Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

" Not susceptible to a specific disease". What was removed from the definition. ACIP's charter in 1964 dealt with "preventable" diseases. Like the smallpox, measles and polio vaccines everyone got back in the days. Lets get back to the climate. My bad.

 

In a chart that covers over 800 ky? Where the true levels of the past can only be extrapolated from the most flimsy of evidence?

Here is something that many do not want you to know. We actually do not know things like CO2 levels that far back for a fact. We can only extrapolate them by looking at things like what plants and animals were living at what climates and latitudes, and then extrapolating what they would have needed to survive. There is no real way to "know" things like CO2, Oxygen, Nitrogen, or any other gas levels to any real degree of certainty that far back. We can only extrapolate it from the evidence we can find.

And because of this, we only have the barest ideas of what those amounts actually were once you go back more than a few thousand years. And anybody that tells you otherwise is either selling a bridge or trying to peddle snake oil. And also why I tend to side with the geologists, who have in general been fighting the Climate Alarmists the most over the past decade or so, and not all that long ago handed them a resounding defeat when they tried to poke their noses into something that is their bailiwick.

 

<sigh> Temperature and CO2 are strongly correlated in the paleoclimate record because temperature affects CO2, not because CO2 affects temperature. This has been explained to you, very clearly and patiently, multiple times. CO2 and temperature are becoming decoupled in the modern era because CO2 is being released much more by human activities rather than just by the warming of the oceans.

Call it ~0.1C. We can't yet predict what the sun will do, and that will be the principal factor affecting global surface temperature. If the sun becomes inactive relative to its historical average, as some astrophysicists predict, temperatures will fall despite rising CO2, as they did when the sun was inactive 2016-2022.

 

By that time, improvements in solar power technology should make it competitive. There's also nuclear. Of course, all bets are off post-Singularity.

 

????????Well, they use the air bubbles trapped in the ice.

 

Nope.

 

I don’t see “not susceptible to a specific disease” anywhere in the old definition you provided.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or
sprayed into the nose. Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a a specific disease.

We stopped using the old “more effective” (at preventing infection) polio vaccine because it was causing more vaccine derived polio cases than were occurring from wild type poliovirus. The current types are much less effective at preventing infection in the gut but excell in preventing severe disease.

Interestingly, in unvaccinated populations only about 28% of poliovirus infected individuals show any symptoms. And only 5-10% develop serious disease. So it’s asymptomatic rate is approximately double that of Covid.

The other poster brought up vaccines as some kind of example. We aren’t responsible for his act of introducing the topic. It was a good example on his part—showed he denies science that conflicts with his unsubstantiated opinions.

 

I pulled that from a dictionary from the 80s off my shelf.

"immunity" thats what they removed from the definition.

 

The only problem with the ice-core is that it is not a closed-system. There are various things that happen with CO2 in ice-core that cause it to underestimate ancient CO2 levels. These include gravitational compression, which forces CO2 out of the ice over millennia and the high solubility of CO2 relative to N2O and O2 which is absorbed preferentially by liquid in the ice, underestimating CO2’s true values (Jaworowski 1997).

Measurements of the surface-snow in Antarctica has shown that the surface-snow can underestimate atmospheric CO2 by up to 50% (Jaworowski et al 1992).

Quote from Jaworowski:



Stomata-proxy shows CO2 peaking at just below 450ppmv (Steinthorsdottir et al 2013) while the ice-core only shows 240ppmv.

 

Whats your theory? That CO2 was higher than the charts show? Which means we have even less reason to be concerned.

 

My theory is the same as professor Murry Salby, Tom Segalstad, and others, which is, the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is natural and CO2 was higher in the recent past (assuming you accept Stomata-proxy and chemical measurements from the likes of Georg Beck 2007).

It is no more possible to stop the climate from changing than it is to stop the Earth from orbiting the Sun! Every sensible-minded adult on Earth knows this. It is not a question of cost. It is a question of power. Nature has it; we don’t.

 

So what is your hypothesis about causes of increases in atmospheric CO2?

