Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

Discussion in 'Politics' started by futurecurrents, Aug 7, 2014.

  1. jem

    jem

    I completely understand you point. But... the one issue regarding waiting 2 more years... is that if temperature is influenced by the sun and the enso...(tides) and a strong el nino kicks in... we will likely have global warming for a year or 2. Warming which most likely had nothing to do with co2 rising but some nutters will say the models are still working.

    Frankly we in California really need some very good global warming so are drought might end.
     
    #271     Aug 18, 2014
  2. jem

    jem

    [​IMG]
     
    #272     Aug 18, 2014
    fhl likes this.
  3. "Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition, and its concentration has been rising, and that's true, it isn't, necessarily, the cause of an observed increase in the Earth's surface temperature. "

    Of course it is you bullshit artist. CO2 is the earth's most important long term greenhouse gas. Without it the earth would be 30 - 50 degrees colder. We have raised it's levels by 40%. That HAS to cause warming and it has and is. The level of CO2 is what controls the long term temperature of the earth. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

    "All scientists who have had any training in photochemistry or photophysics know that the effectiveness of a greenhouse gas will depend on its concentration profile, the absorbtivity at the wavelengths emitted from the Earth's surface, and the intensity of emission as a function of wavelength"


    Yes, beneath all your layers of impressive sounding and superfluous horseshit you say something right. The effectiveness depends on concentration. We have increased by 40%. So the CO2 in the atmosphere has become more a more effective trapper of long wavelength radiation. Heat.

    "To assume that a dilute gas being defined as a greenhouse gas is a sufficient condition for it to cause significant warming, in something as complex as our Earths atmosphere, is, frankly, ridiculous."

    No it's not. It's a bedrock principle of climate science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you said it yourself. It's the very definition of "greenhouse gas", a dilute gas that that warms the atmosphere. Again, you are off the reservation and full of shit.

    "Finally, let me say that your calling internationally recognized experts such as Professor Salby, who is one of the foremost experts in atmospheric physics, a fool and a fraud does your credibility no favor."

    I really don't care what you say since you yourself has zero credibility after all the festering piles of impressive sounding, but ultimately absurdly wrong bullshit that you have piled on this topic. You have some set of balls. Are you Salby? Why else would you defend a man like this...


    "The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying "a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies" and a "consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit." It debarred Salby from receiving federal assistance and benefits until 13 August 2012.[2]

    After leaving Colorado, Salby joined the faculty of Macquarie University in Australia, where he was appointed Professor of Climate Risk in 2008. In May 2011, Salby's research showing that ozone levels over Antarctica had begun to recover since the Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting substances, was published in Geophysical Research Letters.[7][8] Salby's employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013. Macquarie University stated that he was dismissed for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources including a corporate credit card.[3][9]"

    So he's a liar and a thief.

    In addition, his scientific statements and positions are a joke, completely ignoring that there are large annual fluctuations in carbon dioxide, as it is exchanged back-and-forth between the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and forests. This flux in and out of the biosphere and oceans is many times larger than man's annual contributions The resulting CO2 level changes thus are not expected to match human emissions. However, Salby wants us to believe that therefore man's CO2 emissions are not showing up in the atmosphere since they are not well correlated on short term time frames. However, over the course of many years the annual flux in and out of the biosphere and oceans evens out. Some years more is absorbed and others less. On decades long time scales the rising CO2 levels are very well correlated to man's emissions.

    So then from this narrow mistaken view of it he then makes the absurd leap that therefore man's emissions are not causing the rise in CO2 and it is instead due to temperature changes. However the temp record does not fit with his theory so he basically just says the ice record is wrong and is not showing atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the ice was laid down. But indeed that is exactly what the ice record is. It is the trapped air of the time the ice was laid down.

    On top of all this is the simple fact that man is dumping about 8 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. That quantity does not just disappear. Indeed the CO2 rise matches the increasing emissions as seen in this chart.


    [​IMG]

    Far from being a foremost atmospheric expert, Salby is a liar, a thief, a fraud and a fool. He has zero respect among climate scientists dealing with AGW. His earlier work with the ozone layer being an exception. He used this early respect to earn him higher prostitution fees from the fossil fuel interests as an AGW denialist.

