The all encompassing Climate Change/AGW Thread..

[torch]

So how can you argue that man is causing climate change now when they couldn't possibly have caused the previous cycles AND this cycle matches the timeframes of previous cycles?.

Um, no it doesnt, nothing has moved as fast as what is happening now, or are c02 concentrations as high on those graphs as they are now, these are the points 94vrss and I brought to your attention earlier, but you haven't responded to that, just provided more links on the same graphs which all illustrate the point that the levels of 392ppm we see are now (and rising) are not due to any natural cycle.

 

[vr94ss]

Um, no it doesnt, nothing has moved as fast as what is happening now, or are c02 concentrations as high on those graphs as they are now, these are the points 94vrss and I brought to your attention earlier, but you haven't responded to that, just provided more links on the same graphs which all illustrate the point that the levels of 392ppm we see are now (and rising) are not due to any natural cycle.

Carbon addiction: First there is denial.. Then your children go through the other symptoms..

 

[minux]

OK Minux... What now? I never see us calling you guys stupid.

Umm, where was any name calling done? Sorry didnt reply last night, fell asleep reading about milankovich? (sorry too early to be spelling these words ) dude stuff lol.

 

[Jesterarts]

Um, no it doesnt, nothing has moved as fast as what is happening now, or are c02 concentrations as high on those graphs as they are now, these are the points 94vrss and I brought to your attention earlier, but you haven't responded to that, just provided more links on the same graphs which all illustrate the point that the levels of 392ppm we see are now (and rising) are not due to any natural cycle.

You are going to have to quote in which of my posts I said that the 392ppm current level is not caused by man.

I have not yet even started discussing the subject of the link between climate change and CO2 levels and which causes what.

So far I have argued that the climate goes through cycles and that CO2 levels also go through cycles.

I thought up a good analogy that I think may help you understand what my point is;

There is a mountain at the top of which there is seasonal snow. There is a river that runs from this mountain and every summer it breaks it's banks and floods due to all the extra water from the melting snow*.

It has done so for hundreds of thousands of years.

One summer, a man stands at the base of the mountain and pours a glass of water into the river.

What caused the flooding?

*This analogy assumes that man is not causing the temperature increase which causes the snow to melt on the mountain.

Next item, please show me a graph or data showing a correlation between the CO2 temp and Temp shows Temp reacting to CO2 levels. The ones I have seen all show CO2 levels reacting to increases in Temp.

In the last 500 years you can clearly see a significant increase in CO2 levels but no significant and matching increase in temp deviation. This is not my opinion, I'm just looking at the data.

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 500 years

Finally, we've been looking at the last 400,000 years and arguing about cycles or not cycles and how bad it is that there is 392ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Have a quick read of this:

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

In the planets history, CO2 levels peaked at around 7000ppm. In the jurassic period it was around 1500ppm and would you look at that, the planet is still here, live prevails and now we have people panicing over 392.

Somewhat melodramatic wouldn't you agree?

Carbon addiction: First there is denial.. Then your children go through the other symptoms..

1. What am I denyings?
2. If you are suggesting I am denying that CO2 levels have risen in significantly (relative to the last 400,000 years) in the last 100years, I suggest you read my posts again. If you are suggesting I am denying man has contributed to the increase of ppm today, I once again I implore you to read my posts carefully.

Cheers.

 

[torch]

You are going to have to quote in which of my posts I said that the 392ppm current level is not caused by man.

Got me there, bit my best guess is that when you put your graphs in you didnt even know what the current levels were and thought your graphs were showing how the present situation and levels were represented by previous cycles shown on the graphs, what other purpose would there be for trying to use them in your case?

I have not yet even started discussing the subject of the link between climate change and CO2 levels and which causes what.

Well cmon, isn’t that what this thread is about, get on with it.

.So far I have argued that the climate goes through cycles and that CO2 levels also go through cycles.

No one is arguing about what is happened in the past, it is what is happening now that is important and unfortunately the time scale and magnitude of the co2 increases of today has little relevance to that.

