AGW vs NATURE- One point at a time

I am going to attempt to start a thread that will concisely argue each point one at a time. The rules of the thread are that you must address each point one at a time, not flood it with numerous points therefor bores the hell out of everyone having to read through. How about we attempt to keep each post to a minimum of 100 words......lol. We may agree on points, which means we can move on to the next point. REMEMBER: The responses must be concise with "NO" repetition.

I may as well raise the first point for discussion: What are historical patterns of CO2 and warming? Again keep response concise, we want to reflect on one point at a time. We'll get to bankers in due course.....LMAO

 

So, how about raising a point.

No maybe I should ask, can you prove the correlation of CO2 and the Warming of the earth’s atmosphere?

 

Well we do know there has been vast changes in the CO2 over time. Many of the spikes have been associated with massive volcanic out gassing

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/permian/siberiantraps.html

Is thought to be the biggest volcanic event that we can identify - I coincided with one of the worst extinction periods in our planets history

 

Yes true, However nobody has determined categorically that CO2 has not been associated with the end of a warming period and actually cooled the atmosphere (to the best of my knowledge at this point). The question was to be studied some time ago, but the fact that it has been overshadowed by the cultists; the results (if any) have been obscured by the political debate. Which are why, these issues become so intense.

 

Volcanoes cause cooling due to sulphur dioxide. They emit 130 "million" tonnes of CO2 per year on average as opposed to 30 "billion" tonnes of CO2 from human activity. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/21/volcanoes/

The following graph is an indication of a correlation between CO2 and Warming, but one must understand the lag in CO2 as opposed to warming is due to AMPLIFICATION. View attachment 18661

 

A graph, unreferenced... This is your proof? Perhaps we could have something to demonstrate that you understand what figures and assumptions the author of the graph used to create this supposed evidence of correlation between CO2 and Atmospheric temperature? Maybe you could extrapolate your own understanding. The problem with your graph is that as you so importantly point out that volcanoes causing cooling down to Sulphur dioxide ( I wonder how you can demonstrate that) but measurements are not exactly a precise exercise more than say 50 years ago. So some extrapolation of the correlation you are attempting to answer would be far better than simply saying this is the case.

 

I thought I did this, but jumped to the conclusion that some may have seen or heard of this before. The graph indicates a correlation between CO2 and temperature obviously, but what some have argued is that heating precedes the rise of CO2 in some instances in this graph. This graph is up to 400,000 years from the present, but as can be noted as an extra, CO2 had only risen to 290parts per million and stayed steady at this point until the last 250 years(Industrial revolution), whereas today we are sitting currently at 395ppm. When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

[video=youtube;hEvu1RCn4wI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEvu1RCn4wI[/video]This is a simple presentation on volcanoe vs human emissions.

 

TV CO2 has never driven temperature here on Earth.

The sun drives the temperature and then the temperature after heating the atmosphere, oceans and land which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere driving up the concentration of CO2.

Does CO2 correlate with the global mean average temperture, by some sort of lag as to what the temperature is doing?????

On a small time scale NO, (11,000 years)

On a medium time scale YES, (450,000 years)

On a long time scale NO, (millions of years)

I have actually lost the reference to this graph but its from a scientific paper which i will attempt one day to find again, its in one or more of my older posts.

Garry there might be something on the subject that CO2 may actually cool the Earth after it reaches its saturation point.

 

This is a brief information about volcanoes effects but dispelling of the myth of actual cooling in last 16 years.[video=youtube;u_0JZRIHFtk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk[/video]

 

Sorry but using a warmist site with a misleading name ISNT going to help you prove your RELIGION.

 

TV you must accept the fact that there has been no warming for 16 years.

Leading global warming scienstist agree there has been no warming in the last 16 years.

 

I am ready for an open and honest debate, but if you constantly post with data from the algorians website skeptical science its going to be a waste of time.

 

So you have concluded that this is the case because it was done before? The question has not even been answered by scientists (to the best of my knowledge), yet you have concluded that this is the case?

Due to the sequestering of CO2 on the world stage, it can only be the case that Warming precedes the release of CO2 Naturally. The question is what correlation does the release of CO2 in the atmosphere to warming of the planet? This is probably the most important issue, as this could move the climate in another direction that opposes the AGW theory.

