Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    07 Oct '19 17:15
    @sonhouse said
    @DeepThought
    If presented with that evidence once again,, he will just say Fake news.
    What evidence? It was never posted then and you havn't done so now either. Why do you cads always lie to avoid presenting evidence? Do you think you are fooling people?
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81433
    07 Oct '19 17:55
    @metal-brain said
    What evidence? It was never posted then and you havn't done so now either. Why do you cads always lie to avoid presenting evidence? Do you think you are fooling people?
    It is well known that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since the industrial revolution. There is no point in presenting you with evidence you have already rejected.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    07 Oct '19 20:06
    @deepthought said
    It is well known that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased since the industrial revolution. There is no point in presenting you with evidence you have already rejected.
    I never rejected that. You are such a liar!

    There is no point in debating a liar like you. It is a waste of time.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81433
    08 Oct '19 01:14
    @metal-brain said
    I never rejected that. You are such a liar!

    There is no point in debating a liar like you. It is a waste of time.
    Do you agree that carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since that start of the industrial revolution or not?
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Oct '19 07:38
    @deepthought said
    Do you agree that carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since that start of the industrial revolution or not?
    When the little ice age ended the climate warmed. A warmer ocean resulted in the ocean not being able to hold as much CO2, so it was expelled into the atmosphere increasing atmospheric CO2.
    The answer is yes, but not entirely for the reason you think. Besides, very little burning of fossil fuels took place at the start of the industrial revolution. Furthermore, alarmists have claimed that burning coal puts particulate matter into the atmosphere that blocks the sun and causes cooling as opposed to warming which contradicts the warming hypothesis. Which is it? Does burning coal cause global warming or global cooling? Make up your bloody mind!

    You need to establish that the timing is more than coincidence. How many years after the little ice age did CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere and how much? Your lack of data suggests you are merely guessing.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Oct '19 10:16
    @metal-brain said
    When the little ice age ended the climate warmed. A warmer ocean resulted in the ocean not being able to hold as much CO2, so it was expelled into the atmosphere increasing atmospheric CO2.
    The answer is yes, but not entirely for the reason you think. Besides, very little burning of fossil fuels took place at the start of the industrial revolution. Furthermore, alarmist ...[text shortened]... CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere and how much? Your lack of data suggests you are merely guessing.
    So do you agree that the most recent carbon dioxide level increase is mainly man made or not?
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Oct '19 10:532 edits
    @humy said
    So do you agree that the most recent carbon dioxide level increase is mainly man made or not?
    Sure, but when is your timeline? You don't seem to want to accept CO2 is not the bogeyman. Let me give you some facts to consider.

    During the Ordovician period, the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was about eight times higher than today. It has been hard to explain why the climate cooled and why the Ordovician glaciations took place.

    CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. We know from ice core samples that the CO2 lagged behind the temperatures so CO2 was NOT the cause. It was the effect of warming.

    When the earth warms some of that CO2 will come from the oceans. If you can show that CO2 increased more than would be naturally expected and a correlating bump in temps or sea level I will look at it. If there is, a peer reviewed article must exist to confirm it.

    Edit: Look up this- Figure 1, FAQ 2.1, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), Chapter 2

    Notice how CO2 lagged behind methane before the industrial revolution and the clear pattern. Can you explain it?
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Oct '19 12:07
    Temps cause methane and CO2 to rise in correlation with CO2 lagging behind methane. You can see that the warming started before the industrial revolution started.

    http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

    Even after the industrial revolution CO2 still lagged behind methane. Can you explain this?
  9. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2452
    08 Oct '19 22:29
    @metal-brain said
    Temps cause methane and CO2 to rise in correlation with CO2 lagging behind methane. You can see that the warming started before the industrial revolution started.

    http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

    Even after the industrial revolution CO2 still lagged behind methane. Can you explain this?
    From your link http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/:

    Conclusions
    Over four glacial cycles CO2, CH4 and temperature display cyclical co-variation. This has been used by the climate science community as evidence for amplification of orbital forcing via greenhouse gas feedbacks.

