Volcanoes and CO2

Nah, as mentioned before. Our atmosphere lacks the density to allow any so-called "greenhouse gas" to actually drive climate. Gases thermodynamic properties change with temperature and pressure. We currently don't have enough of either to make greenhouse gases a viable climate driver. And barring some extreme change in solar output, orbital rotation, distance to or from the sun, or clouds form and become miraculously more dense, and cover the entire globe all at once, no gases will....

 

I don't believe AGW exists for a minute. I think scientists are manipulating human arrogance amongst the uneducated masses to get more funding. That said, I do believe that more pollution is worse than less pollution, so they make for a convenient bedfellow although I like to keep some distance between myself and those cultists. As far as I am concerned, I have seen zero evidence that this is not just part of the cycle comparable to the Medieval Warming Period. There is certainly lots of evidence that it has been warmer in the past in certain places than it is now during human existence and pre-industrialization.

 

I notice you still havent come up with the ability of opening links that might show you something you dont want to see

 

The CO 2 agenda has little to do with demonizing pollution but eveything to do with demonizing human aspiration and existence

 

Well I can certainly get on board with demonizing certain human existences. I am a conservationist. The AGW crowd are like that really messed up in the head cousin--you don't want them over for Christmas, but you kind of need to keep tabs with them in case a feud ever breaks out and the Hatfields have more guns than you McCoy's or you need someone to belly into a crawl space where no sane person would venture. They can serve a purpose even in all their cray-cray.

 

Agreed, especially in regards to human population.. Almost 7 billion of us now, and I consider that a very low estimate. And the UN's "experts" even say it's the problem, but only in ways that seem less confrontational and direct. They call it sustainability, as in sustainable development, which their AGW policies are a big part. Cutting back on, limiting access to, taxing them or the use of of our main and only real viable fuel source will do the job and no politician will have to say it outright. Ever read any of the Sierra club's publications? They lay it out plain as day, but those guys who write those things aren't politicians,most of them are academics and scientists, with a few of the upper 1% getting their 2 cents in.

The entire scam is no more about a trace gas than I am the pope.. They just lack the fortitude to say it outright..

 

Everybody can see that you still haven't posted any links that I could open, even after I specifically challenged you to post them. The fact that you can't back up your ridiculous claims by posting any actual evidence to support them is hilarious and very expected, particularly after you had specifically claimed that you had "dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree" with what I said about the 5000 year cooling trend the world was in before AGW kicked in. I posted reports of two scientific studies, among the many others out there, that support what I was saying. I challenged you to post your evidence and to either put up or shut up, but you refuse to 'put up' your evidence and you won't shut up either. Your attempts to dance around this and pretend you have evidence that you don't actually have, are obvious to everybody. If you have these links that you want me to open then post them now. No excuses. I'm calling your bluff.

 

I guess I'm using too small a font for you to see then # 11

 

LOLOL....another major fail and flake out, flogger. All I see is you still avoiding posting the "dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree" that you claimed you had.

In my post (#10 on this thread) I quoted an article about a scientific study, published in the journal Science, concerning the four to five thousand year long cooling trend the world was in until AGW caused the current abrupt warming trend. The researchers used a variety of global temperature proxies to put together "the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene." The article said "that changes in the amount and distribution of incoming sunlight, caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit, contributed to a sharp temperature rise in the early Holocene. The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend. The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period."

In your post #11 that you just pointed to, you had three links which I already dealt with in post #13. Only one of those links connected to an actual published peer-reviewed scientific paper and that one just discussed temperature variations on top of the mile high ice sheet covering Greenland as determined by an analysis of just one temperature proxie, gas bubbles in some ice cores. Your other two links didn't connect to actual published scientific papers or abstracts. They went to some trash pseudo-science from some stooges for the fossil fuel industry that just concerned the denier cult myths about the MWP. I further responded in post #14 by quoting another published scientific study that showed that "Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years".

You then came back in post #15 and claimed that: "You have been given links to dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree" which was a lie. That had never actually happened, except, apparently, in your imagination. In post #17 I specifically challenged you to actually provide the links to those "dozens of abstracts and full studies" that you claimed you had. I also challenged you to "also try quoting the relevant material that supposedly supports your position and don't just C&P a list of links to papers that, going by my previous encounters with you, often don't actually support your claims.". I said you were bluffing and to either 'put up or shut up'. Since then you have dodged and spun but you have totally failed to provide those links to those supposed studies. Here we are at your post #34 and all you can manage to come up with is to point back at the three already debunked links in your post #11. LOLOLOL.

Either come up with the "dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree" that you claimed you had or admit that you have nothing and you were just blowing smoke and lying about the supposed scientific support for your denial of the actual scientific facts of the matter.

