rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

Oh my, your self enamoured charm is really starting to grow on me.

 

Actually, the doom and gloomers are confusing local weather with global temps. For instance, the current warming is localized to the US just as it was localized to Russia last year. Australia shows cooler than average temps this year. That is weather. The temp variations are nowhere out of line statistically globally. Something people miss is at the beginning of the Holocene, it was warmer than it is now and we have actually seen 6000 years of cooling. The predicted warming is less than the temp was then. During the end of the last interglacial, CO2 was close to what we have now and was unable to stop the glaciation. If CO2 forcing were so strong, why would it get cooler?

Another thing that is not taken into consideration is how the Earth maintains or loses energy. The only way it can lose energy is through IR transmission to space. The rate of that transmission increases as the atmosphere temperature increases. This is the regulatory device that maintains a somewhat constant temperature on earth. For CO2 to increase temperatures it would have to decrease that IR transmission yet during the last 10 years during this warming phase, IR transmission has increased along with temp and has not been hindered. This means that at some point in the future, the last 6000 year cooling phase will continue as more heat is released due to warming and as the summer Northern Hemisphere energy decreases as it has since the beginning of the Holocene.

 

Here's a little and simple test even you can perform in the privacy of your own home. Place your car in the garage, close the garage door, open all the windows on your car, sit comfortably in your car, turn on your favorite music, start the car, leave it in park, and then just sit back and experience the next 30 minutes.

If you're still around to contemplate your experience, now think about multiplying what just happened to you by maybe One Billion times per day!! I derive One Billion from 200 million drivers making multiple trips per day plus all the other vehicles and planes and trains who also contribute...if you don't like my number then pick one of your own. And this is just for the USA!

You obviously cannot deny your experience and your contemplation of One Billion events per day. And unless you are a scientist, you don't possess the knowledge to understand the myriad effects these One Billion events have on global ecosystems and climate systems.

BTW; CAVEAT...please don't be so stupid to actually try the above experiment...instead...dig down deep to use all the IQ's you can muster to just ponder how the test might turn out...

 

and just what are the myriad of effects of these one billion events on the global ecosystem, that "scientists" understand ?

 

Climate skepticism is an oil industry sponsored conspiracy!!!! Warmmongers believe this so much that they committed fraud to get funding documents from heartland and then when the documents didn't show anything they forged a memo to show conspiracy.

This thread is a farce!

 

Elevated CO2 levels...

 

.....do tell.

 

OK, you cut English class, and you don't know how to punctuate or use coordinating conjunctions.

Haha, but you write incoherent sentences, which convey all the usual RWNJ "doom and gloom," since whatever disorder governs your syntax causes you to project emotions, which aren't evident.

I'm sorry you are claiming to be an "engineer." You are fabulously unqualified, to hammer a nail.

People who didn't graduate from high school are bad spellers. People who should have been subjected to more rigorous examinations should not have ever been hired, but RWNJ, inc. does things how it wants to, I guess.

Let's have a look, at the Brighton, UK graph, which Anthony Watt likes, so you go ahead and like it, too:





See how Pleistocene Epoch interglacials last just a few thousand years? Ours is already 11,700 years old. But see that red line, over at the RIGHT SIDE, of the graph? That is atmospheric CO2, which went way up, when somebody set fire to all kinds of stuff, cut forests, and polluted.

That CO2 is up around 400 ppm, headed for over 1000 ppm, CH4 is no longer in ppbillion, NO2 and SO2 are present, but just wait, until sea level goes up, and lunar tides pop some volcanoes!

Industrial GHGs, including a bunch of weird methanes are in the atmosphere, like never before because they never existed, until the 20th Century.

Thus concludes part I of my proof, the Holocene Epoch interglacial will result, in runaway warming, when temperatures rise, slowly, to melt all the glaciers and the northern ice cap, so northern hemisphere average temperatures are rising, faster than sourthern temperatures.

Of course, if you want to offer another ridiculous, childish rant, with "engineer" tech-talk, like "doom and gloom," we can talk about how you like to watch choo-choo trains, or whatever, but dude, at university, we had some smart people. I didn't see you, in their company.

