AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Tonington]

The difference in this issue is that you are claiming that you do know why.

Yes....an apparent enhanced greenhouse. There is an obvious imbalance in energy coming in and going out, there is an obvious rise in carbon dioxide, and there is an obvious isotope ratio which unmistakenly points to fossil combustion. When you consider that the oxygen content in the atmosphere is decreasing, this provides more evidence that the product comes from combustion.

And you were unable to answer the question then, just as now.

This was my answer:

OK. What's happening now is the interglacial that was edging towards another ice age has been halted by our unintended efforts at increasing the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation.

The preponderance of past periods of glaciation is related directly to what we are doing now. The cycle of glaciations follows the Milankovitch cycles, parameters of Earth's orbit, the precession, obliquity, and eccentricity. The forcing imposed by these changes in our orbit reduces insolation in the Northern Hemisphere. Ice sheets begin to grow, Earth's albedo increases, and so the planet reflects more sunlight, which draws the temperature down further. A negative feedback. There is another feedback. The oceans will absorb more gases as the temperature drops. So again, another negative feedback drops the temperature as greenhouse gases leave the atmosphere (H20, CO2, CH4, NOx).

Now as the glacial cycle moves onwards, the orbital parameters come back towards a positive forcing. As the ice sheets begin to recede, the planet starts to warm up as the albedo decreases. All of those greenhouse gases that were sequestered by cooler temperatures begin to outgas from the ocean. This is another feedback, because as more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, they trap more of the outgoing reflected solar radiation.

The so-called lag between temperature and carbon dioxide. In fact this phenomenon was predicted by some eminent climatologists before the data came in which showed that atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the increasing temperature.

Conveniently, you can read that paper here:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2003...0_ice-core.pdf

The forcing of the Milankovitch cycles is not large enough to cause these cycles alone. The feedback in the climate system make the cycle of glaciations possible.

The links you've offered in the past not only offered a speculation and conjecture at best. The fact is, no scientific discipline (or combination thereof) possesses enough understanding to establish nor offer that explanation. If the existing science as you believe it, is capable of providing definitive causation, then it would be child's play to generate that "retroactive" explanation.

We have that retroactive explanation. You just continually refuse to accept any evidence which challenges your view that we can't say anything definitive unless we can tell the entire story, which is absurd.

So, I'll ask for the third time: Do you have any research that conclusively and definitively explains the global weather patterns (in the context of warming/cooling) as have been experienced over the millenia?

See above.

And if you want to see more, then watch this lecture by Richard Alley.

A23A

 

[GreenFish66]

Seems to be a helluva lotta a pure facts/Good info to back up Global Warming trends and human effects on Climate patterns..

...Seems to be A Helluva lot of Record Setting Floods and Fires this year...

Is this Hype or Reality ? ...

GeoPhysics/physicists have gathered some very impressive data..Based on Real physical/ Observable/ Convincing facts...Not to mention all the other 100% undeniable proof available for all to see with their own eye's , in reality, All over the Earth ...

It has been proven and accepted by An Overwhelming Majority that the Earth has been continuosly Warming ...Humans Do affect the weather/Climate ..

I would say climate patterns/Weather has become more sporatic/violent/unstable with an Overall Warming Trend ...Mostly because I have seen the OverWhelming proof ...And because I choose to believe the 95% of Scientists who have studied Climate Change/Ecology and say the trend is Warming , rather than those who work for Fox News or in "Controlled" Economic Market environments...

Like Tonigton said .... It's Obvious ...

 

[petros]

You're mistaken. We can identify today why a species goes extinct, even though for some in the past we can't conclusively say why.

But regardless, you've asked before about the past, and I've given you the links which you obviously didn't read. Milankovitch cycles, and feedbacks. But you don't need to know anything about the rhythms of the orbit of our planet to observe that the greenhouse effect has been enhanced by human activity. They are mutually exclusive.

What's a nutation?

 

[Tonington]

Nudges in the wobble of a planet. As the Earth moves around the sun, and our moon around us, the tidal forces are unequally exerting gravitational forces on earth. The wobble of our axis is not smooth because of these nutations, which wouldn't be as bad if our planet were a perfect sphere. The fat equator gives more mass for the tidal forces to act upon.

 

[petros]

What else?

 

[Tonington]

What do you mean, what else? That's the only kind of nutation I'm aware of. Certainly the only one I'm aware of that would have any relevance to changing insolation at the the poles.

 

[petros]

What else?

 

[Tonington]

Ill defined question. As I implied already...

 

[petros]

It was thin.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes....an apparent enhanced greenhouse.

What exactly does that mean? "Apparently enhancing" an existing phenomenon - would that be a reasonable interpretation?

If so, how does one definitively split-out the anthropogenic components from the "natural" ones?