 

Like I said . If you dont open the links you'll never see them as indeed you chose not to ...... again. Dismissing by smearing something out of hand is not 'addressing' anything so stop wasting my time

 

The AGW theory can face down any challenge be it hotter, colder, wetter, drier all the bases are covered and theres no way to lose. At last they have found a fail safe way of emptying our pockets and theres no comeback whatever happens !

 

Dude, do you have anything other than telling us how smart you are and how dumb anyone who disagrees you is? Seriously, it's all you do.. You post a source from the Wunderblog, and you call it science even claiming that since the article linked to actual scientific studies,it is a scientific study, all the while claiming how brilliant you are for finding it. Someone else posts from a site of opposite but similar position, equally linking to scientific studies and papers, and you insult, and berate the poster..

How you get away with your nonsense is beyond me dude..

 

this was what I've posted many times...we have deniers who pretend they know advanced and understand complex climate science, physics and chemistry but they fail at grade school science...any kid in my grade six class could've shown where the trend line is in a graph but here we have deniers that have no clue, delusional or dishonest

 

or you could put livefree in his place just post the links to this mountain of evidence you claim to have...

I'm guessing you have nothing...

 

This is an SKS graph by activist cartoonist John Cook ! Its good to see he has found another outlet for his talents

- - - Updated - - -

I'm guessing you too suffer from similar aversions #11

 

Yes, the other "I'm so smart and everyone else is so dumb" guy.. Dude can you or livefree post at all without an insult to somebody? It's like arguing with a couple of kids or something.

And to show my point, you are impressed by an animated graph.. No really, I see your point now.. It's colorful, it's shiny, AND it does things all on it's own.. That makes it correct, and of course since we don't have a colorful animated graph, we must be wrong.. I get it now.. ROFL..

So genius, explain the science behind the graph for us...Not the warmist thinly-veiled insult to everyone not a warmist, but the actual science behind it. You know,like how they came up with those figures,how they compiled them, how they know what and how everyone thinks, and how they know all people are either warmers or skeptics...

See that's the problem isn't it.. There is no room for anything else using your sides logic.. IF you're not a warmer,you are evil right? Of course, why else have all the nonsense like that graph? And yet society and people do not think that way. Dude do you realize YOU are the people they go after with this nonsense? Yep you.. Not me,because I am a nuisance to them. I think to much and have my own opinions and they didn't give them to me, so I'm a bad egg.. Oh but not you, LOL.. The only opinion you and livefree ever have is what was given to you. I know this because only a person devoid of critical thought, and incapable of thinking for him or herself, would post such obvious sarcasm in the belief it is science...

You guys make knocking down warmer nonsense too easy.. I'm starting to think you two are actually double agents trying to wreck the thing from the inside.. If so, keep up the good work!

LOL

 

You're the one wasting everybody's time, dude. I opened the only three links you have so far provided, in your post #11, and debunked your claims about what they said or meant, in my post #13. Only one of those links connected to an actual scientific study and that one doesn't at all refute what the studies that I cited had determined.. The other two, from 'crazy Idso', were not published, peer reviewed science, which is what you originally claimed to have already shown me 'dozens of links' to. Those two links just led to some denier cult myths about the Medieval Warm Period. The scientific study I had quoted specifically acknowledged the WMP: "The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend. The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period." Climate scientists have determined the natural factors that caused the WMP and they have also determined that it was not global in extent. Changes in ocean currents and wind patterns moved heat from one part of the world to another part but that process has nothing to do with either the long slow decline in temperatures after the HTM which was caused by orbital and axial tilt changes, or with the current planetary gain in thermal energy, caused by increased CO2 levels, that has been verified by satellite measurements of the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation at the TOA and analysis of the wavelengths of the outgoing radiation.

Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered
New Scientist
by Nora Schultz
02 April 2009
(excerpts)
Europe basked in unusually warm weather in medieval times, but why has been open to debate. Now the natural climate mechanism that caused the mild spell seems to have been pinpointed. The finding is significant today because, according to Valerie Trouet at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research in Birmensdorf, the mechanism that caused the warm spell in Europe – and meant wine could be produced in England as it is now – cannot explain current warming. It means the medieval warm period was mainly a regional phenomenon caused by altered heat distribution rather than a global phenomenon. The finding scuppers one of the favourite arguments of climate-change deniers. If Europe had temperature increases before we started emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases, their argument goes, then maybe the current global warming isn't caused by humans, either.

