What happened to Global Warming?

Thursday, June 20, 2013 by ZombiesRus5 | Discussion: Life, the Universe and Everything

What happened to Global Warming?

When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.

Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in :(

 

I'd like some global warming back...

 

First Previous Page 83 of 112 Next Last
Jafo
Reply #1641 Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:21 AM

GeomanNL
I'm trying my best to understand your point. And I like to think about these things

Probably what Frogboy is saying is you probably would be better served to go away and think about these things a LOT ....on your own ....and perhaps you might move on from a fanaticism/love affair with CO2.

You're in a rut.

No matter who posts...or what they post...you'll respond with..."well...CO2...bla...blah...blah....." ... ad nauseum.

EVERYONE knows mankind adversely affects his environment.   The issue here is simple.

Does that 'affect' also include the climate?

Now.....all you need to do is take MORE time to think of a reply....several days would be good.... and see if you can make it through one post without mention of CO2.

Come back with another angle.  Currently each post is just playing musical chairs with the same vocabulary...

GeomanNL
Reply #1642 Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:52 AM

Sure but Frogboy bases his conclusions on this article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Which is outdated, that's pretty clear to me.

The "lag" has already been reduced to 200 years. It's not nearly 800 years anymore.

What will the next revision bring?

When deriving temperature and CO2 data from ice cores, the scientists also use equations to correct for the burial process, what if those equations are wrong?

I mean... people here don't trust scientists, but somehow they DO trust that scientists did a good job on those measurements? I can play that game too.

And he continuously asks for "evidence".

I've already shown this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

But he ignores that.

He also ingnores the grander scheme of things, like that the earth was hotter during eras with high CO2 levels, and colder since CO2 levels have dropped - and why have they dropped: largely because of the Azolla event and that event was a freaky tectonic coincidence combined with a freaky algae that went on a rampage.

And he ignores my statement that if CO2 levels were temperature driven, we should've seen the reverse happening on a long time-scale, since the sun only got hotter during the past 400 millions years while CO2 dropped overall. I also present that as "evidence".

So what am I to do about that? I've just tried to give a comprehensive overview to let him see the bigger picture here.

There's nothing wrong with that, is there?

 

But ok something new.

http://www.ghgonline.org/predictions.htm

First figure on the page.

I think model A2 is how carbon emissions will develop this century.

You may wonder why we all need so much energy... but there's just so many of us!

 

petrossa
Reply #1643 Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:05 PM

I once seen a thread on religion with 18000 comments. I see this one going the same direction. Probably because it's also about religion

Seleuceia
Reply #1644 Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:59 PM

The difference between this and religion is that in a religious thread, only half the people claim to know "science"....

Jafo
Reply #1645 Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:48 PM

Seleuceia
The difference between this and religion is that in a religious thread, only half the people claim to know "science"....

LOL

The difference really would be by now it would have devolved into an ugly fight...and the thread would be well and truly locked....

Frogboy
Reply #1646 Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:24 PM

The "lag" has already been reduced to 200 years. It's not nearly 800 years anymore.

What will the next revision bring?

When deriving temperature and CO2 data from ice cores, the scientists also use equations to correct for the burial process, what if those equations are wrong?

That's fine. My opinion may change as new data is released. I'm not wedded to any view.

Just earlier this thread, you proposed we institute a worldwide ban on carbon related energy production all the while you admit that there is a CO2 lag (but it's down to 200 years!).

Before we destroy our worldwide economy I think we should, at the very least, wait until the evidence points to CO2 rising coming BEFORE the temperature changes, not 10 years, 50 years or two centuries.

 

GeomanNL
Reply #1647 Sunday, December 22, 2013 7:10 AM

Frogboy
Before we destroy our worldwide economy I think we should, at the very least, wait until the evidence points to CO2 rising coming BEFORE the temperature changes, not 10 years, 50 years or two centuries

That evidence is already there, but for some reason you assign a lot of credit to the Antarctic data set and you assign zero value to the rest.

The problem perhaps is, that especially during an ice age, the temperature depends on a lot of things, not just on the CO2 levels but also on albedo and atmospheric moisture (deserts).

During the transition from a glacial period to a warmer period, lots of things can happen:

- albedo drops, increasing temperatures

- ocean currents change, introducing regional effects by transporting warm or cold water to different areas.

- during a warming period, deserts retreat and forests expand, adding more moisture to the air, adding to the greenhouse effect.

- sea level changes, which change the sedimentation patterns and the capture of CO2.

- the jet streams move towards the poles during a period of warming, changing global wind patterns.

 

These are things that affect temperatures, especially on regional levels. If you compare such regional data sets, you'll probably find a lot of differences there and that may lead you to believe that everything is noise. Except perhaps the Antarctic data set.

 

You also pay no value to past extinction events, and you pay no value to the 500-million year cooling trend.

 

Therefore I think it will be impossible to find data that can convince you that CO2 affects temperature in a significant way.

  

Now suppose that the end of the ice age triggered a change in oceanic circulation, which triggered a release of CO2 from the deep ocean. Just suppose that happened. What would that tell you about the relationship between CO2 and temperature ?

