Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Papahyooie]

Hell yes, but I'm in the pacific region where the el nino and el nina effects hammer us and we're the rough end of the average.

When I was a kid, the snowfall here was consistent and heavy in the winter. Now, we're lucky to get any.



Are we looking at the same graph? The CO2 spikes correspond directly to the temp peaks.

Yes, that's my point. The extreme spike in CO2 levels at present has not resulted in a correlation of a spike (above the normal cycle) in temperature.

Moreover, if you look at the raw data, the temperature spikes before CO2 spike occurs. So that in itself disproves a CO2-temp causal relationship (though it leaves the possibility that there is a temp-CO2 causal relationship.)

 

[R-T-B]

Yes, that's my point. The extreme spike in CO2 levels at present has not resulted in a correlation of a spike (above the normal cycle) in temperature.

Moreover, if you look at the raw data, the temperature spikes before CO2 spike occurs. So that in itself disproves a CO2-temp causal relationship (though it leaves the possibility that there is a temp-CO2 causal relationship.)

Even the overlay I did shows a degree of reactionary delay to the spikes (you can't see it because the x axis is offset in how I cheaply photoshopped it, move it a bit and you'd see my point).

In short, we probably won't see the consequences of our action for maybe 500 years. By then, we'll be powerless to do anything. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be in that boat.

 

[Papahyooie]

Same graph for 50k years.

And 2k years

\

 

[Papahyooie]

Even the overlay I did shows a degree of reactionary delay to the spikes.

As I said, the reactionary delay is in the CO2 spikes, historically. The temperature spikes happen before the CO2 spikes, therefore there is no causal relationship.

If it wasn't clear, those graphs are backwards, ie. the present is on the left side, and time goes backward as you go right. So even with your (by your own admission) bad overlay, you can see that the temp spikes happen first. So how exactly does CO2 cause temp spikes if the temp spikes happen first?

 

[the54thvoid]

...

Try reading somtheing that doesn't fit your narrative.

https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

The weird as fucking shit thing is this:

1) If climate change isn't happening - thank fuck - we're not doomed.
2) If climate change is happening and we do nothing because of selective ignorance - we're fucked.erated warming

I said ages ago I would stop coming in here, not because I dont want to hear opposing opinions but because the opposing opinions are packed full of selective pseudo science. Fact is that he massive (and I mean huge) majority of evidence backs accelerated warming, vast majority of scientists and governments and even the big fossil fuel companies admit it to an extent.

But still, people say no, it snowed here in May - the planets not getting hotter.

You can't fight ignorance - its why we still have terrorism.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Antarctica is impacted the least by human CO2 emissions because the bulk of the emissions are in the north hemisphere.

 

[R-T-B]

There are two conclusions I can garner from that (not listing them in preferential order, these are honest questions):

1.) Science is wrong up to now, something else is causing the warming, but the same warming action is also effecting the CO2 level in some odd way.

2.) Our method of measuring ancient CO2 levels is flawed. I'm actually curious how we measure that, anyways? I'm guessing via geology. Maybe whatever we measure has a delayed impact and we are getting a delayed CO2 reading? Now I'm curious.

...

Try reading somtheing that doesn't fit your narrative.

https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

The weird as fucking shit thing is this:

1) If climate change isn't happening - thank fuck - we're not doomed.
2) If climate change is happening and we do nothing because of selective ignorance - we're fucked.erated warming

I said ages ago I would stop coming in here, not because I dont want to hear opposing opinions but because the opposing opinions are packed full of selective pseudo science. Fact is that he massive (and I mean huge) majority of evidence backs accelerated warming, vast majority of scientists and governments and even the big fossil fuel companies admit it to an extent.

But still, people say no, it snowed here in May - the planets not getting hotter.

You can't fight ignorance - its why we still have terrorism.

That's basically why I defer to those "in the know." Selective science should be damned to the 6th level of hell. I let people who actually spent a lifetime studying this do the thinking for me. I don't claim to be an expert. Beware those who do without credentials to prove it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1) Carbon-13 is the isotope that is growing and it is principally introduced to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Science is not wrong that CO2 is rising and it is largely caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. That said, CH4 is rising too (not clear if because of larger animal populations for human consumption, thawing permafrost, something else, or a combination of all) and the impact of water vapor (clouds) have on climate models needs to be improved.

