What Do We Think About Climate Change

seems pretty clear that these two statements are mutually exclusive

although just a few posts earlier you claimed the exact opposite

and you call me scatterbrained eh

sorry but once again all the bluff and bluster in the world will not hide this kind of hypocrisy from the readers

its pretty obvious that you dont know what your posting half the time and the other half the time your misinterpreting graphs that come with captions that directly appose your presumed point

you admit your cherry picking data and you completely contradict yourself with every additional post

the truth will out people
the truth will out

 

Knut,

I clicked on the properties of CO2 you linked to. It's inadequate.

"Carbon dioxide is at a low concentration in the atmosphere and acts as a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is assimilated by plants and used to produce oxygen."

That is the level for 5 year old kids. Let's try again.

"Carbon dioxide exists as 0.039% of the atmosphere and acts as a very minor greenhouse gas. (As of April 2010, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere). Oh horror! It increased by 2 ppm in 2009!!!!!!!!!!

Living plants use a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of bacteria, but not in archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since they can create their own food.

In plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is vital for life on Earth. As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.

The rate of energy capture by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts: which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization. As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of the carbon in all the organic compounds within organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into biomass per year."

The extract quoted comes from Wikipedia and has avoided the ministrations of the tree dwelling Connelley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connelley

The increase of CO2 from 280 parts per million to 388 parts per million over the last 100 years or so, has greened this planet. If CO2 falls, you starve. Not me, obviously. I would eat vegetarians. No point in wasting good protein.

 

another one that any five year old should be able to grasp is the correlation between temp and co2



this extremely close relationship can also be seen in the longer term trend graphs



unfortunately the above graph is not of a resolution able to show the last few years however it is able to show the dramatic rise in CO2 that is almost certainly the cause of the dramatic warming event or these last few years

the near perfect correlation between temp and co2 over such a long time simply cannot be ignored

even by a five year old

 

On a flat earth the climate never changes, all the excess co2 falls off the edge

 

And which of these 28 definitions are you using?

 

Ok, Boston, here you are

Of course 2000-2009 has been warmer than 1990-2000, and this last warmer than 1980-1990, or whatever. I'm not debating that nor if temperatures are at the top of the instrumental records.

BUT THAT IS NOT IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE FACT THAT TEMPERATURES DURING THE LAST DECADE OR SO HAVE STAGNATED OR EVEN DIMINISHED.

AND WHAT IS UNDER DISCUSSION HERE IS NOT IF TEMPERATURES HAVE RISED FOR THE PERIOD 1970-2000, BUT THE REASON FOR THAT WARMING AND IF IT WILL CONTINUE OR NOT

Y-O-U-A-R-E-A-P-E-R-F-E-C-T-I-M-B-É-C-I-L

(And yes, I'm shouting )

 

And Do Not Keep On Posting The Graph From The Vostok Ice Cores Which Shows A Hundreds Of Years Lag Between CO2 And Temperatures, As It Goes Against Your Position, Idiot!

 

OK, let's see if we can keep now a rationale debate here.

I have posted lately about the air temperature in the Poles having not rised in spite of the rising athmospheric CO2 concentrations, thus contradicting the models which predicted surface air temperatures there will be the ones more clearly showing up the effects of the CO2 forcing.

Anybody wants to comment on this?

 

Knut,
Yes, we can say 7600 millions of persons on planet Earth are a "full scale experiment", and all of us will have to survive and improve our living conditions. That's why we have to take care of the planet .

Our need of energy and other resources is originating many problems which may even threat in the long term the survival of our own species by excessively damaging the environment or exhausting such resources, not to talk about the short term damages to specific zones, so we have to cleverly manage development and the use of resources not to be creating our own deadly trap. That's clear.

But I sustain the CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere (by itself) is NOT one of the problems. Most likely the contrary.

I have told you this before, and I repeat it again: In my opinion the "better safe than sorry" (regarding climate matters) position should be one of heavily investing in adaptation to changing conditions, whatever they are, with an emphasis in the fact that cold is worse than warm.

That would be much wiser than stupidly try to control climate by diminishing CO2 emmissions, which we cannot. We are spending billions and exhausting ourselves in a futile fight we are condemned to lose.

Cheers

 

And another field where we should be expending our money, intelligence and efforts is in bringing humans into space.

 

Adaptation to cold and space: The two recipes which will protect humankind fron its fate: Next Ice Age, where most of the planet will be covered again by kilometers of ice and dozens of billions of people, plus all animals and plants, will have to concentrate close to the Equator where the amount of land is pretty small.

It has been a very nice Perseids night.

Ubi dubium ibi libertas.

 

Guillermo,

This is a blatantly false statement, and furthermore, you know it is false, as has been already demonstrated in this forum by the exchange of posts we had a few days ago and by information confirmed by the post from woodfortrees.

As you well know, the slope of the regression line for the years 1998 through the end of 2009 (your choice of years, keeping in mind that in order to process that data through the end of 2009 one must enter 2010 as the end date) using the HadCRUT3 variance adjusted data set (your choice of data set) is POSITIVE. Therefore, any statement that the trend line is stagnant or decreasing is a misrepresentation of the facts.

