More Evidence Against Carbon as a Cause for Global Warming

People who believe that human generated CO2 is the major cause of recent global warming are quite gullible.

People that talk about "People who believe" are religious nuts that are too lazy or stupid to read the science and get the facts.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

People that talk about "People who believe" are religious nuts that are too lazy or stupid to read the science and get the facts.

And people who deny the facts and write off all people who disagree with them as crackpots and worse are stupid, lazy, and intentionally delusional. I think that prety much describes you to a "T" AllHypeNoFacts. You refuse to look at the articles presented even when the article is by someone who is acredited and until recently was one of the loudest proponents of GW, I know, big word; "it means in favor of". you rant against everything yet refuse to take the inititive to actually investigate prior to condemnation. This makes you far lazier than the previous poster and way stupidier.

mdj wrote:

<quoted text>And people who deny the facts and write off all people who disagree with them as crackpots and worse are stupid, lazy, and intentionally delusional. I think that prety much describes you to a "T" AllHypeNoFacts. You refuse to look at the articles presented even when the article is by someone who is acredited and until recently was one of the loudest proponents of GW, I know, big word; "it means in favor of". you rant against everything yet refuse to take the inititive to actually investigate prior to condemnation. This makes you far lazier than the previous poster and way stupidier.

Oh give us a break, and the children you global warmongers tell are not going to have a future.
The theory is 25 years old now. Time is up.
And now even your sources say that La Nina is kicking global warming's a$$ and DELAYING global warming.
Don't you like good news?
Preserve our world, not save it with fear from a non existent crisis.

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh give us a break, and the children you global warmongers tell are not going to have a future.
The theory is 25 years old now. Time is up.
And now even your sources say that La Nina is kicking global warming's a$$ and DELAYING global warming.
Don't you like good news?
Preserve our world, not save it with fear from a non existent crisis.

Your point is???

The sun and the ocean are the driving fators in GW. The atmosphere is a very minor player.

He hasn't been on the "front lines of global warming research". The article flunks in the first sentence (never mind the title)

He did carbon accounting, ie adding up carbon emissions over Australia. That has nothing to do with the effects of those carbon emissions.

But lets look at his arguments:

"1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it."

I like his use of "we" to imply he had something to do with it. This article contradicts his claim:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

"2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None..."

Here's a summary of some evidence he claims doesn't exist:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

"3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001"

Irrelevant. The satellite records show plenty of variability because of temporary weather effects. There are plenty of multi-year periods where temperature doesn't rise. It's the long term trend that's upward:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

In 1995 would he have been claiming warming stopped in 1991? He would have been proven wrong.

and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980)...."

Again irrelevant. In short time periods temperature can rise and fall in large amounts temporarily. Look at the spike in 1998 for example:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

"4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect...."

This is nothing new, and it's not an argument against manmade global warming. It's in the IPCC reports.

Here's an article from the same site about it specifically noting why it isn't an argument:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

The guy has no good arguments, I've seen all of these before laid out by laypeople. Maybe if he actually was at the "front lines of global warming research" he would have better arguments, or perhaps knowledge would enlighten him that manmade global warming is a serious consideration and cannot be dismissed so lightly.

Is it wrong of me to think that realclimate.org is not a good resource for climate science?

What I mean here is that these AGW'er on topix are always talking about how big oil must have paid off the scientists who deny that CO2 is a major factor in Global Warming or that man has anything to do with global warming at all. But can't the same be said of the folks at realclimate.org ? As these are Government funded scientists and if they don't keep following the CO2 mantra their meal ticket will get cut off?

Personally I think the Sun is the biggest cause of recent warming and brother let me tell you these next few years or even decades are gonna get COLD!! No sun spots currently, yes that means better cell phone reception. But it also means that the sun is putting out less energy. Look it up.