There is an obvious imbalance in energy coming in and going out, there is an obvious rise in carbon dioxide, and there is an obvious isotope ratio which unmistakenly points to fossil combustion.

Combustion occurs in many ways, many of which are entirely natural. I'll ask the same question as above. How can one accurately appoint specific levels to each and every source let alone suggest that there is one compelling factor (anthro) that is responsible?

When you consider that the oxygen content in the atmosphere is decreasing, this provides more evidence that the product comes from combustion.

I hate to be pedantic, but your above comment supposes that there is a "stasis" that exists (or is expected to exist). Further, is the effect causing the phenomenon or the result of such. Add in the various opportunities for natural-source combustion, it is (currently) impossible to state any form of causation with any kind of confidence (statistical or otherwise).

The preponderance of past periods of glaciation is related directly to what we are doing now.

Explain. I am assuming that the causation of the current phenomenon is anthropogenic; if past periods did not have any human factor, how can they directly related to what we are doing now?

We have that retroactive explanation.

I read through your explanation and it certainly is one that makes sense from a macro perspective and for the record, it is an explanation that I feel is the most plausible... However, there are also other theories that have captured the support of many and those include (but are not limited to) super volcanoes, anomalous solar effects and meteor strikes.

There is geologic evidence/support for the aforementioned - that does not mean that they are "fact", but the support is strong... My point, all are theories, all have faults and all are being challenged, that includes the explanation that you've provided.

That said, your explanation is exclusive to those that accept (entirely) your theory.

You just continually refuse to accept any evidence which challenges your view that we can't say anything definitive unless we can tell the entire story, which is absurd.

See above. You are assuming that your position and theories are factual. Further, your consequent position on AGW is founded on the accuracy of your initial position.

Ihave responded to your points with many questions which I realize is less than satisfactory, however, not only do I not have the answers, I don't believe that anyone does. That said, it's a house of cards.

And if you want to see more, then watch this lecture by Richard Alley.

A23A

I'll take a look when time permits

 

[Tonington]

What exactly does that mean? "Apparently enhancing" an existing phenomenon - would that be a reasonable interpretation?

It means precisely that the Earth's atmosphere is now more opaque to infrared radiation than it was 150 years ago.

If so, how does one definitively split-out the anthropogenic components from the "natural" ones?

There's a few ways to do this, one is an estimate, and the other is using known isotopes of carbon dioxide. The estimate is to use the records of fuel consumption, and that produces a discrete amount of carbon dioxide when combusted. Knowing how much the atmospheric concentration has changed by, how much of our emissions remain in the atmosphere as opposed to going into the carbon reservoirs, and having the estimate of carbon dioxide produced, one can confirm that human activity is the source of the atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The isotopes are another. Fossil carbon comes from plants, and plants prefer one of the carbon isotopes. Carbon dioxide from volcanoes is practically devoid of this isotope. By measuring the change in the isotope ratio in the atmosphere, one can conclude that the source of the increasing carbon dioxide is due to combustion of fossil fuels. And as I already said, the oxygen concentration in our atmosphere is going down.

Combustion occurs in many ways, many of which are entirely natural. I'll ask the same question as above. How can one accurately appoint specific levels to each and every source let alone suggest that there is one compelling factor (anthro) that is responsible?

The isotope fraction.

I hate to be pedantic, but your above comment supposes that there is a "stasis" that exists (or is expected to exist).

No, my comment supposes that there is a reason that things happen. As carbon dioxide increases, oxygen decreases. The number of oxygen atoms hasn't changed, their just now in a different chemical species.

Further, is the effect causing the phenomenon or the result of such. Add in the various opportunities for natural-source combustion, it is (currently) impossible to state any form of causation with any kind of confidence (statistical or otherwise).

There isn't that much natural combustion. Further, natural combustion doesn't producer as much carbon dioxide as human combustion does. Our combustion chambers add oxygen, to get complete combustion from our fuel. When a forest burns, it does reduce completely. There is carbon monoxide, and a whole bunch of other organic products.

Explain. I am assuming that the causation of the current phenomenon is anthropogenic; if past periods did not have any human factor, how can they directly related to what we are doing now?

The glacial cycles are dependent on feedbacks in the climate system. Feedbacks involving greenhouse gases. We're increasing the greenhouse effect. The two are directly related.

However, there are also other theories that have captured the support of many and those include (but are not limited to) super volcanoes, anomalous solar effects and meteor strikes.

Yes, but we would have evidence of these. If carbon dioxide predictably lags the temperature rise, as a feedback, then that precludes the possibility of a super volcano. Solar strength can be measured in the geology. Meteor strikes could put us into a glaciation, but not bring us out. Anything that is anomalous like you mention here can't really produce regular cycles.

That said, your explanation is exclusive to those that accept (entirely) your theory.