2) Antarctica CO2 sampling is done via ice cores. As I said before, Antarctica is impacted the least by human activity because most of the human CO2 production is in the northern hemisphere. So yeah, CO2 rising has a latent and averaging effect on Antarctica ice samples.

 

[Papahyooie]

...

Try reading somtheing that doesn't fit your narrative.

https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

The weird as fucking shit thing is this:

1) If climate change isn't happening - thank fuck - we're not doomed.
2) If climate change is happening and we do nothing because of selective ignorance - we're fucked.erated warming

I said ages ago I would stop coming in here, not because I dont want to hear opposing opinions but because the opposing opinions are packed full of selective pseudo science. Fact is that he massive (and I mean huge) majority of evidence backs accelerated warming, vast majority of scientists and governments and even the big fossil fuel companies admit it to an extent.

But still, people say no, it snowed here in May - the planets not getting hotter.

You can't fight ignorance - its why we still have terrorism.

All of the global warming "science" and all of the justification and mental gymnastics that are done to support it, hinges on the answer to one question:

"Is there an anomalous increase in temperature that corresponds to an increase in human-caused CO2 emissions?"

The answer to that question is no, clearly illustrated by the fact that the current trend of increase in temperature is not anomalous, nor does it quantitatively correspond to increased human emissions. Therefore no amount of justification, whether it be ice levels, sea levels, or whatever else you want to measure, will make it so.

That's the only thing that matters. If there is no anomalous warming, then global warming simply is not real. It can't get any simpler than that.

 

[R-T-B]

All of the global warming "science" and all of the justification and mental gymnastics that are done to support it, hinges on the answer to one question:

"Is there an anomalous increase in temperature that corresponds to an increase in human-caused CO2 emissions?"

The answer to that question is no, clearly illustrated by the fact that the current trend of increase in temperature is not anomalous, nor does it quantitatively correspond to increased human emissions. Therefore no amount of justification, whether it be ice levels, sea levels, or whatever else you want to measure, will make it so.

That's the only thing that matters. If there is no anomalous warming, then global warming simply is not real. It can't get any simpler than that.

As I pointed out, it's not so simple. Our method of measuring CO2 needs to be evalauted before we can conclude that the model is completely flawed, as correlation between the two is clear, just maybe not as we initially observed it (the way it's presented, it looks more like high temps cause CO2). We need to understand this system. We also need to ensure our measurements are accurate and on target.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

NOAA's sea surface temperature satellites disagree with you (1984-1998):

Slight cooling at the poles is caused by melting ice.

 

[R-T-B]

NOAA's sea surface temperature satellites disagree with you (1984-1998):

Slight cooling at the poles is caused by melting ice.

I'm refering mostly to the measurements we are discussing which are thousands to hundreds of thousands of years old. I'm assuming those satellites were not in operation then.

My most likely explanation is the (likely geologic) way we identify old CO2 levels is flawed and has a time delay. But whatever it is, it warrants an explanation.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Satellite data obtained after 1984 was used to calibrate the ice core samples.

CO2 trapped in ice cores occurs at the time of freezing and it stays there until the ice is thawed.

 

[R-T-B]

Satellite data obtained after 1984 was used to calibrate the ice core samples.

CO2 trapped in ice cores occurs at the time of freezing and it stays there until the ice is thawed.

Interesting.

A lot of unanswered questions but I'm not nearly educated enough to answer them, nor do I want to dedicate my life to doing so, so I'm out.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I would like to publicly apologize for reopening this thread.

 

[Papahyooie]

As I pointed out, it's not so simple. Our method of measuring CO2 needs to be evalauted before we can conclude that the model is completely flawed, as correlation between the two is clear, just maybe not as we initially observed it (the way it's presented, it looks more like high temps cause CO2). We need to understand this system. We also need to ensure our measurements are accurate and on target.

