What Do We Think About Climate Change

[newbiejon24]

humans survived the last ice age why couldnt we do it with all of our technology?

[Jimbo1490]

But Knut,

It's YOU SIDE of the argument where we find that the number DO NOT WORK!!!!!!

Using the orthodox AGW explanations, they cannot account for HALF of the CO2 in the atmosphere today!!!!!!!!


That a pretty big F'n error!!

But Segalstad shows EXACTLY how and why they have it wrong and why their numbers do not work.

And HIS explanation DOES WORK and correctly accounts for the CO2 we measure today in the atmosphere.

So once again, your point has already been THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED, and yet you still believe.

Jimbo

[Boston]

thats an easy one New Man
think of it this way

this is a graph of the deviation in the carbon content of the atmosphere evident over the last few years



and this graph shows that carbon deviation overlaid with the deviation in temp
(remember there is a permeability issue that delays the co2 data from showing up in ice cores, thus the illusion of temp preceding co2)



in the first graph notice that the co2 content of the atmosphere has never been even close to as high at it is in the last few years since the advent of fossil fuels

in the second graph notice that temp should be dropping as should co2 content
but its not
instead its lingering at the top of the graph unlike in the past when it dropped off dramatically at the end of each co2 cycle

and notice that the typical co2 cycle did not end but instead rose dramatically with the advent of the industrial age

to clarify what temp has done look at this graph of recent data



this leads to the inevitable conclusion that mimics the consensus view held by climate scientists
(a miraculous 97% agree on this issue)

the dramatic deviation from the cyclical alterations in environmental norms can not be explained by means other than mans consumption of fossil fuels

the one most important outside influence of our climate is easily measured and had not altered from its norm
the sun
the sun spot cycle has been studied to death and it has been predicted to 98% accuracy
it is cyclical and steady holding to its historic norms
with less than 0.1% deviation within the cycle

therefore it is nearly impossible to conclude that natural variability is responsible for the extraordinary deviations observed in the climates co2 or temp response

the fear within the scientific community is that like a fault line builds up pressure before a earthquake
our climate could be building pressure to conclude the drop in temp it should have accomplished (according to the data of the last 600,000 years) but didnt
because of mans interaction with the atmospheric chemistry

if the natural cycle eventually imposes its influences on our altered climate
it is possible it do so in a manner far more dramatic than evident in recent past events

although less recent events prove without a shadow of a doubt that rapid, dramatic and devastating alterations in climactic conditions are not only possible but probable
given our present deviation from the norm
we are in completely uncharted waters

[Tcubed]

Corto Maltese,
Folk er veldig bra av skiftende deres olje narkomanen livsstilen og er derfor troende oljen industrier agitation. Meg far er Per Tangvald , du kunne ha hørt av seg. JEG ha bli kjedet denne tråden fordi en og annen er ikke her over å høre bortsett fra rettferdig å belærende deres onde oppfattet overbevisningene.

Je pense que tu comprends.....

[Jimbo1490]

in the first graph notice that the co2 content of the atmosphere has never been even close to as high at it is in the last few years since the advent of fossil fuels

False statement, already addressed. CO2 was at 425-450ppm circa 1825, more than a century before 'significant' anthropogenic release began. Even Callendar (from whom we get the famous '280 ppm pre-industrial baseline) showed this in the data in his original study. When he RE-presented that same data to the first IPCC, he simply omitted this little detail, and Voila!: 280 ppm pre-industrial baseline became a 'known fact'

And if all the 'extra' CO2 in the atmosphere now is from the burning of fossil fuels, why does it consistently 'fingerprint' as almost entirely natural, terrestrial biotically sourced rather than ancient fossil sourced? The prediction was that it would fingerprint mostly fossil sourced. And why isn't it at ~750 ppm, which the IPCC predicts it should be, if the sum of their hypothetical positions (on dwell time, sourcing, fluxing, etc) is correct? Where is the other ~350ppm? Mystery sink, anyone?

Again, it's more reasonable to believe the hypothesis that best describes the observed world, rather than the one where the promoters try to bend the facts to fit their theory.

Jimbo

[Tcubed]

Promoting what?

[Jimbo1490]

Promoting what?

Acceptance/belief in their pet theory, but more importantly acceptance of the 'solution' to the 'problem' which is based on their pet theory. That solution is a HUGE expansion in government control of people worldwide.

Note that this is not even nearly the best solution to this supposed problem, even if we can all admit that the problem exists; it's just the only solution that the promoters of belief in the pet theory will entertain, which again highlights their true motivations.