While a negative slope is within the statistical uncertainty of the fit, the only statement that you could possibly make that could include a negative value is that a negative slope cannot be ruled out statistically, but that the more likely value of the slope is positive, given the fact that the regression line has a positive value.

Additional comment added in editing: Furthermore, your choice of dates was a blatant cherry pick. Your starting year (1998) was an anomalously warm year compared to the previous and following year, and the time span you picked does not even represent the last decade of data. It represents 11 years. If you had picked the most recent decade (years 1999-2009 inclusive) the slope is somewhat greater. Furthermore, if you had used a starting date of 1997 the slope is, again, somewhat greater than the period of time you cherry picked. Choosing 1998 as the starting date is the most favorable one for your case, is not representative of the general time period near the year 1998, and even then does not even give the result you claim in your post.

 

Hei...thast a different question. You asked what I mean by proof, and I mean all of them. And I use all of them according to the occasion.

If you ask what proof do I require of human generated CO2 increase being harmfull in any way or as you guys claim, to drive up temperature, I would say that ...lets see...

1 "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. " this one may be useful, however note that the second part says "TO PRODUCE BELIEF IN ITS TRUTH ... that sounds more like religious faith than real truth, but anyway I did not write that definition.

2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

This is good .. do you have any proof?

3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

The above was used extensively and your trump card proof turned up to be dodgy to put it mildly

4.
the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

Aaah now we start to get warm. Demostrate please! oops sorry you tried before and you failed.
Don't feel too bad, you are not the only one.

5.
Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

We will come to the above soon, even when not soon enough. I wonder how many people will go to gaol over this scam. Probably not enough and only the small fry.

6.
the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.

Yes, we know this one, 'convincing'...so may convinced people or rather deluded are in good faith "fighting" to "save" the planet. God help us.

7.
an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.

Uhuu yes, yes and yes again, the criminal pseudo green institutions that pedal this scam should buy a calculator and check for correctness at least to keep up appearences.

8.
Mathematics, Logic . a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

For example...lets see... IF CO2 produces heat increases, increases of CO2 should be followed by increases in heat. Sounds logical to me right? A sequence of steps that leads to a VALID conclusion. Not bat at all.

9.
a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.

Well this one we could use to proof the durability of CO2 in the athmophere. How many days is it again? 200 years? Have you PROVEN this?

10.
Distilling .
80 proof = 40% alcohol

This definition is recommended to produce medicine to forget Boston's post.
That is real proof.

 

This time you are wrong Troy. Despite what you may be lead to believe, I am a very open minded person and have changed my view of things when it was obvious I was wrong.
However this does not seem to be possible with AGW. After all when you forgo all the political opportunism and all the green BS, it comes down to one very simple truth.
CO2 is not pollution but part of our atmosphere. CO2 has been many times higher than it is now (with all that nasty human contribution) and in those days it did not harm anything, to the contrary it allowed vegetation to grow exponentially and with it a lot of large animals. High concentration of CO2 did not stop climate to go into a small ice age.
Nothing that greens, social engineers, opportunist politician and accolade cheer leaders can say will change the fact that TODAY CO2 has failed to do any harm yet has done a lot of good increasing agricultural yields.

The hunt for CO2 "polluters" equates to the hunt for witches by the inquisition and when such may be a tired simile, it is an accurate one. No one can contradict the high priest, or he will be excommunicated as a "denier". There is no need for debate nor proof, since the high priest was inspired by gaia herself.

CO2 is not pollution, CO2 is not pollution, CO2 is not pollution etc

PS

I must say once more that all this CO2 business is nothing but a distraction from the real pollution we should be fighting tooth and nail all united.
And I will mention just one
MERCURY

But who cares right? The food authorities around the world have put the threshold of "permissible" Hg up so that fish can be "safely" be sold.

And here we are talking BS over BS playing in the hand of the real polluters and the criminals who want to install a universal tax system that all the world tyrants together would drool over.

 

Alan, don't be silly, please. This is all you have to say? That is an idiotic post and you know it.

Temperatures for the last decade "OR SO" have not followed the warming trend of the previous 30 years period, having stagnated or even showing several years/periods of descent, which is what is important and I wanted to highlight by explicitly cherrypicking ends (remember I clearly stated it), the same you do by choosing any other period when you want to highlight your point.

As I shouted Boston, the important thing is to see if we are in the turning point down to a +/- 30 years cooling period (after detrending the long term signal from the LIA) or if temperatutres will keep on rising following growing CO2 concentrations. I'm defending here the first (as part of my defending that late temperature increases are mainly of natural origin, not anthropogenic CO2 driven) and bring and highlight the information supporting my position, information which, you'll have to recognize if you have a minimum of scientific honesty, is increasingly relevant and, absolutely, overwhelming in this thread.

Instead of making all of us lose our time and insult our intelligencies (including yours) with ridiculous pettinesses and bizantinisms, could you rather please answer the many posts I have specifically addressed to you lately? The CO2 and Poles air temperature thing also? Or then some other useful commentary or new info which can make us advance in discussion, please?