If you want to claim "engineering" or re-establish your claim, how the Holocene Optimum Warm Period already happened, the Minoan Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period already happened, but solar intensity is a bit down, and truth be told, we probably should have been into re-glaciation, as of the Maunder Minimum, but hey!

By the time of the Little Ice Age, we probably should have been on our way, down. But atmospheric CO2 couldn't start down, from 280 ppm.

SOMEBODY jacked the CO2 and all kinds of other GHGs, way UP! That means the interglacial may be over, but the Anthrocene Thermal Maximum isn't here, yet! So what kind of choo-choo Lionel do you have, which says re-glaciation is on the way? Ain't gonna.

When that northern cap fails, and GHGs are even more off the hook, get a clue, choo-choo! The Earth will be steaming along, to the Anthrocene Thermal Maximum, and you won't be alive.

The Quaternary Ice Age will definitely come to an end, with AGW and climate change. We have enough GHGs, to keep us too warm, to reglaciate, for a couple of hundred thousand years, and by the time any human does anything about CO2, we will be eating bigger, more frequent storms, the oceanic food web will fail, and then warming and sea level rise will both accelerate.

Your un-sciencey engineering flops really ploppy, you know? Your "hysterical" rants, in RWNJ Eglis include the mandatory "doom and gloom" allegation. Don't forget to do something, about your emotions, since you are the one, claiming emotions. You sure don't do homework.

I guess college must have been really special, for you. Did you send away for a course?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

Tell you what. 5000 years is plenty, for an interglacial period. We were due, already, anytime after the Holocene Thermal Optimum. But we've been REALLY DUE, for re-glaciation, since the Little Ice Age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/interglacial.html

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/ajahn/TheoriesLGI_Jahn.pdf

This gets REALLY interesting and definitive:

I recommend you check THIS link, since you need to be prodded, to run searches or read sciencey stuff.

You know, this is a great, little study, from 2005, but it is totally dated, since today is 2012, and most of the good stuff with coral came out, with a boom, in 2008 or 2009, claiming mass extinctions any time CO2 went off the hook, so by 2010, skepticalscience.com had a lot of forum activity, starting April, re Mass Extinction Event 6.

So we need the CO2-acidification-coral guys to read the interglacial guys' studies and vice-versa, and by the time critters are really dying out, and they are already konking at 100 x normal rate, we will have some kind of academic agreement, that we are heading for the Anthrocene Thermal Maximum, similar to other warmups, only ours will happen in a geologic blip.

------------------------

You know, I hate to just tell an author of so many classic failure posts how to write, since you guys who keep posting complete garbage will just keep up the illiterate rants, but hey, the current interglacial has been on, for 11,700 years, already.

We are DUE, for a cool-down. Our current interglacial is less hot, than the Penultimate Interglacial, due to orbital variations. By the Little Ice Age, we were way due, for an easy decline, in temps.

But what always happens, when CO2 goes off the hook, not as much as that red line, ON THE RIGHT OF THE NICE GRAPH shows, the Earth ALWAYS suffers a mass extinction event, concurrent with a lot of sudden oceanic acidification and warming.

The old-style warmings and extinctions took millions of years, to kill off all kinds of species and families, since the rise in CO2 ALWAYS preceded climatic disasters, but if you look at what humans are doing, and how stupid so many of the humans are, and how they can't watch Forrest Gump or run searches or read sciencey websites, it looks like a lot of humans are just not going to make it.

There won't be another ice age OR a gradual cooldown, not even in some private Idaho.

Go ahead and post another irrational denier post, with spelling and grammatical errors, except for "doom and gloom" and "hysteria," since you learned how to spell those words. A little detail, like they don't apply here doesn't seem to bother you, since hey, those are words you can spell!

 

I think you need to take that test then you can surmise for yourself what the myriad impacts might be...

