• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global "cooling"... debunked?

ServiceSoon said:
Never heard it was a positive feedback...one causing the other in a never ending loop of doom.

The claim was that CO2 caused warming in the past. That was proven improbable because of the relationship you explained above fairly well, up until the positive feedback claim.
Click to expand...

On this subject you will be bombarded with incosistent and misinterpreted data, so here are some facts. Bolding is mine, and you see that the history does not support the alarming fantasies of agenda driven far left environmentalists' pseudoscience.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/birth-of-oil-geology-temperature-co2.html

You can see that there have been several periods, e.g. The Ordovician, when the CO2 concentration was more than 10 times higher than it is today. But the temperature only differed by 2 degrees Celsius. And this is true despite the fact that the bulk of the CO2-temperature relationship is actually caused by outgassing rather than the greenhouse effect.

At any rate, both global changes as well as the continental drift have been contributing to the ability of different regions to create petroleum while theCO2 has been violently changing and has been irrelevant for the climate throughout the history of the Earth.
 
mhaze said:
Reality, of course, is that global cooking is not a subject that is debunkable, but it is one that can be said to be not occurring, when solar scientists confirm a few things over the next couple years....
Click to expand...

Have you added "Swami" to yout list of titles and accomplishments?
 
mhaze said:
On this subject you will be bombarded with incosistent and misinterpreted data, so here are some facts. Bolding is mine, and you see that the history does not support the alarming fantasies of agenda driven far left environmentalists' pseudoscience.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/birth-of-oil-geology-temperature-co2.html

You can see that there have been several periods, e.g. The Ordovician, when the CO2 concentration was more than 10 times higher than it is today. But the temperature only differed by 2 degrees Celsius. And this is true despite the fact that the bulk of the CO2-temperature relationship is actually caused by outgassing rather than the greenhouse effect....
Click to expand...



And what scientific paper and evidences are being cited in this blogsite quote and reference?
 
ServiceSoon said:
Never heard it was a positive feedback...
Click to expand...

I’m sure there are a great many well established scientific principles you are not familiar with, that doesn’t mean they do not exist.

ServiceSoon said:
The claim was that CO2 caused warming in the past.
Click to expand...

And in fact CO2 provides most of the warming, it just doesn’t happen to be the initial trigger or cause the first small amount of warming. Since no one has claimed it was this trigger you are simply building a strawman, useless for real discussion.
 
ServiceSoon said:
Never heard it was a positive feedback...one causing the other in a never ending loop of doom.
Click to expand...
It's not never ending - a new equilibrium is reached once the forcing stops. Indeed the positive feedback acts in the opposite direction when the forcing reverses, which the Milankovitch cycles eventually do.

The claim was that CO2 caused warming in the past. That was proven improbable because of the relationship you explained above fairly well, up until the positive feedback claim.
Click to expand...
There's often a big difference between what the science says and the way it's reported, considerable over-simplification often takes place. There's an even bigger difference between what the science says and the way certain people misrepresent it. For example mhaze has already suggested that if what I'm saying is true then a certain level of CO2 should always equate to the same global temperature; I hope you can see for yourself why that does not follow.
 
weather vs. climate

Fnord said:
I was going to post something like, "'Global Warming' is something of a misnomer, because..." but I see that Nosi has more-or-less beaten me to it.

Yes, the global climate is warming; but in the process, there will be freezing temperatures in previously balmy places, rains in normally arid regions, and drought in normally moist locations. Until the global climate stabilizes, we can expect freakish weather events in unlikely places.
Click to expand...

Chicago has never been a balmy climate, at least not in January.
We are told that weather and climate are 2 distinctly different things. However, any unusual weather is now blamed on Global Warming aka Climate Change.
Here in California, we are experiencing another drought. In the 80's, it was just a particularly bad cycle. This less severe current drought conveniently forgets even the recent history of 20 years ago, because now it's PROOF of AGW.

Great news! It's pouring down rain today. It's forecasted to last on and off all week. If this is Global Warming, by all means, please bring it on!!!

The confirmation bias is so blatantly staggering. The message is that even brilliant scientists outside of the cloistered IPCC experts are unable to understand climate science. Just forget it and listen to the experts!
Don't question the consensus no matter how little sense it makes. Otherwise, you are an evil Denier!
 
laursaurus said:
We are told that weather and climate are 2 distinctly different things. However, any unusual weather is now blamed on Global Warming aka Climate Change.
Click to expand...
Here's a climate scientist lamenting this very problem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8451756.stm

I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask "is this a result of global warming?"

When I say "no, not really, it is just weather", they've thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was.

Talking up of the problem then gives easy ammunition to those who wish to discredit the science.

They do not care whether the wrong information came from the scientists or from a second-hand source, they just say (quite rightly) that it's wrong and therefore why should they trust other parts of the science?

Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing.

Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.

We cannot simply say it is everyone else's fault; we need to be very clear about what can be used as evidence for or against climate change.

Long-term, large-scale trends and the overall statistics of extreme weather events can and should be part of this evidence base. Individual weather events, from heatwaves to big freezes, cannot be used either to prove or disprove climate change.