Next item, please show me a graph or data showing a correlation between the CO2 temp and Temp shows Temp reacting to CO2 levels. The ones I have seen all show CO2 levels reacting to increases in Temp.

Google Image Result for http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

The ones I have seen all show CO2 levels reacting to increases in Temp.

This one doesn’t, want to show us what you are talking about.

In the last 500 years you can clearly see a significant increase in CO2 levels but no significant and matching increase in temp deviation. This is not my opinion, I'm just looking at the data.

You are looking at irrelevant data if you are looking at 500 years ago, man didn’t seriously start adding to co2 levels until 100 years ago.

Finally, we've been looking at the last 400,000 years and arguing about cycles or not cycles and how bad it is that there is 392ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere..

Yes, you’ve been looking at the last 400,000 years, but not the last 100, and no as you mentioned before you hadn’t even talked about/acknowledged the current 392ppm of CO2.

In the planets history, CO2 levels peaked at around 7000ppm. In the jurassic period it was around 1500ppm and would you look at that, the planet is still here, live prevails and now we have people panicing over 392.

Yes, great argument for that the planet will survive, but life in its existing form?
Do you see much Jurassic life still around?
Does the fact that co2 hasn’t been this high for 15 million years ring some alarm bells, man has only been around for about 2 million years and hasn’t lived through 7000ppm!, survived anything that approaches the change or speed that we are seeing today.

1. What am I denyings

It would appear that your whole pontification exercise above was to just to avoid addressing one thing:
That man putting co2 into the atmosphere is causing the temp to rise.

 

[CSP]

That man putting co2 into the atmosphere is causing the temp to rise.

But that's just not the case. No point addressing something that simply isn't true.

 

[torch]

But that's just not the case. No point addressing something that simply isn't true.

Interesting, seen you've moved on from your last point of absolute fact:

But "we" (as in the human race) haven't increased CO2 from 280ppm to 392ppm in less than 100 years... I mean, there simply is no proof of that!

What is more interesting is that not even the three most prominent scientists who disagree with agw and are held up as icons by other denialists: Dr Richard Lindzen, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr John Christie; none disagree with the accepted physics that adding more co2 to the atmosphere will increase temperature, but you have different theory ? (not that uncommon Im afraid,( its just the shotgun approach, fire a lot of small rubbish and hope it hits something.)

 

[AirStrike]

Questions, I have read it mentioned here quite a bit that the scientists who disagree with AGW are funded by the large oil companies, so who is funding the scientists who support AGW?

 

[Jesterarts]

Got me there, bit my best guess is that when you put your graphs in you didnt even know what the current levels were and thought your graphs were showing how the present situation and levels were represented by previous cycles shown on the graphs, what other purpose would there be for trying to use them in your case?

Your best guess is wrong.

This one doesn’t, want to show us what you are talking about.

Are your serious. I'm not sure how many more graphs I can post showing it. Also note that your graph shows periods of temperature reduction during periods of CO2 PPM increase. Explain that.

Yes, great argument for that the planet will survive, but life in its existing form?
Do you see much Jurassic life still around?

So you do agree that all the current CO2 and climate change hype has nothing to do with preservation of the planet but instead with preservation of the human species.

Who says life in it's existing form should exist as it is for eternity. Somewhat arrogant to assume this is as good as it gets.

It would appear that your whole pontification exercise above was to just to avoid addressing one thing:
That man putting co2 into the atmosphere is causing the temp to rise.

Perphaps if you also italicise it you'll convince me. :rofl2:

Even the graph YOU presented shows that increased CO2 doesn't cause temp increase, see timeframe around 1940, 1965(ish) and 1975(ish) and also.

 

[torch]

Questions, I have read it mentioned here quite a bit that the scientists who disagree with AGW are funded by the large oil companies, so who is funding the scientists who support AGW?

None of them are actually scientists that work for the oil or mining companies(like most private companies they dont actually do research into the climate), they are just paid for comment and/or receive reward for favourable comment, like Alan Jones and his mentioning of particular banks during his show.

That was rightly discussed on pages 8-12 of the "all political thread part 2", perhaps go there and see how the issue was thrashed out.