That I can agree with. If we did indeed find that our method of measuring either temperature or CO2 in history is flawed, then we would have to reevaluate the conclusion. I'm not denying that at all, and if that became the case then I would absolutely reexamine my stance. However, it is highly unscientific to put the cart before the horse and provide a conclusion first, then find data to support it while ignoring the data that doesn't. That alone is reason for me to be skeptical. We shouldn't say "Global warming is truth until we find out otherwise." On the contrary, good science demands every theory be considered false until proven true. We shouldn't deem that it's correct under the assumption that we will later find out that our data is flawed.
And it IS that simple. The hypothesis is that human emissions are causing a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere which results in anomalous high temperatures. That statement is not supported by data, therefore it is scientifically false. The temperature changes experienced are not anomalous. They follow the same pattern that the earth has followed before humans even existed, much less emitted greenhouse gasses. The fact that historic temperature data is wholly ignored is enough for me personally to be skeptical of the conclusion, as it should be for any scientist.

NOAA's sea surface temperature satellites disagree with you (1984-1998):

Slight cooling at the poles is caused by melting ice.

Once again, we're talking about the scale of millennia. I do not in any way deny that there has been an increase in global temperature since humans began emitting quantities of CO2. Global temperatures have indeed risen. There is no doubt about that. The point is, these temperature changes are not *anomalous.* They are not unexpected, even given a complete absence of human intervention, and indeed even in the midst of human intervention still do not result in anomalous temperature change.

 

[magibeg]

Alright I have returned just for you.

First off i'd like to start by saying my complaint about the time scales wasn't because it makes the data any more or less significant historically, it's because the changes are happening at such a rapid pace the resolution of the graph doesn't work properly. It becomes more obvious in the CO2 graph you posted later on mind you.

2nd, you need to realize that CO2 is not a driver of climate change. No scientist claimed it was, and that was never implied to be the case with global warming. The earths climate has many natural oscillations such as the PDO (pacific decadal oscillation), the AMD (Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation), and Milankovitch cycles (there are many more but these are 3 main players in temperature variation). The reason i'm telling you this is because implying that there isn't a relationship between a couple of graphs you posted earlier is simply not true, however the relationship isn't what you think it is.

CO2 behaves as an amplifier to global changes in temperature which causes larger swings in temperature than the above mentioned cycles would achieve on their own. When the earth warms from a Milankovitch cycle it causes a series of positive (and some negative) feedback loops to take place, one of which is CO2 being released from being locked away in permafrost.

I'm going to let you learn about that process first before posting anything else. At this point it appears to me that you fail to understand even the most simple principals of climate change or why CO2 is expected to follow temperature rise.

 

[Boosnie]

Yes, that's my point. The extreme spike in CO2 levels at present has not resulted in a correlation of a spike (above the normal cycle) in temperature.

Moreover, if you look at the raw data, the temperature spikes before CO2 spike occurs. So that in itself disproves a CO2-temp causal relationship (though it leaves the possibility that there is a temp-CO2 causal relationship.)

Ok wait.
So you think that the increase of greenhouse gases must immediately generate a global spike in temperature?
Let me be more clear, just for the two of us be on the same level: when you close the windows in a 2000sqf room you expect the average temperature of the room to rise immediately to that day sun output?
Fine scientist you are.

BTW, you can't take a graph that correlates 2 variables in a many variables system and then say "Here! See!? NO CAUSATION AT ALL!! There, up the ass climatologists!"

There are several basic and advanced principles, motions, interactions and speeds to take into account.
Such as earth tilt and orbit, oceans thermal capability, ice surface albedo, forested surface etc etc.

Nitpicking a graph and shout "AHA!" is not very helpful in any way.

One thing one can surely extrapolate from those graphs and from the last century of recordings, is that after a low in temp, there are several thousand years of steady rise, capping in a 6 or 5 degree celsious increase. Over 5.000 years.
In the last century alone, with the sun seemingly going thowards an historically low activity phase, the global mean temperature rose 0.9 degrees.

That's the only point a discussion in a forum can establish for sure based on the actual evidence.

A graph is no evidence, otherwise we can accurately state that importing lemon from Mexico saves US drivers from certain death.

 

[dorsetknob]

otherwise we can accurately state that importing lemon from Mexico saves US drivers from certain death.

Pull over Carefully to avoid Tailgaters and buy your Mexican Lemonade

 

[Papahyooie]

Alright I have returned just for you.

First off i'd like to start by saying my complaint about the time scales wasn't because it makes the data any more or less significant historically, it's because the changes are happening at such a rapid pace the resolution of the graph doesn't work properly. It becomes more obvious in the CO2 graph you posted later on mind you.