If we do not help the media, NGOs and the public to understand this, we have done nothing to stop them getting it wrong.
Click to expand...
 
mhaze said:
On this subject you will be bombarded with incosistent and misinterpreted data, so here are some facts. Bolding is mine, and you see that the history does not support the alarming fantasies of agenda driven far left environmentalists' pseudoscience.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/birth-of-oil-geology-temperature-co2.html

You can see that there have been several periods, e.g. The Ordovician, when the CO2 concentration was more than 10 times higher than it is today. But the temperature only differed by 2 degrees Celsius. And this is true despite the fact that the bulk of the CO2-temperature relationship is actually caused by outgassing rather than the greenhouse effect.

At any rate, both global changes as well as the continental drift have been contributing to the ability of different regions to create petroleum while theCO2 has been violently changing and has been irrelevant for the climate throughout the history of the Earth.
Click to expand...

So EVERYTHING else was identical except for the CO2 concentration? The rest of the atmospheric chemistry was exactly the same, the vegetation was exactly the same, the locations and extents of all the land masses were exactly the same, the mean sea level was exactly the same, and the only thing that differed was the CO2 concentration?
 
ServiceSoon said:
Confidential is the word the report used. It might have been designed to benefit the anti-GW crowd, but it does just the opposite for me.

Don't you hate it how evil republicans use word games? Like using the word denier instead of anti-GW?
Click to expand...

Of course, Luntz didn't invent the term, he merely chose from among the terms currently used by science to describe the phenomenon and chose the one that he felt was less publically alarming and more ameniable to argumentive ambiguity of definition. anti-GW (which very few actually are) letters out the same as Anthropogenic-GW and is thus confusing on its own, Anti-AGW is awkward for the same reason though much more accurate for most of the opposition to mainstream climate science. In the end being a denier of the established science is both accurate and to the point, though its inconvenient who don't want to be framed as against mainstream established science even while there actions and rhetoric proof that description.
 
BenBurch said:
Driving home at 3 AM last night from the middle of the State; 44 degrees and patches of fog. Where is your Cooling God NOW?
Click to expand...

Pardon my pedantry, but that would be weather, not climate. So your point is moot.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
So EVERYTHING else was identical except for the CO2 concentration? The rest of the atmospheric chemistry was exactly the same, the vegetation was exactly the same, the locations and extents of all the land masses were exactly the same, the mean sea level was exactly the same, and the only thing that differed was the CO2 concentration?
Click to expand...

And the solar irradiance was the same, the orbital inclination was the same, the eccentricity of the earth's orbit was the same...
 
mhaze said:
On this subject you will be bombarded with incosistent and misinterpreted data, so here are some facts. Bolding is mine, and you see that the history does not support the alarming fantasies of agenda driven far left environmentalists' pseudoscience.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/birth-of-oil-geology-temperature-co2.html

You can see that there have been several periods, e.g. The Ordovician, when the CO2 concentration was more than 10 times higher than it is today. But the temperature only differed by 2 degrees Celsius. And this is true despite the fact that the bulk of the CO2-temperature relationship is actually caused by outgassing rather than the greenhouse effect.

At any rate, both global changes as well as the continental drift have been contributing to the ability of different regions to create petroleum while theCO2 has been violently changing and has been irrelevant for the climate throughout the history of the Earth.
Click to expand...


I think you are confusing an opinionated blogger with a blogger's opinion.

By now, I would think that you would recognise that that source is missing a few marbles, as he doesn't take into consideration the level of cosmic rays in his calculation of climate sensitivity to doubling CO2.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
So EVERYTHING else was identical except for the CO2 concentration? The rest of the atmospheric chemistry was exactly the same, the vegetation was exactly the same, the locations and extents of all the land masses were exactly the same, the mean sea level was exactly the same, and the only thing that differed was the CO2 concentration?
Click to expand...
Are you paraphrasing WHAT WAS DISCUSSED in the article (as if it was not discussed)?

And the point of that is...?
 
bobdroege7 said:
I think you are confusing an opinionated blogger with a blogger's opinion.

By now, I would think that you would recognise that that source is missing a few marbles, as he doesn't take into consideration the level of cosmic rays in his calculation of climate sensitivity to doubling CO2.
Click to expand...

Did those marbles hit you on the head and stun you? Follow the link down a page to where Motl calculates CO2 sensivity from the historical data:

Here is the general link, but his blog format doesn't allow my leading you exactly to the paragraph...you have to trudge down to it:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/birth-of-oil-geology-temperature-co2.html

Now, get ready for a shock. The result is
14.854913 + 0.89326377 logCONC​
This means that for 280 ppm, the predicted temperature should be 14.85 °C, higher than today. For 385 ppm, this function predicts 15.26 °C. The warming expected from a CO2 doubling, based on those 11 ancient historical points, is just 0.89 °C. Now, this result assumed that the whole relationship is due to the greenhouse effect. Actually, less then 10% is caused by the greenhouse effect.
This correction would imply that a sensible estimate for the climate sensitivity would be just a tenth of a degree

Now you want to talk about the cosmic ray issue? Lots of room left in there for other factors...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom