What Do We Think About Climate Change

This is not-'never-never land'. The "280ppm pre-industrial baseline" that you hear from warmers everywhere is not based on good measurements but reconstructions and changed measurements techniques that break the continuity of the recorded data, thus this data is corrupt. When you check what the MEASURED pre-industrial CO2 levels (Yes, there were scientists interested in atmospheric chemistry in the mid 1800's) , using the same test methods we find that the "pre-industrial" CO2 levels were often very much higher than today, approaching 500ppm. So how is it that the whole climate is going to run away after reaching some fabled "tipping point" around 560ppm, when according to good, reliable measurements taken at the time, we have already been at or near this CO2 level? And what about all these warmers that dogmatically pontificate "CO2 levels are at their highest in thousands of years", when the reliable measurements taken only 125-150 years ago falsify these statements completely?

Jimbo

 

On your question of whether it's really warming or not, you have to select a time period for the question, or else it's meaningless. Do you mean is there a 20th century trend for warmer temps? Or are you looking for longer trend lines? Or perhaps a shorter trend, like the last 10 or 20 years interests you. You could get different answers to the question of warming, yes or no, depending on the time scale you select.

Everyone seems most interested in the period from 1850 onward, since they often confuse the start of the industrial revolution with the beginning of significant anthropogenic CO2 releases. (Actually, these events are about 100 years apart) This confusion is the result of the warmer's camp deliberately planting the bit of misinformation that the warming trend that's discernible in the temperature record from the 1850's onward must have been the result of the industrial revolution.

Here's a nice graph to chew on, which covers most of the 20th century. See if you can pick out a trend:



Here's one that looks back a lot farther:



So on your question of whether or not we are warming, my answer is: It depends.

Jimbo

 

Some interesting stuff on sea level:

INTERVIEW: DR. NILS-AXEL MÖRNER


Excerpted:

"So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. We have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you should not use."

Predetermined outcomes, anyone?

Jimbo

 

Here's a graphical view of 'unmassaged' ice core data which clearly shows the mid 19th century 'spike' of around 500ppm in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This spike shows up in all the ice core raw data, but is nevertheless routinely expunged as 'non-conforming'. Imagine: Consistent data that is expunged! There's that 'pre-determined outcome monster' rearing it's head again!



Scientists used to freely publish data and graphs like this until the AGW agenda and orthodoxy began to assert its (scientifically) corrupting influence.

Jimbo

 

Guys arguing on a sinking ship

Fellow humans!

Let's set the argy bargy's aside for a minute and take a child like "we know almost nothing" crystal clear look at some fundamentals............

Before i begin i would like to state that i am NOT a warmer, a greenie, an environmentalist, an anarchist , etc, etc, I am however somewhat of an outsider no matter where on earth i've been and i enjoy using my senses, my logic and my mind to try and observe what may be the most real reality of it all.

**

Some points too elementary for anyone to argue;

1- There are an unprecedented number of us on the planet presently.

2- Our average (a small portion's greed more than makes up many times over for the rest of all the "underconsumers") rate of consumption of earth's natural resources has reached wholly unprecedented levels.

---2 times 1 means unprecedented squared---

3- We have only one planet.

A simple risk/cost analysis shows that this is one experiment we cannot afford to mess up.

And given human's abysmal track record at planetary modifications i do not think it is wise to think that we are yet at a point of being able to satisfactorily manage the earth's ancient self regulating systems.

********

ARE WE CLEAR?

********

Step two.

Fundamentals again;

It is a well established fact that we enjoy our specific atmospheric composition thanks to the vast diversity of living forms in complex interchange upon this planet.
In our search for life on extra solar planets, our most reliable guide is spectrometry of the atmospheric composition of these. If it is an unstable mixture of gases, (such as on earth) then there must be some other agent (life) which is maintaining it at dynamic equilibrium.

For an example of a stable atmospheric chemical composition, look no further than our two neighbours, Mars and Venus. Despite quite different solar radiation and gravity levels, the constituting gases are remarkably similar.

Would you muck around with your air purifiers and oxygen generators if you were on a spaceship to Mars?

Now we are taking many millions years of carbon deposits by atmospheric sequestration by ancestral photosynthesyzing life forms and putting it all back in the air in an extremely short piece of time- geologically speaking.

Only a fool * would believe that this has an inconsequential effect.

*Or someone who has been paid to disseminate misinformation to confound the masses into carrying on with their stupefied quasi robotified slavelike behaviour.