Well, regardless of whether you accept that explanation or not, it doesn't negate anything that we are measuring now. As I said, what's happening now is mutually exclusive to the explanation for glaciation.

See above. You are assuming that your position and theories are factual. Further, your consequent position on AGW is founded on the accuracy of your initial position.

The case for anthropogenic climate change is not in anyway founded on this at all. The theories are factual, they are based on facts. This isn't conjecture, it is based on the work of thousands of scientists. This is why I repeatedly post links to papers for you to read. So you can see what scientists measure, and how that fits into the context. The context is important.

 

[captain morgan]

It means precisely that the Earth's atmosphere is now more opaque to infrared radiation than it was 150 years ago.

There is a big difference (in confidence/causation) between the above explanation and "apparently enhancing". Going further, assessing specific causation confounds the confidence to a greater extent.

The isotopes are another. Fossil carbon comes from plants, and plants prefer one of the carbon isotopes. Carbon dioxide from volcanoes is practically devoid of this isotope. By measuring the change in the isotope ratio in the atmosphere, one can conclude that the source of the increasing carbon dioxide is due to combustion of fossil fuels. And as I already said, the oxygen concentration in our atmosphere is going down.

Fair enough, but the emission of CO2 from natural sources related to cyclical decomposition, forest fires (1/2 of Australia burning last year comes to mind), wood/coal as a fuel source in many communities to mention a few obvious ones are not fossil fuel related.

No, my comment supposes that there is a reason that things happen. As carbon dioxide increases, oxygen decreases. The number of oxygen atoms hasn't changed, their just now in a different chemical species.

There is still an assumption that there is a natural static range (not the right word, but you get the gist) that should/must be maintained. This "baseline" is what would have to be used to make any statement(s) that support an increase/decrease judgement.

Further, there are natural variations as observed in the fossil record that pertain to the variable concentrations of (ambient) gaseous components. Who is to say that this current episode isn't be (primarily) driven by those very same forces?

There isn't that much natural combustion. Further, natural combustion doesn't producer as much carbon dioxide as human combustion does. Our combustion chambers add oxygen, to get complete combustion from our fuel. When a forest burns, it does reduce completely. There is carbon monoxide, and a whole bunch of other organic products.

Forest fires, naturally emitted CH4 (seismic shifts, organic decomposition, etc), (eventual) exposure of hydrocarbons {oilsands have been exposed for 100's/1000's of years, tar pits, ME oil that is near surface), plant (organic) photosynthesis cycles that emit CO2.

The glacial cycles are dependent on feedbacks in the climate system. Feedbacks involving greenhouse gases. We're increasing the greenhouse effect. The two are directly related.

This supports the notion that the global temp swings are natural... Currently, the biggest (observed) swings have occurred prior to anthropogenic inputs. Humanity, especially in terms of significant increases CO2 emissions is a relatively new addition.

Yes, but we would have evidence of these. If carbon dioxide predictably lags the temperature rise, as a feedback, then that precludes the possibility of a super volcano. Solar strength can be measured in the geology. Meteor strikes could put us into a glaciation, but not bring us out.

The evidence does exist. Saharan soil/sand that has a unique composition has been found in concentration in Bahamian blue holes, volcanic ash from Indonesia (again, unique) also found in concentration throughout the globe. The theory points towards air-borne particulate interfering with the solar input.

If one was to base their conclusions on very real and very hard evidence, the 2 aforementioned theories would be at the forefront of plausibility.

Well, regardless of whether you accept that explanation or not, it doesn't negate anything that we are measuring now. As I said, what's happening now is mutually exclusive to the explanation for glaciation.

I have no problem with what is being measured nor with the actual results (excepting recognizing source contributions). Where the problem lies is in the leap between effect and cause.


This is the area that is highly speculative (at best).

The case for anthropogenic climate change is not in anyway founded on this at all. The theories are factual, they are based on facts. This isn't conjecture, it is based on the work of thousands of scientists. This is why I repeatedly post links to papers for you to read. So you can see what scientists measure, and how that fits into the context. The context is important.

The AGW theory can stand entirely on it's own, but it must fit into the existing parameters a dictated by the natural global climatic system.

That said, the "system" must be fully understood before anyone is capable of claiming cause & effect as it relates to the system... There is absolutely no way around this reality.

 

[coldstream]

These are the hard facts about carbon and AGW. This is a list of the suspended carbon in oceans, land biomass and atmosphere. It accounts for over 40,000 billion tons, all in some form of continuous circulation.. of which a grand total 6 billion tons can be said to be of human origins. And of course carbon itself is a fractional element of the total atmosphere, about 4 parts per 10,000.

"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce."

Anthropocentric Global Warming is a monstrous fraud. Virtually all the climate epochs in the earth's geological history can be attributed to changes in solar radiation.

 

[captain morgan]

Anthropocentric Global Warming is a monstrous fraud. Virtually all the climate epochs in the earth's geological history can be attributed to changes in solar radiation.