By combining their data with information from other regions of the world during medieval times and plugging it into different models, the researchers have also come up with a hypothesis of what made the warm winds so persistent. "It turns out that in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal," says Trouet. El Niño and the NAO are connected by a process called thermohaline circulation, which drives the "ocean conveyor belt" that shuttles sea water of different density around the world's oceans. According to Trouet, a Pacific La Niña mode and a positive NAO mode could have reinforced each other in a positive feedback loop – and this could explain the stability of the medieval climate anomaly. Trouet thinks external forces like abrupt changes in solar output or volcanism must have started and stopped the cycle...


You're still just spinning, dodging and weaving Edit/Rule 2/Stop with the scientific studies that I was citing and quoting. You hadn't shown them and you can't point to any post of yours on this thread where you did. I say you don't have any such links and you were trying to bluff your way through this debate. I have now challenged you many times to post your (imaginary) links to all those "studies" you claimed to have and all you've done so far is post ridiculous excuses for your failure to back up your claims with anything but evasions and blatant nonsense. If you actually had those fictitious links, you would have just posted them by now so you rather obviously don't have them, which means you were lying when you claimed you did. Your fraudulent way of debating has been exposed for all to see. So keep dancing and dodging and ruining what little credibility you may have previously had with newcomers to the forum who aren't already familiar with your fraudulent style of debate. Edit/Rule 2

 

I cant make you see what you dont want . I've wasted enough time on you frankly

 

The ash is STILL coming down, and another volcano is now building in it's place. Thanks for bringing this up, Anders. I've been telling people this for some time now. How arrogant for humans to think they in their puniness can make any more than a temporary impact on Mother Earth's "climate".

 

And I can't see what you won't show me.

You pointed to three links and only three links in post #11 and I examined and talked about all of them. None of them serve as an actual rebuttal of the studies that I posted and that you then denied the validity of. The scientific consensus is that the WMP was not as warm as the HTM, nor was it global in extent at the same time. The WMP moved heat around within the Earth system but it didn't add much to the total heat content, except for a bit less volcanic cooling in that period. As the patterns of heat transfer through ocean currents and winds were changing during that time, various places experienced both warmer periods and cooler periods but not all places were warmer at the same time.

In any case, only three links (two of which were to a denier cult blog run by some very discredited pseudo-scientists who no one outside your cult of reality denial takes seriously) does not equal "links to dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree", which is what you very clearly lied about having in this debate in order to fraudulently support your denial of the scientific studies and results that I had been discussing. I posted a linked quote to a report on a scientific study that shows that the orbital and axial tilt variations that initiated the ending of the last period of glaciation caused a 5000 year period of warmer temperatures, comparable to the 20th century's temperatures, followed by a slow decline in temperatures for the next 5000 years, "interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period.", as the article I quoted stated.

Now, after being repeatedly and directly challenged to post, using specific quotes of the relevant parts, any peer-reviewed scientific studies that you might have that would refute the basic results of that scientific research, you have failed to do and you are now slinking off in defeat and still trying to maintain that pathetic excuse that somehow it is my fault because somehow I'm not looking at.....what exactly??? You haven't posted any links to any science that actually "disagrees" with the research I posted and you won't even be specific about just what information I'm supposed to be looking at in the imaginary material you're imagining you've shown me.

You did this to yourself, of course, by trying to make points in a debate by making foolish, fraudulent claims that you couldn't back up, but it should be obvious to almost everyone, perhaps even to you, that you have no more credibility on this forum whatsoever. Of course, you never did as far as I was concerned, but now you've proven it for all to see.

BTW, trying to debate with someone who tries to win by lying about the scientific evidence supporting their position is indeed a big waste of time, as you have clearly demonstrated in this sequence of exchanges between us.

 

There is plenty of evidence that the recent past was warmer than today as you were already shown but your principle motivations here are to bait and flame . Its the US centric political dynamic driving your continued participation here and I am niether.

These graphs are interactive and link to their abstracts

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-history/

This one even provides the raw data used at the foot of the page

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Needless to saymore trolling LOLOLOLs wont be long in coming

 

The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo injected a 20-million metric ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. It has a significant climate impact, cooling the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact.

Now tell me, how much has human-caused CO2 allegedly warmed the Earth's surface??

 

The aerosol dissipates in fairly short order while the CO2 hangs around. That's why the longer term trend is increased temperature.

You're welcome.

 

and how exactly does that address your erroneous claim in the OP? you were making claims as to CO2 emissions not SO2

as RoyL has already posted...

what you've demonstrated here is that your denial is not based scientific reality but is ideology driven...

- - - Updated - - -

there's nothing like scientific ignorance and burying your head in the sand to perpetuate self delusion...

 

Well,okay...And you're welcome too...

http://www.geotimes.org/mar02/geophen.html