 

During those other historic high levels of CO2 which have been documented, there wasn't 7 billion people trying to live off of Earth's resources. 1000's of years ago people adapted to environmental issues or they perished...and there was no government to intervene. People would migrate around the world as necessary while today the concept of mass-migration is probably laughable. 1000's of years ago people created sustainable lives with much of their focus on shelter and food; today 90% of Americans can't last one week without a trip to Wal-Mart!

No matter the root causes of elevated CO2 levels, whether it's a natural cycle of Earth, or from mankind's contributions, if Earth is going to increase in temperature, and we can predict the potential outcomes of this warming, then we would be a stupid bunch of people to ignore these potential outcomes. Seems we have three choices; do nothing...try to be proactive...forced to be reactive. I suspect anyone with an IQ over 58 can ascertain for themselves that 'doing nothing' and 'forced to be reactive' are the worst choices!

Unfortunately this is when most of us will learn the meaning of 'survival of the fittest'...

 

The assumption here seems to be that 'we' know what to do. There is no evidence at all for that assumption.

And I know my IQ is above 58 (it's at least 67, I swear) so I have ascertained that many times, doing nothing is exactly the right thing.

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/ajahn/TheoriesLGI_Jahn.pdf

Jahn, et al continues, with a lot of model sims. The interesting thing in the consensus of all the studies reviewed is by 2005, all these scientists knew two things:

1. Earth's orbit is more circular, similar to the inter-glacial period, of 400,000 years ago. So we get to have an easy drop, into re-glaciation, or we won't drop, unless something gets the orbit all weird, again.

2. Science knew about the greenhouse effect. So when researchers tried to stimulate re-glaciation, in their 2000-era climate models, they had to get atmospheric CO2 levels, which were kind of low.

OK, since this all got back to school, in 2005, we had a LOT more information. But the upshot of all this is the climate modelers don't see re-glaciation, for 50,000 more years.

Atmospheric and geology information reveals a a different inception, than glacial. We will see a return, to a hot-house planet, which will melt every last bit, of perennial ice. Only isolated cap ice is expected, for Phase III, of runaway warming.

Your couple of thousand years proposition, for re-glaciation is a sure failure. So much failure!

So much arrogance! Got more?

On page 21, Jahn, et al examines glacial termination:

 

Of course, this is a 2005 reprise, of climate model studies, which makes this interesting, but NOT DEFINITIVE, TODAY. But the next section on pg.22 shows Jahn intended to be thorough:

MIS 11 is the interglacial period of 400,000 years ago, which is expected to help define out interglacial, but this assumes humans haven't materially intervened, to set fires and clear forests and introduce invasive species, for 10,000 years, while burning fossil fuels, actively, for 160 years.

Dr.Richard Alley of Penn State U. is one of the leading geologists, in the world, and anybody who comes across Dr.Alley's speeches, on YouTube is encouraged, to lend an ear, since he's great:

Doink! Of course, we already know there is an NH lead, since the NH is warming, faster than the SH, NOW! Jahn, et al could have gotten that in, but 2001-5 is apparently before the internet was as fast, as it is, today.

Jahn, et al should have been able to see, how the northern cap ice will fail, and it is failing, and northern temperatures are warming, already. Somebody studied that, as of 2005.

Somebody besides me knows, how when that northern cap ice fails, and GHGs are even more off the hook, temperatures and sea level rise are a-gonna take off. No two ways. No Republican platform haggling will get past that little tax return issue.

THIS may be the most important part, of Jahn, et al. CH4 (methane) has to clear, before Antarctica re-freezes. But if somebody out-gasses that CH4, faster than any other time, in geologic history, with the same going on, for CO2, and emits industrial methane variants, the CH4 exchange will get so boggled, the CH4 and industrial variants will heat up the Earth, faster than ever, and it will stay hot, longer than ever.

If your couple of thousand years re-glaciation theory hasn't failed, Hoosier8, let me know.

Let's review your latest irrational, unreferenced rant, which oozes charlatanry:

1. Who in the world are the "doom and gloomers?" Since your English usages are so bad, and your precision is so bad, along comes your rant, and you get right to irrelevant ranting, about unreferenced weather patterns and a basic truth, about how temperatures WERE warmer, which is called the Holocene Thermal Optimum or any of the warm periods.