    I am not the first to observe that CO2 lags temperature in Vostok [2] and indeed Petit et al [1] make the observation that at the onset of glaciation CO2 lags temperature by several thousand years. But they fail to discuss this and the fairly profound implications it has.

    Temperature and CH4 are extremely tightly correlated with no time lags. Thus, while CO2 and CH4 are correlated with temperature in a general sense, in detail their response to global geochemical cycles are different. Again Petit et al [1] make the observation but fail to discuss it.

    At the onset of the last glaciation the time lag was 8,000 years and the world was cast into the depths of an ice age with CO2 variance evidently contributing little to the large fall in temperature.

    The only conclusion possible from Vostok is that variations in CO2 and CH4 are both caused by global temperature change and freeze thaw cycles at high latitudes. These natural geochemical cycles makes it inevitable that CO2 and CH4 will correlate with temperature. It is therefore totally invalid to use this relationship as evidence for CO2 forcing of climate, especially since during the onset of glaciations, there is no correlation at all.


    So, the link you supply seems concerned only with issues related to the natural glaciation cycle that runs its course over the span of tens of thousands of years. The dynamics that exist between atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels, and between these levels and global mean atmospheric temperature, and finally between all these factors and the glaciation cycle that is theorized to be primarily caused by orbital forcing*, is by no means necessarily relevant to the cause-and-effect relationships amongst the selfsame factors as they relate to anthropogenic influences that span a mere half a millennium at best.

    You can see that the warming started before the industrial revolution started.

    At your link I see a temporally large-scale warming cycle that indeed predates the industrial revolution in Figure 6. The tic marks on the horizontal axis each represent 4000 years, however. Anthropogenic global warming is theorized to have begun about 200 or so years ago. None of the figures in your link come within even an order of magnitude of so fine a time scale.

    There's the glaciation cycle, and then there's anthropogenic warming. You need data and ANOVA statistical techniques to parse the two. Does your link make any kind of case in the context of the present discussion? No.


    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Oct '19 22:551 edit
    @soothfast said
    From your link http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/:

    [quote]Conclusions
    Over four glacial cycles CO2, CH4 and temperature display cyclical co-variation. This has been used by the climate science community as evidence for amplification of orbital forcing via greenhouse gas feedbacks.

    I am not the first to observe that CO2 lags temperature ...[text shortened]... in the context of the present discussion? No.


    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing
    During the Ordovician period, the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was about eight times higher than today. It has been hard to explain why the climate cooled and why the Ordovician glaciations took place. If CO2 is the bogeyman why did the climate get colder with 8 times as much CO2?

    Look at a chart that has both CO2 and methane levels.

    Figure 1, FAQ 2.1, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), Chapter 2

    Notice how a methane low is at close to 1700 before it starts rising again. That proves the warming trend started before the industrial revolution (about 1800) from natural causes since CO2 levels were too low to be anthropogenic.
  11. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    287043
    09 Oct '19 19:59
    @metal-brain said
    If you can't prove anthropogenic global warming with a long term sea level rise graph you never will. Alarmists always use short term data to mislead, so a long term graph is the only way to really see what has happened historically.
    Anybody can claim sea levels are rising at an alarming rate, but to show it on a long term chart is the real proof.

    Talk is cheap. Show ...[text shortened]... ong term graph. If you cannot do that there is a name for you, denier of science. Don't be a denier.
    https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2015/06/28/floridas-evolution-underwater-state-sink/29418253/ Planet earth just doing it's thing. Keep givin al gore money fools
  12. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7955
    10 Oct '19 03:20
    @kquinn909 said
    https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2015/06/28/floridas-evolution-underwater-state-sink/29418253/ Planet earth just doing it's thing. Keep givin al gore money fools
    Al Gore is a lobbyist. He works for alternative energy companies to push subsidies. Interestingly, it's not focused on zero emissions, or he'd have a much larger portfolio of nuclear energy companies.
Back to Top