Metroid74 wrote:

Is it wrong of me to think that realclimate.org is not a good resource for climate science?
[QUOTE]
Yes. Talking to real scientists or at least looking at what they are saying about selected topics is good for anyones understanding of subjects which may not be 'either/or'.
[QUOTE who="Metroid74"]
What I mean here is that these AGW'er on topix are always talking about how big oil must have paid off the scientists who deny that CO2 is a major factor in Global Warming or that man has anything to do with global warming at all.
[QUOTE]
Scientist will get paid pretty much regardless of what results they come up with. The only criteria for funding is usually whether it is a good question, not what the answer is. OTOH, their is definite evidence of a systematic campaign of 'disinformation' by those whose wealth is threatened by change, especially coal companies who have strong ties to government subsidy campaigns to 'keep men working', etc. Oil is not the biggest backer here.
[QUOTE who="Metroid74"]
But can't the same be said of the folks at realclimate.org ? As these are Government funded scientists and if they don't keep following the CO2 mantra their meal ticket will get cut off?
[QUOTE]
Nope. THey have no financial incentive as I said, because they will be asked to find answers as long as the question is a good one.
[QUOTE who="Metroid74"]
Personally I think the Sun is the biggest cause of recent warming and brother let me tell you these next few years or even decades are gonna get COLD!!
[QUOTE]
Well, nice for you. Do you believe in the tooth fairy too? Nice to see that some people don't need science to make up their minds. They can just consult their 'gut feeling'...
[QUOTE who="Metroid74"]
No sun spots currently, yes that means better cell phone reception. But it also means that the sun is putting out less energy. Look it up.

There is no (significant) change to the solar constant. It varies with sunspots but by a MINUTE amount ( > 0.1%)
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SO LAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/ACRI M3/ACRIM3composite_nnaa3.jpg
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844...

Metroid74 wrote:

Is it wrong of me to think that realclimate.org is not a good resource for climate science?
What I mean here is that these AGW'er on topix are always talking about how big oil must have paid off the scientists who deny that CO2 is a major factor in Global Warming or that man has anything to do with global warming at all. But can't the same be said of the folks at realclimate.org ? As these are Government funded scientists and if they don't keep following the CO2 mantra their meal ticket will get cut off?
Personally I think the Sun is the biggest cause of recent warming and brother let me tell you these next few years or even decades are gonna get COLD!! No sun spots currently, yes that means better cell phone reception. But it also means that the sun is putting out less energy. Look it up.

You need to "kiss some frogs". Realclimate has a political agenda as do many web sites. What is important is when you look at a site with a clear agenda that you look for factual information and ignore the opinion. What I do it to try to verify any facts they present.

I agree that the sun is the primary cause of our climate. So far this July we have had one sun spot. The sun is more than spots but spots are the most easily identified indication of solar activity.

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh give us a break, and the children you global warmongers tell are not going to have a future.
The theory is 25 years old now. Time is up.
And now even your sources say that La Nina is kicking global warming's a$$ and DELAYING global warming.
Don't you like good news?
Preserve our world, not save it with fear from a non existent crisis.

did you attach to the wrong post or are you getting alzhiemers?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no (significant) change to the solar constant. It varies with sunspots but by a MINUTE amount ( > 0.1%)
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SO LAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/ACRI M3/ACRIM3composite_nnaa3.jpg
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844...

You call less than .1% a minute amount? then what would you quantify less than .03%? that is the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. You can believe that less than .03% of a very weak green house gas is a significant factor in AGW? but can't believe a .1% change in the Sun can have an effect. huh...

As I have learned about the world of money by trying to write accurate models he has learned about the enviroment.

Metroid74 wrote:

<quoted text>
You call less than .1% a minute amount? then what would you quantify less than .03%? that is the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

No. I consider a CHANGE of 0.1% a minor change. Comparing that to the ABSOLUTE level of CO2 is a fraud. The CHANGE in atmospheric CO2 is about 40% which is nearly three orders of magnitude larger than solar changes. And even that is a false comparison because their are different 'sensitivities'. It is fair to say that solar changes of about 0.1% cause temperature changes of about 0.2C but this is cyclical, NOT open ended. And GHGs cause only about 0.6C for a change of nearly 30% so while solar have a more direct effect, GHGs are 'open ended' and have more potential for change.

Metroid74 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can believe that less than .03% of a very weak green house gas is a significant factor in AGW? but can't believe a .1% change in the Sun can have an effect. huh...