You are suppressing, how high temp records vs. low temp records moved, world-wide, from 2-1, 2010, to 3-1, 2012, while solar intensity was mild, and a lot of perennial ice melted. What your are doing is in the area, of trolling, since you finally got a fact out, but since it is irrelevant, to any proper scientific method, your fact is junk. You need to call the Holocene Thermal Optimum what it is, rather than allude to it, by your semi-literate ranting, in the course of your circular anti-logic.

2. You are completely WRONG. With more heat and water, in the climate system, more natural disasters are happening, more high temp records are falling, more perennial ice is melting, and the Earth is still heating up, so it radiates, more, into space, GHGs or not!

You are so completely anti-science, you just rant out some circular anti-logic and "doom and gloom" and "hysterical," and YOU can't write an entire paragraph, which makes sense, with complete, coherent sentences! So much links!

So where's YOUR links, Hoosier? Got any?

 

Typical behavior of a true believer. Attack the person. What a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

You also show a spike in CO2 but not a spike in temperature, which is the end all of your belief system and what the Hansen computer models erroneously predicted.

The Eemian lasted approximately 16 thousand years so just making guesses like you are doing doesn't cut the mustard. Interglacials last from 15,000 to 20,000 years which provide a respite from the normal state of the natural world, an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial started approximately 12,000 years ago and we are still cooler than the beginning of the Holocene. The Eemian was warmer than this interglacial by as much as 5C to 10C and seas were as much as 10 to 15 feet higher which means that we could still get warmer and be within natural limits and climate variability of an interglacial. The climate during an interglacial has shown to be unstable and large shifts in climate can occur in a relatively short period of time in fact possibly decades to a few years. Taking a couple hundred years to predict overall trend as the AGW crowd does is useless since it is always going up or down in such a short peroid. Since the Holocene optimum approx 6000 years ago the temperature trend is cooler.

Nobody knows what will happen (except you of course) but if you read some of the scientific journals you will find that much is still not known. For instance, exactly how the North Atlantic, possibly the biggest driver of NH climate change works or if a CO2 rise will make the climate shift dramatically.

 

From Jahn, et al:

You know what these Paleo-climatic clowns didn't do? They didn't go through all the human-caused variables, when humans caused CO2, to go from 280 ppm, to 475 ppm or so, by the time Alexandra Jahn did this now-quaint paper.

What is apparent is research knew about orbital variations, so Jahn, et al is still interesting.

So, Hoosier8, even if your were up, on 1995-2005 era models, with ridiculously low levels of atmospheric CO2 plugged in, you can't get any closer, to re-glaciation, than 10-50K. These guys at McGill plugged in double CO2 values, and they seem to think the Earth can return to some sort of normalcy, but they left out CH4, even after noting its significance, in a previous chapter, and industrial GHGs are not mentioned, in the entire paper.

Of course, if you know CO2 is 400 ppm, headed for over 1000 ppm, you could offer up some kind of model, and if you were smart enough, to notice how CH4 is going off the hook, with industrial GHGs, you could predict MAYBE the Earth could re-glaciate, in 100K years. Next, we can look at more modern papers, from skepticalscience.com, or what?

But your 2000 year recovery is not making it, past 1999, I bet.

 

I take it no one here knows the acronym TL;DR

I think I'll get some popcorn and watch everyone duke it out.

 

1. Where's your accusations, of hysteria? You don't have accusations, of hysteria, now, since YOU are hysterical. Your previous projections indicate you have mood swings, and despite this, you accuse other people of hysteria and gloom, when we are nowhere near you, and we don't feel your crazy mood swings. You feel an "attack," rather than a description, of your extremely flawed writing. Is there a delusion you have failed to demonstrate, yet?

2. Your delusional ranting meanders, to describing a graph I didn't plot. I'd put that red line, even more up the chart, since we are at 400 ppm, now.

Earth to Indiana: CO2 is the leading climatic forcer. When CO2 concentration rises THAT fast, it causes a mass extinction event, via runaway oceanic acidification and global warming, to cause climate change. During initial warming, atmospheric CO2 gets joined, by more CO2 and CH4, then by NO2 and SO2. A load of industrial GHGs are up there, already, with more on the way.

