone who knows anything about graphs knows that the larger the samples the more accurate you can make predictions based upon the graph. Just taking a tiny sample from a graph can prove anything. And 800,000 years out of 600 million is a tiny sample.

Look up "Photo, CO2 Levels and temperatures, 600 million years." This tells us that global CO2 levels were once extremely high and global temperatures were very high too. But although global temperatures and CO2 levels have been decreasing for 600 million years, the graph shows no real causal relationship with the other. There have been times when CO2 levels plummeted markedly while the temps rose steeply. And times when CO2 levels rose significantly while the global temperature plummeted.

Is there any co relation between CO2 and global temps, yes there can, but only during periods of extremely low concentrations of CO2, as exist in the atmosphere for the last few million years. Atmospheric CO2 levels have never been lower and there was a belief among agronomists that if they continued to fall to 150 parts pm, no plant life on Earth could be possible. It could be argued that the human caused increase of CO2 levels is actually a good thing for life on Earth.

You might remember Al Gore displaying a graph of CO2 versus global temps to a class of undergrads and getting oohs and aahs from the audience because it apparently displayed a close relationship between CO2 and global temps.

But there was a reason for that for Al did not explain. The reason is that the Earth's temperatures rise and fall, and so ocean temperatures rise and fall with them. And the oceans hold 50 times more absorbed CO2 than the atmosphere. So when the planet warms for something like 30 different reasons, (Malkovich cycles, variations in solar energy output, cosmic rays, continental drift altering ocean currents, which sometimes work with each other and sometimes against) then the oceans will release CO2 because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. But it is global temperature which drives CO2 levels at very low concentrations of atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. Got that? At very low concentrations of atmospheric CO2, temperatures drive CO2 levels. CO2 does not drive temperature levels.

Could Human Induced CO2 cause global warming? Possibly. But since it is only a theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up, then while governments should be concerned, and maybe investing in renewable energy and nuclear power, it does not merit running around like Chicken Little screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING!" and destroying all of the economies of western civilisation, in order to let China get the jump on us.

Can rising CO2 levels alter visually alter anything? Yes it can. Agronomists have discovered "the greening of planet Earth." It appear that the increasing CO2 levels in our atmosphere is stimulating plant growth, with plants worldwide growing bigger, higher, and in higher elevations and normally unsuitable locations, than ever before.

[brian ross]

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if Earth is in radiative balance, and they are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice sheet extent.
Graph of temperature change and carbon dioxide change measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica


Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue) measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica (Jouzel et al. 2007; Lüthi et al. 2008).

Other paleoclimate proxies help us understand the role of the oceans in past and future climate change. The ocean contains 60 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and as expected, the changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were paralleled by changes in carbon in the ocean over the past several hundred thousand years. While the ocean changes much more slowly than the atmosphere, the ocean played an essential role in past variations in carbon dioxide, and it will play a role in the future over thousands of years.

Finally, paleoclimate data reveal that climate change is not just about temperature. As carbon dioxide has changed in the past, many other aspects of climate changed too. During glacial times, snow lines were lower, continents were drier, and the tropical monsoons were weaker. Some of these changes may be independent; others tightly coupled to the changing level of carbon dioxide. Understanding which of these changes might occur in the future, and how large those changes might be, remains a topic of vigorous research. NOAA's Paleoclimatology Program helps scientists document the changes that have occurred in the past as one approach to understanding future climate change.

[Source]

[Bogan]

Thank you Brian for completely ignoring my post and just cutting and pasting an article which supports your view. This supports my belief that you have never thought about anything you have read (if you have even bothered to read it in the first place) and you simply don't understand what is going on.

Brian, if CO2 causes temperature rises, which releases more CO2 from the oceans, which causes temperature rises, which causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans, which causes etc etc. You have already got an unstoppable runaway greenhouse effect. But your own graph shows that we never get an unstoppable greenhouse effect. That is because CO2 does not cause temperature rises. It is temperature rises which causes CO2 to levels to rise. And that CO2 must have little to no effect on temperatures because eventually, the temperatures go down again and take CO2 levels down with them. Look at your own graph. Something other than CO2 must be controlling temperature rises and falls.

Therefore, temperatures must be controlling CO2, not the other way around.

If you think that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, then what is causing CO2 levels to (regularly as clockwork) crash when they are already on a runaway greenhouse trajectory, and take the temperatures down with them? Unless you can answer that, I have got you right where I want you.

[Nicole]

Excellent Bogan - great point.

Brian, your answer please?

[billy the kid]

Maybe someone who believes in the climate change bullshit can explain to me why the ex President of the USA,
Barack Obama is in the process of offloading 15 million bucks on an island residence (Marthas Vineyard) which at some stage in the future will be totally underwater if climate change "continues"
I think its about six inches above sea level at the moment......