********

Life on earth, which we are an integral part of, has become an extremely sophisticated and robust system with complex chaotic systems maintaining conditions within tolerable limits satisfacory for its self perpetuation.

It is healthiest and most stable when there is a large amount of biodiversity.

Presently there is a preponderance of a certain species with large planet modifying capabilities effectively run amok. If you guys are arguing about matters of such importance, can we really be entrusted with deciding upon the future of the planet? We augment the biodiversity imbalance due to our own large numbers by cultivating a very small variety of food crops (over 90% come from just 15 species, when there are estimated to be over-and counting- 50 000 edible species) planted as monocultures, and furthermore we are responsible for an extinction rate which is arguably as high as it was in some of the more recent mass extinction events.

Historically, when there is an excessive disbalance within the system it tends to collapse, sacrificing complexity and reverting to an earlier, more stable mode or form.

I feel as though i am living in an excruciatingly suspensful movie about yeast in a petri dish...... You've got to remain humorous about it or it really gets to one's body and soul outlook.

***

I hope i contributed something of worth to this discussion.

 

Do you have enough scientific qualifications to scorn like that the work of Mr. Gray?
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/

Cheers.

 

Probably more than you, Guillermo. But you don't need much in the way of "credentials" (argumentum ad verecundium) to see the difference between an opinion piece and a scientific study.

 

Tcubed, right on! Many "interests" appear to be working desperately to accumulate what they can before complete disaster. To be able to do this they must keep the rest of us from insisting that the course we are on be changed, so propaganda and confusion are their tools. I personally think that our recent Bush dictatorship was a reaction to the recognition of several interrelated factors:

1. Peak oil may have happened a few years ago.

2. Climate change will bring about social upheaval as weather changes become too unpredictable to predict accurately enough for agriculture and people starve.

3. The United States no longer has a viable productive capability that can support our debt, which makes financial collapse somewhat inevitable.

So, the intelligent thing to do, if you can, is to gather resources as fast as you can and stash them away so that you will be able to weather the coming storm. So, we have had a period of unprecedented looting in the US, facilitated by our government, which is in no way over.

Some people are simply not smart enough to realize that by abandoning the boat and letting it sink they find themselves in an even smaller boat with little chance to survive.

BillyDoc

 

Well Jimbo, I take it from your responses above that you do not think that global warming is happening at all, so the question of whether or not it would be caused by humans is moot.

I don't suppose that details like melting ice at the poles, the increase in ocean dead zones from thermal stratification and details like islands appearing around Greenland as the ice recedes will sway you, so I guess we're done.

Good luck Dude!

BillyDoc

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rooyt3ptNco

 

Billy
It's not a question of what I think, but of what the evidence shows. Clearly, there's no alarming warming trend from any of the graphs I showed you. Also, it was substantially warmer than today only few centuries back and by all accounts (it was during recorded history, after all!) every thing was just fine.
Ditto for the "highest CO2 level in XXX thousand years, blah blah, blah"; it's all bunk and that's exactly what the evidence shows, regardless of what you or I think.

As clear as the lack of an 'alarming' warming trend is your status as a "True Believer"; one for whom evidence is unimportant. You stated at one point that you wanted to get away from the "guilt by association" type of arguments. Here's what you said verbatim: "Jimbo, I agree with you totally that "guilt by association" is not an argument, just as "who said it" is not an argument."

Then you turn around two thread pages later and dismiss anything coming from the Heartland Institute, an example of "guilt by association".

The you summarily dismiss the writings of Dr William Gray, because his skeptical stance is well-known, and example of using "who said it" as a valid argument point.

It's no wonder the warmer side of the argument appeals to you; I'm sure you find a kindred spirit with such hypocrites. Maybe you can get up on a soapbox and preach the coming "Global Climate Disaster", then jump on a big plane and fly out for a ski trip. That would make your hypocrisy complete

Jimbo

 

From Dr. Lindzen at MIT, on the subject of feedbacks, among others:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ

Jimbo

 

I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

IMHO

 

Then put your money where your mouth is and show me this 'forest' of yours!



Jimbo

 

BillyDoc, I've put myself in some "hot water" on a couple of threads in the process of sticking up for our country, so I think it would be cool if people from around the world thought we were, at least, somewhat educated in America and were awake during science class. - Whaddaya say, dude? Jimbo knows his ****, and if you don't know what scientific method is, could you just lay low for awhile? Thx - Mark