CO2 is leading temperature and climate. So what is left out is yet to happen. Of course, if you could READ, and you chose, to READ, you could go to this thread or another PF thread or another website and READ what happens, when GHGs get way up, which is temperatures follow, in a geologic second. Our lives are a geologic fraction of a second, so don't get too hysterical, if temperature hasn't followed CO2, but some warming is left over, even after perennial ice melted, during a time of solar mildness.

When more ice melts, and more GHG concentration reaches a tipping point, global average temps and sea level rise both ACCELERATE. I keep saying this tipping point is when the northern cap melts, every summer. You keep refusing, to READ. Did I tell you how bad your WRITING is?

It's bad, guy!

3. Interglacials are getting measured subjectively, dude. The Eemian on the graph does have 15,000 years or so, above modern average temperatures, but the maximum spike happened, in a geologic instant, to head right back down, toward re-glaciation. MIS 11 has more character, which should be similar to ours, but our temperature isn't at maximum yet.

So whatever the guys on the net have to say about relative IG length, go ahead and post that. That can be your thing, since you went and found the Eemian, for us.

Try this: The GREENHOUSE EFFECT. We already know the greenhouse effect will result in a rise, in average global temps. You just don't know how to factor increased GHGs and albedo failure, both imminent. We'll be dead, right about the time this gets bad, with a load of sea animals.

4. HEY! Are you even trying to read? Do you need a translator, into your own brand of rant?

The failure of the northern ice albedo is the separator, between north and south warming.

Trade currents in the North Atlantic are failing, presenting a sea level rise hotspot, between Cape Hatteras and Boston.

What have I been writing? What have I been linking to? Does "CO2 is the main climatic forcer" ring, familiar? How's SciAm, AGU Journal, Nature, and more? How's NOAA, NASA, skepticalscience.com, and more, for websites?

Why aren't YOU reading any of this? Because you read idiotic propaganda, is the answer. You read foolishness, which describes non-scientific prejudice. You read stuff by people, with some kind of Hitler-complex, since the lies Hitler told were BIG LIES. See what Adolf had to say, about BIG LIES. Those were Adolf's kind.

 

Yeah. I'm guessing this has something to do with requiring actual information before making decisions, instead of groupthinking.

Prime example: I was a MMCC skeptic until this:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Weird how that works huh, how some people make decisions based on facts that they can see and hold, over the comfort of group think, huh?

 

The skinny on Dr. Richard Muller of CAL is his study was funded, in part, by Charles Koch, oil magnate. Muller endorsed an interpretation, of existing data, by his grad student, Robert Rhode.

Muller then denied climate change, to whip out his natural gas hardbound, since the Kochs want to frack, chase homeowners off their land, while polluting, and then flip property.

All kinds of better profs are at CAL. See John Harte, Alex Fillipenko, Robert Reich, the works.

You can tell, if an environment prof is any good, if he's heard of the late 2000s studies, of coral, at skepticalscience.com, which show how every time CO2 levels rise, fast enough, a mass extinction event happens.

Muller is a lousy physics guy, who is a gold-digging clown.

 

OK, but here are the facts of the Berkeley surface temperature study. He used more surface data vs CO2 data than has ever been used, and attempted to look for variants such as solar effects, and volcanic activity. When any laymen looks at how the temperature vs. CO2 tracks when accounting for these other variables, it becomes very easy to see that the info clearly points to man made warming trends, without using models, but instead matching data sets, and showing correlation.

http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/

 

This is the type of phrasing that I absolutely love.

To start with, you should remove "global warming deniers", and use the more correct "Anthropological Global Warming". Because very few people I know deny the fact of global warming at all (and most of them are "Young Earth" nutcases). And then you have a great many more who simply are not convinced yet that there is enough scientific evidence to make any kind of determination of any kind, but accept that the planet is warming.