 

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

 

The current increase in atmospheric CO2, in my view, is coming mainly from the oceans, biomass decay, and possibly volcanic. The idea that the CO2 increase could be natural I believe has been confirmed by observations of the carbon isotope ratios, those observations are radically at variance with the predictions of the conventional scientific theories which the IPCC pretends its claims are based upon. The isotope ratios imply that there is 8% human CO2 in the atmosphere today. This is because CO2 has a short life-time as shown by the fast removal of nuclear 14CO2 after the 1963 test-ban treaty stopped nuclear-testing. After 1963, anthropogenic 14CO2 was naturally removed from the atmosphere with a half-life of around 10-12 years (residence time 16 years) with today’s concentration approaching natural equilibrium levels. This means that anthropogenic CO2 cannnot accumulate in the atmosphere for hundreds of years as claimed by the IPCC. The only way that the CO2 increase could stay elevated is if the oceans warmed because that alters the equilibrium 1:50 partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans.

 

Hmmmm!!!
And the half life of C14 is ~5700 years and not ~11 years as you claim.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

 

Thanks for this link, Mitty. Unfortnately, the link has not answered any of my basic objections to the AGW-proposition that I have already voiced here in previous posts. Indeed in most cases it has not even addressed them. So I remain skeptical and will continue to remain so unless or until my objections are addressed and answered to my satisfaction, regardless of what any number of purported experts may contend is the scientific truth.

 

That's your choice.

I, however, prefer to accept the consensus of professional climatologists and scientists that atmospheric CO2 from human activity increases global warming from the green-house effect. And that it's better to reduce man-made CO2 now than to be sorry before and when the fossil fuels are used up, and New York etc is under water.

And FYI the half life of C14 is ~5700 years, and not ~11 years as you claim. The half life of tritium is ~12.5 years.

 

I am talking about the half-life of human CO2-14 in the atmosphere, not the radioactive decay time for C14 which refers to the process by which carbon-14 isotopes decay into nitrogen-14 over time. See the graph below, based on a Wikipedia graph.

 

Unfortunately, your source coyly leaves out the only relevant information:
1. How much infrared radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by CO2, compared to what is absorbed by water vapor, which is both a much stronger greenhouse gas and nearly 100x more abundant near the earth's surface?
2. How much difference does adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air make to its infrared absorption properties?
3. Accepting that increased CO2 has significant effects on radiative heat transfer processes above the altitude where water vapor has almost all condensed out and CO2 consequently becomes the dominant greenhouse gas, how much difference does that make to temperature at the earth's surface, given the amount of water vapor in between?

 

FYI, he was not referring to the radioactive half-life of C14 but to the atmospheric half-life: i.e., how long it takes for half an original quantity of C14 incorporated into CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere (almost all of it by boundary-layer absorption by the oceans, the rest by plants).

 

The scientific consensus on AGW is a lie, as I explain here: https://chipstero7.wordpress.com/2021/12/01/500-increase-in-cardiac-deaths-of-fifa-players-in-2021/

 

I agree with all of that except for the belief that NONE of the current increase in CO2 is man made

 

I believe that some of the increase is from humans, just not the majority.

 

Again, I don’t see a problem with replacing the term “immunity” with a description of what immunity is. Kind of like replacing the term “dog” with “small to medium sized omnivorous mammal domesticated by humans to the point they are often referred to as man’s best friend”.

Public health entities gave so much incorrect advice and withheld so much information vital to health during the pandemic, this rewording of a definition that’s evolved for centuries is irrelevant in comparison.

It’s a distraction like the media trying to distract us with stories about people dying from heat when cold kills far more.

 

This is a bit of a misconception. The removal of human CO2 emissions by the oceans is an equilibrium process: a CO2 molecule from fossil fuel is absorbed by the ocean surface, but another CO2 molecule that may have been in the ocean for millennia is then released, maintaining the equilibrium concentration of CO2 at the ocean surface. CO2 does diffuse down to the lower layers of the ocean, but it takes time. So the increased atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use will slowly be absorbed by the oceans, but it takes at least several centuries for the deep ocean waters to mix with the surface and reach equilibrium CO2 concentration with the atmosphere at the 50:1 ratio. In the meantime, the increase in atmospheric CO2 from use of fossil fuels is still in the air, even if the actual individual molecules that were in fossil fuels only have an atmospheric half-life of 10 years. That's why the isotope ratios are misleading: they equalize with the CO2 at the ocean surface very quickly, but the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains elevated because of fossil fuel use until the whole ocean reaches equilibrium.