Jimbo

[Boston]

D-Nile
is a lovely river where everyone is happy all the time

there is no interpretation of facts
but an interpretation of multiple sources of data
the scientific method admits a rare few things as facts

the data of co2 history is not being debated by anyone but a few lost souls who beg disbelief rather than face the most likely reality

what was a cyclical norm for 600,000 years has been dramatically broken
co2 has skyrocketed in recent years and a study of the isotopic signature of that co2 proves it having come from the burning of fossil fuels

simple reality is our natural cycle should have trended towards a cooling event
it hasnt
but it wants to for numerous naturally occurring reasons
pressure is building in the system for that cooling event to occur
while at the same time several man made influences drive the temp up a cliff
when the systems natural inclination to follow its natural cycle exceed the artificially induced warming trend we see in climate now
we just might end up headed off that cliff

or at least thats one posibility
the other being that we have so screwed up the atmospheric chemistry that we will force a aerobic stratification of the oceans resulting in significantly less oxygen in the atmosphere and a complete end to ocean fishing

please place heads back in sand
I only dropped in for a moment

I could use a vacation hmmm where will I go
Ive never visited D-Nile
I hear there is a lovely river side town known as Paranoia
where a now rare species called Conspiracy Hounds once lived
you hear one off in the distance from time to time
but they are getting rare
I think it got to warm and they're favorite food
the misinformation tree must have gone the way of the Dodo

cheers
B

[Jimbo1490]

the data of co2 history is not being debated by anyone but a few lost souls who beg disbelief rather than face the most likely reality

This has always been the best you could ever do on this thread; attack the messengers rather than address the points raised in the message.

That there was a similar 'skyrocketing' of CO2 levels ~180 years ago does not trouble you in the slightest. The very scientists work the '280 ppm baseline' is based on showed the same thing in the original publication of his work, but removed that 'bothersome' bit when he presented it again later to an audience (the IPCC) with a different agenda.

Again, you are untroubled by these shenanigans.

Jimbo

[Tcubed]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Acceptance/belief in their pet theory, but more importantly acceptance of the 'solution' to the 'problem' which is based on their pet theory. That solution is a HUGE expansion in government control of people worldwide.

Note that this is not even nearly the best solution to this supposed problem, even if we can all admit that the problem exists; it's just the only solution that the promoters of belief in the pet theory will entertain, which again highlights their true motivations.

Jimbo

I' m open to new ideas. So please explain further as i am not understanding.

The ‘solution’ is what?
‘true motivations’ is what?

[Jimbo1490]

The only solution the AGW alarm camp will entertain is mandatory cuts to CO2 emissions, enforced by vastly expanded gov't power, perhaps accomplished through a 'cap and trade' system.

Such a system will, in effect, create a new 'fiat' currency, which the big financiers of the world (who have long been the hidden backers of the UN and its agendas) will simply use to create more trillions of dollars out of thin air, that they then rent back to us.

You should be aware that this solution is not the only one available, again, even admitting that the 'problem' of 'too much CO2' is any problem at all.

But this is the only solution that the AGW alarm crowd, spearheaded as it is by the UN's IPCC, will even discuss.

So the true motivation is the lust for unchecked power and control and the greed for vast sums of money. Same as ever.

Jimbo

[Landlubber]

"the true motivation is the lust for unchecked power and control and the greed for vast sums of money. Same as ever."

Amen.

You are sooooooo right.

[Guillermo]

Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg, Russia published recently 3 books summarizing scientific results of climate changes in the Arctic region for the last century. One of it dedicated to Arctic climate. Based on the results obtained they forecast coming temperature and sea ice cover area changes in the Polar seas for the next several decades.

The authors showed that the Arctic climate changes are natural in origin and several orders or magnitude greater than the anthropogenic impact on the climate. Estimates of possible changes of Arctic air temperature and ice cover propagation area for the 21st century are given on a basis of the revealed stable cyclic oscillations of 10, 20 and 50 to 60 years.

Attached image: Anomaly of mean annual air surface temperature 1900-2006 in the zone of 70-90 N and its predicted trend (I.E.Frolov et al. Scientific research in Arctic. Vol. 2. Climatic changes in the ice cover of the Eurasian shelf seas. -SPb.: “Nauka”, 2007,158 p).

http://www.springer.com/environment/...-3-540-85874-4

Ivan Frolov, whose speciality is oceanography, has completed the study of Arctic Ice Cover, researching ice distribution in the seas of the Russian Arctic and has authored 70 scientific papers.

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

Jimbo, you have a better chance of the left side of this argument seeing the god they don't believe in than accepting the fact that the CO2 argument is a fraud. The left stands to lose their entire social engineering agenda if the Climate Change debate goes against them. They have come so close to achieving their goal without an election that to lose it now because of a few convenient lies would be devasting to them. Everything hinges on the draconian controls that would be needed to reduce the phony CO2 numbers. In the name of the Global Warming every aspect of our lives would be controlled and they are on the verge of gaining the weapon to subjigate the worlds economies. Thus the fanaticism and the refusal to see the elephant in the room that is the fraud and lies, and distortion of data called CO2 increase.

[Pericles]

Of course!! Jimbo, Guillermo et al., we've not been discussing the facts with scientists, we've been arguing the toss with sociocidalcomarxisttotallysubvernaldespotilamic opinionists (see images below)and we'll not break their transmogrifying substantialism with good sense and numbers. They are frightened people who are frightened by the people whom they think are scorching this earth, except that the earth is not scorching, is it?
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/moody...drollband.html

Knut, in view of your comment, "First I do not have the knowledge or time to go into all the issues stated earlier." #2805 you are excused reading the following link. It's not for you.
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/rev...nuary-14-2009/

Arctic Ice endeavours to persevere. http://wwwoldfogey.blogspot.com/2008...persevere.html