Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Yobarnacle]

Robert H. Essenhigh
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
I don’t believe that it does.
To the contrary, if you apply the IFF test—if-and-only-if or necessary-and-sufficient—the outcome would appear to be exactly the reverse. Rather than the rising levels of carbon dioxide driving up the temperature, the logical conclusion is that it is the rising temperature that is driving up the CO2 level. Of course, this raises a raft of questions, but they are all answerable. What is particularly critical is distinguishing between the observed phenomenon, or the “what”, from the governing mechanism, or the “why”. Confusion between these two would appear to be the source of much of the noise in the global warming debate.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa...viewpoint.html

Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments. If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

[Yobarnacle]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

TABLE 4a.


Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
% of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72 % 0.28%

So only .28 of 1% of greenhouse gasses are manmade. Doesn't seem people are a causal factor to me even if greenhouse gas was a cause, which it ain't!

[Boston]

Again people its got nothing to do with the fact that tempts change, its the rate of change that is the problem. At the present moment temps are changing faster than they have, ever as far as we can tell. Granted more research needs to be done however, never has atmospheric carbon levels changed this fast in the last million years or so and nor has temp. From what can be gleaned from longer ago. Its never happened even remotely this fast, and I mean by a factor of at least 1000 at any time in the last 600 million years.

Lets try and at least get the argument straight

[Petros]

How about some real data? Here is a estimated historical global temps, showing it was both warmer and cooler than current trends:




Here is atmospheric CO2, do you see any correlation to temp above and CO2? Especially look at last major ice ages, CO2 was higher than today. Also note that CO2 levels are lower now than they were in last 200 million years. Every scientist that have studied this has found NO temp correlation to CO2.



Charts showing only last 100-200 years are scientific fraud, timelines like that are way too small to draw correlation. Anyone who ignores all data is commuting fraud.

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Boston

Again people its got nothing to do with the fact that tempts change, its the rate of change that is the problem. At the present moment temps are changing faster than they have, ever as far as we can tell. Granted more research needs to be done however, never has atmospheric carbon levels changed this fast in the last million years or so and nor has temp. From what can be gleaned from longer ago. Its never happened even remotely this fast, and I mean by a factor of at least 1000 at any time in the last 600 million years.

Lets try and at least get the argument straight

Lets get it straight. Are human beings causing climate change cooler, warmer, in any direction? No!

[Boston]

once again the actual topic of concern has been missed completely in all of these last arguments

Its the rate of change, not change itself that is the problem

also data going back more than say 1 million years or so is simply not robust enough to draw any significan't conclusions from. It would be imprudent to assess today's climate swing with less well understood and less complete climate data from to far beyond that.

Oh there's a few periods like the high Permian that are well studied but lots of big holes in the time line from about a million years ago on.

Again its not that change occurs, obviously it does, thats a straw man argument, its the rate of change that is the concern.

[CatBuilder]

So, the derivative of the charts is the cause for alarm, then?

There have been a lot of charts up here. Can you put the one with the derivative curve up again? I don't know where to find it.

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Boston

once again the actual topic of concern has been missed completely in all of these last arguments

Its the rate of change, not change itself that is the problem

also data going back more than say 1 million years or so is simply not robust enough to draw any significan't conclusions from. It would be imprudent to assess today's climate swing with less well understood and less complete climate data from to far beyond that.

Oh there's a few periods like the high Permian that are well studied but lots of big holes in the time line from about a million years ago on.

Again its not that change occurs, obviously it does, thats a straw man argument, its the rate of change that is the concern.

Wrong again! The topic is "Are humans to blame?" No, nope, hell no!

[Yobarnacle]

I think it's curious that Boston claims 5 or 10 year periods too short to be significant and a million years too long. He only wants to select a period of time that seems to support his own position. VERY SCIENTIFIC Boston ! LMAO

[Boston]

Bingo Cat

The only thing that maters is the rate of change. That the whole issue in a nutshell. That our climate is changing so fast natural selection and evolution simply can't keep up. Thats why we are loosing species like a rocket. Its what causes the mass extinctions and its what will, inevitably overwhelm our own ability to survive.

the resolution of the changes throughout the entire life of our planet is difficult to project in any single graph, simply because the rate of change is so damn fast. A chart that might show a million year period that fits on this screen won't show that last say 50 years very well. Also the rate has been increasing so much in that last 50 years that again the resolution would have to be in say 1 year increments in order to really see the acceleration of that rate of change. A chart of say the last billion years wouldn't even register the last 50. In the end most researchers build a graph beginning at about the start of the industrial revolution. Something in the 1800s somewhere. And then all the climate deniers come along and say oh but what about the 1700s or the 1600s and think they've found a flaw. Not so at all, its just what resolution works best to depict the rate of change. If we go back to the million year graph all your going to see is a dot of red representing the instrument record or from the start of the industrial age. Not very useful to depict rate of change.

Cheers and nice to discuss it with someone who is actually open minded about it.
B

[RayThackeray]

Eh? Yobernacle, I understand your opinion, but you need to re-read what Boston said, let's get it right. Laughing Your Arse Off with entirely wrong end of the stick makes others LMOA at you.

To be accurate, Boston said that both a handful and even a million years sample (I'm paraphrasing) is not sufficient, and he appears to have been entirely consistent and, may I say, scientific about it.

It's your turn to comment on his central argument of the rate of change, which is absolutely frightening, unique in the records and far worse than any scientists have predicted.

If you want to attack science, as you frequently do, in this case you should be complaining that climate scientists have been criminally conservative.

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

I think it's curious that Boston claims 5 or 10 year periods too short to be significant and a million years too long. He only wants to select a period of time that seems to support his own position. VERY SCIENTIFIC Boston ! LMAO

[Yobarnacle]

The thing that matters, that's important, is integrity. Call it honor or honesty or credibility, whatever.
It's always only about integrity. Manipulation is not integrity, it's deceit.
I resent people trying to manipulate with scare tactics, like global warming.
False data and false interpretations. It's fraud and deceit. The premise is false, the predictions false, the agenda false.

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by RayThackeray

Eh? Yobernacle, I understand your opinion, but you need to re-read what Boston said, let's get it right. Laughing Your Arse Off with entirely wrong end of the stick makes others LMOA at you.

To be accurate, Boston said that both a handful and even a million years sample (I'm paraphrasing) is not sufficient, and he appears to have been entirely consistent and, may I say, scientific about it.

It's your turn to comment on his central argument of the rate of change, which is absolutely frightening, unique in the records and far worse than any scientists have predicted.

If you want to attack science, as you frequently do, in this case you should be complaining that climate scientists have been criminally conservative.

I am not required to comment on anything other than I choose. Nor are you or Boston. It's obvious nether you or Boston care to comment on the fact that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 only a few %. Why not adress that? Because you can't argue with that. Your entire argument that manmade CO2 is driving climate change bites the dust where water vapor comes up and CO2 diminishes to insignificant.
As far as catastrophic temperature changes, I don't see that ocurring. No data to support it exists. Just more hype! Wild claims to scare people.
To what purpose?

[CatBuilder]

Originally Posted by Boston

Cheers and nice to discuss it with someone who is actually open minded about it.
B

Trained scientist, remember?

So where do we download all of the climate temperature data points?

We could then run our own Fourier analysis or at least an Excel regression fit to see the derivative values at different places throughout known history...

Where do we download the data?

[hoytedow]

As though he would know! Ha!