A change of 40% in CO2 levels is a more obvious candidate for causing GW than a 0.1 oscillation in solar constant levels. As usual, you try apples/oranges comparisons, not even admitting that solar CYCLES around a constant average will not drive LONG TERM change as with GW.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
No. I consider a CHANGE of 0.1% a minor change. Comparing that to the ABSOLUTE level of CO2 is a fraud. The CHANGE in atmospheric CO2 is about 40% which is nearly three orders of magnitude larger than solar changes. And even that is a false comparison because their are different 'sensitivities'. It is fair to say that solar changes of about 0.1% cause temperature changes of about 0.2C but this is cyclical, NOT open ended. And GHGs cause only about 0.6C for a change of nearly 30% so while solar have a more direct effect, GHGs are 'open ended' and have more potential for change.
<quoted text>
A change of 40% in CO2 levels is a more obvious candidate for causing GW than a 0.1 oscillation in solar constant levels. As usual, you try apples/oranges comparisons, not even admitting that solar CYCLES around a constant average will not drive LONG TERM change as with GW.

40% of .3% is a very small number. More and more scientists are begining to realize this and downplay mans role in GW. When you throw in the fact that man is not responsible for all of it the entire concept of manmade GW takes on the seriousness of a three stooges monolouge. My only question is which stooge are you, curly or shemp?

MDJ wrote:

<quoted text>40% of .3% is a very small number.

So is the lethal dose of botulism toxin. You cannot go by the SIZE of numbers when talking about their relative EFFECT.

And the EFFECT is multiplied by the area of the PLANET, a VERY large number. So are we done 'playing with numbers'?

Fact is that science has established the greenhouse effect of increased GHGs as the primary cause of GW temperature change. Get used to it. If you want a debate on something worth debate, try climate change.At least there we don't have all the facts...

You make about as much sense as a 'numerologist'.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
No. I consider a CHANGE of 0.1% a minor change. Comparing that to the ABSOLUTE level of CO2 is a fraud. The CHANGE in atmospheric CO2 is about 40% which is nearly three orders of magnitude larger than solar changes. And even that is a false comparison because their are different 'sensitivities'. It is fair to say that solar changes of about 0.1% cause temperature changes of about 0.2C but this is cyclical, NOT open ended. And GHGs cause only about 0.6C for a change of nearly 30% so while solar have a more direct effect, GHGs are 'open ended' and have more potential for change.
<quoted text>
A change of 40% in CO2 levels is a more obvious candidate for causing GW than a 0.1 oscillation in solar constant levels. As usual, you try apples/oranges comparisons, not even admitting that solar CYCLES around a constant average will not drive LONG TERM change as with GW.

This may sound ignorant. But let me put it to you this way; Lets give a monetary value to the output of the Sun say..$500,000,000,000.00 and give a value to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, say.. 3 cents. That is a fairly reasonable break down. now I would very happy with a .1 percent increase if that $500 billion was mine. That is a $500 million windfall WOOHOO. now a 40% change in 3 cents is only 1.2cents I'm not gonna get too excited BFD.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
So is the lethal dose of botulism toxin. You cannot go by the SIZE of numbers when talking about their relative EFFECT.
And the EFFECT is multiplied by the area of the PLANET, a VERY large number. So are we done 'playing with numbers'?
Fact is that science has established the greenhouse effect of increased GHGs as the primary cause of GW temperature change. Get used to it. If you want a debate on something worth debate, try climate change.At least there we don't have all the facts...
You make about as much sense as a 'numerologist'.

Ok..OK.. lets stop playing the numbers game. So when are you going to stop the evil that is Water Vapor? Now that the AGW'ers are calling CO2 a pollutant why are they not calling water vapor a pollutant? This gas is Thousands of times more potent of a GHG than CO2 is and is thousands of times more prevalent in the atmosphere... Where is the out cry against H2O?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
So is the lethal dose of botulism toxin. You cannot go by the SIZE of numbers when talking about their relative EFFECT.
And the EFFECT is multiplied by the area of the PLANET, a VERY large number. So are we done 'playing with numbers'?
Fact is that science has established the greenhouse effect of increased GHGs as the primary cause of GW temperature change. Get used to it. If you want a debate on something worth debate, try climate change.At least there we don't have all the facts...
You make about as much sense as a 'numerologist'.

Somewhat true except the last, I have numerologists beat by at least 40% of .3%!! the rest is open to opinion. GHG's only theoretically raise temps. there is no scale that says how much of an increase coressponds to a temp increase. the aearth is a buffered system and as such an inverse logarithmic scale is the most likely to be approriate. At some point the buffer can be overcome but to date no one has come up with a number, only predictions that have proven false. It is a little like the religious zealots around 1000 AD. The world was ending, god,(Gore?), told them so. The parallels are striking.