Fair enough, but do you expect me to believe that 280ppm is the maximum level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere? The problem is that you are associating natural resources back only 450,000 years which is a drop in the ocean. From what I have seen, maximum Warming has actually decreased over a longer period creating cooler peaks over millions of years. However the cooling has been longer and lower. Due to the fact that this is extremely hard to prove, again because of accurate recording being so small, this is a study that needs far better and newer ideas to study that have not come to being.

Sorry, but I have a real problem with that source. This comes back to the problem of the IPCC, not being able to account present actual observations with the continued build-up of CO2. No significant rise of temperature in comparison removes this concept from supporting correlation of CO2 to global temperatures. I have no intention on getting on this tangent. The article you have linked as supportive evidence is no more than opinion written from IPCC findings.

Volcanic activity verses Human emissions are a tangent that is not answering the question asked. I thought you wanted concisely argue each point one at a time. I have raised a point of correlation between CO2 and Global temperatures. No human CO2 emissions, not volcanic emissions.

 

Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those who are skeptical of the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.[17] The site does not contain banner ads and is funded entirely by Cook himself, with reader donations.[1] All regular and guest authors contribute strictly voluntarily.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

 

FFS, here we go again........LMFAO. Garry, please don't analyse every word or sentence. Please read my previous post re: sceptical science.

 

For heavens sake lets debate the issues and leave skeptical science and the algorians out of it.

 

Why leave sceptical science out of it.

 

flubbering again......its obvious aint it???

I'm going to watch pretty woman........oooouuuurrroooo.

 

No it's not.....you'll need to explain

 

I have, and I have problems with this source. If you do not want to debate what you are saying as throw away insults, then don't say them. You want concisely argue each point one at a time. That is exactly what I am doing. If you want to state measurements then do so in clear concise manner and do not leave things to interpretation.

So the question is not what you believe is the cause of previous warming, it is simply can you prove a correlation of CO2 to the earth's global temperatures?

Nothing more, it is a clear concise question that needs no alignment to AGW, volcanos or anything else. If you can provide evidence of such a correlation, get on with it. Otherwise stop trying to adjust the debate against your own rules.

 

Well I guess we are all fuked then. Because nobody can prove anything.....lol. But one thing that should stand out in the debate is points of good logic, however, anything can sound logical until that logic is surpassed by better logic.

Any site that is clearly funded by a vested interest should not be included and sceptical science as far as I can see is a self funded blog and contributed to by many people, much the same is Wikipedia but with a sole focus on science.

 

LOL... So that would be NO then?

Do we agree on that point? Can we move on to another point?

It is not the site I am disputing but the article. It is clearly an interpretation based upon the IPCC's AR4 report. As I have explained before, I have trouble with this source. I will not refuse sources from this site as long as they clearly demonstrate, without prejudice and manipulation, exactly what you are trying to support. However, most of the articles on this site are different interpretations of one source. I do not think it could provide the FACTS as they stand.

There are many more articles on the WEB that can be from other sources which would make it easier for you, but provide what you want just do not expect to have any quality from them.

As you seem to be trying to build a logical fallacy, I am sure you are actually not going to go anywhere here.

So, following your rules for debate and assuming you agree that you cannot answer the original question, can we move to another point?

 

I was making reference to science as a whole in terms of not being able to prove anything, suggesting that us lay people can only rely on sources that provide good logic. The proof that we provide is what we are able to harness from the web. Make sure when you ask a question or make comment that you make it nice and clear. What was it that you suspected I couldn't provide prove "or" find good logic for?

 

So, is that NO then? I have asked clear and concise questions and stated clearly why I oppose one source.

So far I have been clear and concise which is more than I can say for you.

So for a third time (which is against your debate rules) Can you prove correlation between CO2 and Warming Global temperature?

Clear and concise. So perhaps you could provide the same courtesy? Be clear and concise as you demand?

 

There are 2 things I'm going to Ask/say 1.) Pose your question and make it concise and clear. There was a lot posted between then and now so therefore don't want to second guess what you want to ask. 2) if you aren't up to date, sit out for awhile until you get your head around it. There is much that has been discussed on these threads regarding the subject. I love debating this with dumb but find his tangents are too messy for good debate and way too winded but happens to be understanding of points raised. he may not think the same about me! He has agreed to discuss points concisely "and" to the point. He has decided to watch pretty woman tonight....lol. I'm not going to go over old ground, so read through the last thread thoroughly and objectively. Make sure you counter research as well! Again, if you want to pose a question make sure you are not muddying your post with other crap but just that question.