2nd, you need to realize that CO2 is not a driver of climate change. No scientist claimed it was, and that was never implied to be the case with global warming. The earths climate has many natural oscillations such as the PDO (pacific decadal oscillation), the AMD (Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation), and Milankovitch cycles (there are many more but these are 3 main players in temperature variation). The reason i'm telling you this is because implying that there isn't a relationship between a couple of graphs you posted earlier is simply not true, however the relationship isn't what you think it is.

CO2 behaves as an amplifier to global changes in temperature which causes larger swings in temperature than the above mentioned cycles would achieve on their own. When the earth warms from a Milankovitch cycle it causes a series of positive (and some negative) feedback loops to take place, one of which is CO2 being released from being locked away in permafrost.

I'm going to let you learn about that process first before posting anything else. At this point it appears to me that you fail to understand even the most simple principals of climate change or why CO2 is expected to follow temperature rise.

I'm just going to ignore your patronizing and focus on a couple of pieces.
"2nd, you need to realize that CO2 is not a driver of climate change. No scientist claimed it was."
That is simply not true, and you know it. The main cause cited is always human emissions of CO2 (among other gasses to a lesser extent.) A quick google search is enough to disprove that statement right there. Moreover, your own statements say that you don't believe that. You're arguing semantics. What is the difference between saying that CO2 is a driver of climate change, and saying that CO2 is the driver of amplification of climate change? We all agree here that the earth follows natural cycles, so when we say that CO2 is the driver of climate change, obviously we are talking about the change to those cycles, and the amplification of those cycles as you said. On top of that, you said yourself that CO2 release is a natural part of those cycles. We aren't arguing about whether those cycles exist. We are arguing about whether human emissions have had a relevant effect on them. That is the main talking point in "global warming." Nobody here is going to deny that climate change does happen. We're talking about the human effect. That is what is up for debate.

The truth however, is that there is simply no amplification of those cycles due to human intervention. The data shows that. Wider swings in temperature were experienced long before humans started emitting CO2. And that is the crux of the issue. Not whether climate change does happen (as it obviously does) but rather does human intervention have any effect. The data says no.

As for the resolution of the graphs, that is absolutely my point. On a time scale long enough to see the climate cycles of the earth, the current trend towards hotter temperatures is insignificant, and not anomalous. The fact that you can't see it on a longer time scale IS THE POINT. If you cherry pick data from the present and present it on a shorter timescale, it become significant and anomalous, yes. But that is the point. If you zoom in further, say to six months, temperatures will have skyrocketed by tens of degrees! (at least in the northern hemisphere) We're all doomed!
But that doesn't tell the whole story does it?

Or lets put it another way: you say that the graph isn't high enough resolution to see the uptick. You're basically saying that the uptick is not statistically significant enough to be seen on the graph. Which means by proxy that the uptick is not an anomaly. We can see plenty of other swings on the

Ok wait.
So you think that the increase of greenhouse gases must immediately generate a global spike in temperature?
Let me be more clear, just for the two of us be on the same level: when you close the windows in a 2000sqf room you expect the average temperature of the room to rise immediately to that day sun output?
Fine scientist you are.

BTW, you can't take a graph that correlates 2 variables in a many variables system and then say "Here! See!? NO CAUSATION AT ALL!! There, up the ass climatologists!"

There are several basic and advanced principles, motions, interactions and speeds to take into account.
Such as earth tilt and orbit, oceans thermal capability, ice surface albedo, forested surface etc etc.

Nitpicking a graph and shout "AHA!" is not very helpful in any way.

One thing one can surely extrapolate from those graphs and from the last century of recordings, is that after a low in temp, there are several thousand years of steady rise, capping in a 6 or 5 degree celsious increase. Over 5.000 years.
In the last century alone, with the sun seemingly going thowards an historically low activity phase, the global mean temperature rose 0.9 degrees.

That's the only point a discussion in a forum can establish for sure based on the actual evidence.

A graph is no evidence, otherwise we can accurately state that importing lemon from Mexico saves US drivers from certain death.

You didn't read it all didya?