    That you would defend such a person speaks volumes about you. You are just like him.





     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2014
    #273     Aug 19, 2014
  4. jem

    jem

    Do you even understand the point?
    human Co2 output goes up montonically (sort of a a straight line)

    while co2 in the atmosphere goes up and down --- and follows change in ocean temps.
    That is the data and that is what Salby explained and shows.

    No amount of bullshit character assassination can change those facts.
     
    #274     Aug 19, 2014
  5. Your simplistic assessment is amusing. To put it in terms you can understand the earth is a living organism that inhales and exhales on a seasonal and annual/decadal time scale. This is due to the Pacific oscillation and seasonal changes of CO2 uptake by the biosphere, among other things. This causes variations in CO2 levels on short term time scales. Salby foolishly assumes that this short term cycling (which is superimposed on the long term trends of CO2 increase) means man's emissions have no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels because there is no correlation. It is a mistake of ridiculous proportions, which is one reason why climate scientists think Salby is a fool and probably paid by the fossil fuel interests to spout his bullshit.

    The amazing thing is that both you and piehole uncritically accept this bullshit because it suits your agenda, and you pretend to be so smart about it all when in fact the both of are either very stupid (not likely) or are simply liars. Maybe a little of both. I suppose, to be fair, delusion must also be considered a possibility. I call intellectual dishonesty, as often practiced by defense lawyers, to be lying.

     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2014
    #275     Aug 19, 2014
  6. jem

    jem

    you tried that argument before thought you do sound more emotional and desperately devoid of facts this time....

    yes we know the earth breathes... there are multiple other studies which take the seasonality out of it.

    Which is why I post this graph (see below) for you over and over.
    it is from a peer reviewed paper.

    The chart says diff.... that is because it is comparing change from one year earlier... if you were a trader you would know that takes seasonality out.

    CO2 trails mirrors closely but trails change in ocean temp.
    While on the contrary man contribution of co2 is steady... monotonic.

    So you can see that like ocean temps... the overall co2 level goes up and down. (see the green line below titled atmospheric co2).

    The green line trails the blue line.. which...you guessed is change in ocean surface temp.


    [​IMG]










     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2014
    #276     Aug 19, 2014
  7. Maybe you are just plain stupid. What does the annual variations of CO2 levels have to do with the steady increase of them? Are you as stupid as Salby? Newsflash for jem: There are level changes on multiple time scales. The longer term is steadily up.

    You are trying to present irrelevant things as if they are relevant. Yes temps precede CO2 levels and CO2 levels precede temps. CO2 is a ghg, it has to.

    This is truly becoming ridiculous. Hopefully at least now you realize that your man Salby is a fraud and a fool. Just like you.
     
    #277     Aug 20, 2014
  8. jem

    jem

    When you break the data down to higher resolution such as monthly data scientists see the change in co2 levels goes up and down as it follows change in ocean temps.
    I will present the paper for you to read... this time. You have seen it a dozen times before.

    Why is the line going up... because on an annual basis you have presented charts showing ocean temps going up.

    Look at the data... read the multiple papers I have presented.
    Its not just salby... everyone knows it. We have multiple peer reviewed papers showing it.
    co2 lags temps... it does not lead temps.


    You delusions are actually indicting... you want to believe co2 leads temps.
    AGW nutters are paid to find such a relationship...

    If co2 led temps the billions of dollars spent on research and modeling would have found it.
    the lack of papers or even evidence showing co2 leads temps in any cycle... is proof itself.









     
    #278     Aug 20, 2014
  9. jem

    jem

    here is one of the peer reviewed papers...notice like salby this analysis states changes in atmospheric co2 do not track human emissions.





    "The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-€“12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."

    See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008


    Abstract
    Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

    Highlights
    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.















     
    #279     Aug 20, 2014
  10. Max E.

    Max E.

    Showing a picture of a troll coming out of the closet suits futurecurrents perfectly.


     
    #280     Aug 20, 2014