Myself, I do not accept Anthropological Global Warming simply because I see it as entirely natural. The planet has been warming for tens of thousands of years, and will continue to warm. And many things like the accelleration of warming I had explained to me by a geology teacher decades ago. Plus to me the biggest problem is simply that we are using the wrong benchmarks for what we percieve as a "baseline".

The first real "scientific measurements" that everybody seems to like to use for what temperature the planet should be was in the 1700's. In almost every survey or article I see, this is generally used as what they think the temperature should be. However, this was also during the height of the "Little Ice Age". I am aware that they pick a date prior to the Industrial Revolution, but I do not write this up as a conspiracy, simply as sloppy science.

It would be like if I took a temperature reading in December of Connecticut, then use that as a basis for what temperatures should be like in August.

However, as you have seen, I pretty much universally reject "conspiracy theories", and am a confirmed skeptic. I like to see proof, not theories and suspicians. To me, the concept of man-made (or Anthropological) Global Warming is still very much out. I also remember the time when a great many of these scientists on the "Global Warming" kick were also on the "Global Cooling" and "New Ice Age" kick 30-40 years ago. With the same data, same information, but with a totally opposite "dire circumstance".

 

Hey, I'm into BE. I am just telling you, Dr.Muller is riding his grad student, ROBERT RHODE, to then deflect, from climate change, which is happening, as a direct result of warming, so Muller pushes his natural gas book, and his fund-source Charlie Koch and his brother David get to go fracking! Just saying. Have you been to Bezerkeley?

Here's another link, to a guy who is into Mass Extinction Event 6, if you are into CAL or whatever:

http://www.calloflife.org/p-links.htm

http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html

The mysterium site is from David Ulansey. He is Executive Producer of the Call of Life film and creator and webmaster of massextinction.net, the Web’s oldest and most comprehensive source of information on the current mass extinction. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and has taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Boston University, Barnard College (Columbia University), the University of Vermont, and Princeton University. He is the author of The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (Oxford University Press), and has published articles in Scientific American and numerous other scholarly journals.

Dr.Muller is just offering a fallback position, to deniers, while pushing natural gas. The carbon credits guys just invite these guys, Kochs and whomever, to frack and fund Heartland Corp., and Muller is their rear-guard tool.

 

And I am suposed to take seriously sensationalist websites that are created first by a filmmaker, and the other by a Professor of Philosophy and Religion?

There have been at least 2 dozen extinction events over the history of our planet. And there are likely a great many more we simply have not found evidence about because of fossil records and closeness to other extinction events. And in this most recent series of glaciations (the Holocene) that there have been 7 different glacial eras, each with associated extinctions both at the beginning and end of the phases.

It always amazes me how people take things as they are now, and just assume that is natural, and see any change as an aberration. Like the ice covered North Pole. It is well known that having such an extensive ice cap is actually an exception in the history of our planet, and not the norm. And that as little as 3 million years ago Antarctica was covered with temperate forests.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041101/leaves.html?ct=6817.32046957226

It always amazes me when people seem to think something as dynamic as our planet should be a static object that never changes. And it has absolutely nothing to do with your conspiracy theories. In fact, I oftne find the exact opposite of the OP, that a great many of the people who push Global Warming agendas actually believe in the conspiracies.

I do not get my information from Professors of Religion, but instead generally from geology. And by looking at histories many times longer then that held in the recent and unusual ice caps that we have now.

 

In many areas we already have a water crisis. Do you actually believe we will suddenly have more potable water than we need? I don't. I believe it will worsen because of population growth and greater demands on the overall system. It will really worsen if climate change exacerbates this issue. So if we already have crisis, and we have the potential to exacerbate the crisis, why would we choose to do nothing?

What would be the downside of a public project, in partnership with the private sector, for example, to build more water reservoirs, to desalinate salt water, and to distribute this water to most parts of the USA in canals and pipelines? What would be the downside to having too much water in the USA?

I see this type of project similar to the WPA projects, spending lots of government money but actually getting something in return, including putting millions to work, exciting the economy, developing rural areas, etc.

What is the downside of doing NOTHING?

What is the downside of doing SOMETHING?

 

Don't let me displace the grave-mould.