See, this is the type of sheep mentality that I'm talking about. The argument is always "this is too complicated for you to understand."
And see, the difference between my graphs and the lemons graph, is that no scientist has ever claimed that lemon imports are related to highway fatalities. But they HAVE claimed that CO2 emissions result in anomalous high global temperatures. And they've done so by zooming in the graphs to the point that it looks anomalous. If a scientist DID claim that lemon imports were related to highway fatalities, you'd call him a nut job. So why do climate scientists cherry picking data to make the graphs look scary get a pass?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Put simply, average temperature hasn't changed much between 0-1750 but it has increased significantly between 1750-now. We know the output from the sun hasn't changed significantly which is Earth's primary energy source. We know atmospheric levels of CO2, CH4, and high-altitude clouds have increased significantly--all three are greenhouse agents. No change in energy input + significant change in Earth's ability to retain heat = elevated average temperatures (especially at night). The diagnosis fits the symptoms.

At this point, what happened >2000 years ago really doesn't matter. The high levels of CH4 and CO2 is unnatural. The last time CO2 was this high (~410 ppm and growing) was when dinosaurs walked the Earth.

 

[Papahyooie]

Put simply, average temperature hasn't changed much between 0-1750 but it has increased significantly between 1750-now. We know the output from the sun hasn't changed significantly which is Earth's primary energy source. We know atmospheric levels of CO2, CH4, and high-altitude clouds have increased significantly--all three are greenhouse agents. No change in energy input + significant change in Earth's ability to retain heat = elevated average temperatures (especially at night). The diagnosis fits the symptoms.

At this point, what happened >2000 years ago really doesn't matter. The high levels of CH4 and CO2 is unnatural. The last time CO2 was this high (~410 ppm and growing) was when dinosaurs walked the Earth.

But it does really matter. Because the earth has seen higher temperatures as part of its natural cycle without nearly as high a CO2 concentration. And our currently high CO2 concentration has not produced a significantly anomalous spike in temperature. Moreover, the idea that the temperature didn't change much from 0-1750 simply isn't true. See the last graph I posted. Around what looks like 1550-1600 the earth experienced a much higher spike in temperature than we are experiencing now, with no significant change in CO2. In fact the average global temperature is lower now than it was then. And though there is an upward trend in the last 100 years, it corresponds perfectly as normal with the rest of the data, regardless of the CO2 concentration.

The earth has experienced relative temperatures ranging between -2 and +1.5 degrees compared to present without any human intervention at all in the past 2000 years. And yet somehow the current rise of little more than half a degree in the last 100 years is somehow caused by human intervention? It simply makes no sense.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Guys, we do not have instruments accurate enough to judge changes in climate across 2 billion years... The question is, should we transfer all of our wealth to a small group of individuals who claim they are going to save the planet using carbon credits based on zero actual evidence, or do we simply go on living our lives and progressing slowly with tech advances that are making the earth a less dirty place?

 

[Ahhzz]

Guys, we do not have instruments accurate enough to judge changes in climate across 2 billion years... The question is, should we transfer all of our wealth to a small group of individuals who claim they are going to save the planet using carbon credits based on zero actual evidence, or do we simply go on living our lives and progressing slowly with tech advances that are making the earth a less dirty place?

The problem is that too many people with the ability to change things are retarding and preventing those tech advances with the battlecry of "Fake Science", with the sole purpose of lining their pockets. Whether or not humankind is a major source of the temperature changes, or the CO2 does this, or the yen does that, the facts of oil and coal being "dirty" energy sources are indisputable, but too many people with power wouldn't make "enough" money allowing technology to shift away from those industries to "cleaner" ones, and so they do everything they can to prevent them. \

And honestly, your statement of "zero actual evidence" is indicative of that mindset.

 

[Easy Rhino]

The problem is that too many people with the ability to change things are retarding and preventing those tech advances with the battlecry of "Fake Science", with the sole purpose of lining their pockets. Whether or not humankind is a major source of the temperature changes, or the CO2 does this, or the yen does that, the facts of oil and coal being "dirty" energy sources are indisputable, but too many people with power wouldn't make "enough" money allowing technology to shift away from those industries to "cleaner" ones, and so they do everything they can to prevent them. \

And honestly, your statement of "zero actual evidence" is indicative of that mindset.

Please provide me raw data points for temperatures taken during the rise of the Cro-Magnon. And there is no conspiracy to thwart tech advancements for renewable energies. If there were, Elon Musk would be out of business.