This is by far and away the biggest obstacle that the pro GW alarmist movement faces. Even if one wishes to challenge the "source" (ie, solar radiation), the fact remains that the largest swings have occurred in the absence of any anthropogenic input at all.

In the end, I believe that this is the reason that the alarmist crowd ignores this specific issue; it nullifies any of the theories forwarded that promote AGW. this group simply cannot afford to tackle this head-on.

 

[petros]

Fossil carbon comes from plants, and plants prefer one of the carbon isotopes.

Does it really? No other flora or fauna play any role?

This is by far and away the biggest obstacle that the pro GW alarmist movement faces. Even if one wishes to challenge the "source" (ie, solar radiation), the fact remains that the largest swings have occurred in the absence of any anthropogenic input at all.

In the end, I believe that this is the reason that the alarmist crowd ignores this specific issue; it nullifies any of the theories forwarded that promote AGW. this group simply cannot afford to tackle this head-on.

I've noticed there are different levels of belief based on age of the person and the overall exposure of green washing.

 

[AnnaG]

These are the hard facts about carbon and AGW. This is a list of the suspended carbon in oceans, land biomass and atmosphere. It accounts for over 40,000 billion tons, all in some form of continuous circulation.. of which a grand total 6 billion tons can be said to be of human origins. And of course carbon itself is a fractional element of the total atmosphere, about 4 parts per 10,000.

"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce."

Perhaps. But that is only the opinion of skepticalscience.com and I didn't see much research as to how they arrived at that, let alone any recent research. Besides, any idiot knows that Earths functions all have a balance and that if the balance of one is affected, there's usually a snowball effect if not both a snowball and a domino effect. Deniers just can't seem to grasp that a lot of things are connected, so they just isolate a few things here and there. Very feeble-minded.
The oceans, for instance, have a balance range for pH. Add more CO2 that the balance range can handle and you have exactly what is happening right now, acidification.

Anthropocentric Global Warming is a monstrous fraud. Virtually all the climate epochs in the earth's geological history can be attributed to changes in solar radiation.

Weak opinion.

 

[captain morgan]

I've noticed there are different levels of belief based on age of the person and the overall exposure of green washing.

That's a great observation... I'd never considered that potential.

 

[AnnaG]

Does it really? No other flora or fauna play any role?

Is there another kind of flora besides plants?

I've noticed there are different levels of belief based on age of the person and the overall exposure of green washing.

... and different levels of belief based upon the the age, ego, and overall denial of science, too. So?

 

[coldstream]

Perhaps. But that is only the opinion of skepticalscience.com and I didn't see much research as to how they arrived at that, let alone any recent research. Besides, any idiot knows that Earths functions all have a balance and that if the balance of one is affected, there's usually a snowball effect if not both a snowball and a domino effect. Deniers just can't seem to grasp that a lot of things are connected, so they just isolate a few things here and there. Very feeble-minded.
The oceans, for instance, have a balance range for pH. Add more CO2 that the balance range can handle and you have exactly what is happening right now, acidification.

Weak opinion.

The earth in balance eh.. sounds like the type gobbledygook that's intended to obfuscate the obvious fact that there is no evidence AGW is occurring, that none of climate models on which the premise is based have ever been able to predict anything.. that the whole industry of AGW now is flailing about with wilder and wilder fear mongering. Nothing is panning out for them and they look increasingly ridiculous.

I know it's tough to get your arms around this, Anna, since you such a pliable mark for con artists.. but keep at it.. you might see the light some day.

 

[Tonington]

There is a big difference (in confidence/causation) between the above explanation and "apparently enhancing".

No there isn't. An apparent enhanced greenhouse is the same thing as an atmosphere which is becoming more opaque to infrared radiation. It's apparent because it's noted, by anyone who looks at the radiation budget.

The AGW theory can stand entirely on it's own, but it must fit into the existing parameters a dictated by the natural global climatic system.

And it does. There is no part of that explanation that does not. If you haven't already, read the link I posted a while back about the associated fingerprints for various climate forcings. In the same way that fingerprints can help convict a criminal, so too can we narrow the culprit(s) involved in forcing our climate change.

That said, the "system" must be fully understood before anyone is capable of claiming cause & effect as it relates to the system... There is absolutely no way around this reality.

Absolutely untrue. There would be no such thing as scientific advancement if we could only show cause and effect if we have the full understanding of the system we study. There would be no working drugs. There would be no engineering. There would be no chemical industry at all. There would be no science, and none of the advancements we have made technologically because of our science.

This is why statistics is so important. You can test the response of a variable on your system. You don't need to know all of the variables impacting the response to test your variable of interest. You block what you can, randomize what you can't, and everything else goes into the error term. There's much more to it than that, but statistics is very much part of the scientific method.