(The correct answer is: absolutely nothing. What is important is what happens after such an event, not what happens before the event).

 

Frogboy
Reply #1648 Sunday, December 22, 2013 12:41 PM

Again, geo: provide a link to a source that shows long term temperature and CO2 levels where CO2 rises before temperatures. 

The fact that it works the opposite isn't even disputed in the scientific community.

GeomanNL
Reply #1649 Sunday, December 22, 2013 2:10 PM

Frogboy
Again, geo: provide a link to a source that shows long term temperature and CO2 levels where CO2 rises before temperatures

I've already shown numerous links throughout this topic about this and I'm tired of repeating myself. Worse, I get blamed by the moderator for repeating myself.

Well ok just one more repeat then.

Read more about the Azolla event. It was algae that more or less terraformed our planet and removed so much CO2 from the atmosphere (trillions of tons) that it was largely responsible for our current glacial period. There's proof for this event in coal/oil/gas layers all around the arctic region.

This is very long-term and I think it's very robust.

http://theazollafoundation.org/azolla/the-arctic-azolla-event-2/

 

This was quite a unique event, and you cannot explain it by temperature alone. It was just a freaky set of coincidences. You know, like the series "Seconds from disaster"? There was the algae. There was the isolated polar ocean. There was the greenhouse earth at the time. There was this amazing Azolla algae. And the rest is history, it has helped to shape the world we live in today. Without that plant, we would still have lived in a steaming hot earth.

 

Frogboy
Reply #1650 Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:20 PM

That's not evidence, Geo.  

Evidence would be accepted records (like ice core samples from say Greenland, Norway, Antartica) that show CO2 rising BEFORE the temperature rises.  The reason you can't find any is that there isn't any.  By your own accounts, they've gotten the gap down to 200 years.

We have a lot of data for the past 20,000 years ago.  I'm not sure why you won't concede something that's already accepted by the rest of the scientific community. This isn't a religious argument.

Meanwhile...

GeomanNL
Reply #1651 Monday, December 23, 2013 2:22 AM

Frogboy
That's not evidence, Geo.

If that's not evidence, then what is ????

You got the before: high CO2 and high temperature, and you got the after: low CO2 and ice ages.

And in the interim period, most of the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere by a process that had nothing to do with temperature.

It can't get more obvious than that really.

Frogboy
I'm not sure why you won't concede something that's already accepted by the rest of the scientific community.

It's not ... at most what's accepted is that something complicated is going on in the Antarctic, like with ocean currents.

No scientist would claim that CO2 is insignificant.

 

Frogboy
Evidence would be accepted records (like ice core samples from say Greenland, Norway, Antartica) that show CO2 rising BEFORE the temperature rises.

I really don't get you, Frogboy.

If you go into such details, then you enter the realm where you see temperature dependence from every possible source. Evidence shows temperatures which are a result of albedo, ocean currents, and CO2, and even things like cloudiness, desertification, aerosols, wind patterns, sunspots and even orbital oddities (Milankovitch cycles).

There is no such thing as evidence that shows ONLY the relation between CO2 and temperature.

You want the impossible.

Just take the evidence for what it is: something that is not clean, which contains noise, and it is a bit harder to understand than you would really like.

 

Although... actually there's this study which sort-of shows evidence like you want to see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

It considered a large set of sources so that regional effects are reduced.

But for some reason you just keep ignoring it. Perhaps you could explain to me why you ignore this?

 

Jafo
Reply #1652 Monday, December 23, 2013 8:35 AM

GeomanNL
I really don't get you, Frogboy.
If you go into such details, then you enter the realm where you see temperature dependence from every possible source. Evidence shows temperatures which are a result of albedo, ocean currents, and CO2, and even things like cloudiness, desertification, aerosols, wind patterns, sunspots and even orbital oddities (Milankovitch cycles).
There is no such thing as evidence that shows ONLY the relation between CO2 and temperature.
You want the impossible.

Now you are 'arguing' something completely different.

Frogboy isn't interested in whatever might be causing a temp increase [in recent responses]...ONLY that any suggestion that it is being caused by CO2 is questionable as ice cores show the alleged 'cause' happening AFTER the 'effect'....which cannot happen.

Now, if you continue to circle around that specific point it is definitely YOU who is ignoring what is said.

 

 

As I said a page or 2 ago.  Stop and think.  Leave this topic alone...perhaps even reread it all.  If you look at it objectively you too will be scratching your head at some of your OWN comments....

AND it's a lost cause.  You will not/cannot alter a person's set opinions....certainly not in a forum thread on the Internet...where EACH 'expert' is only as good as his/her last Google search...

GeomanNL
Reply #1653 Monday, December 23, 2013 8:48 AM

Now you are 'arguing' something completely different

I'm just trying to convey the message that the world is ugly and "imperfect" and nature cannot give an uncomtaminated example of a relationship that is only limited to CO2 and Temperature.

The ice cores are just as contaminated as all the rest.

What he wants, simply does not exist.

 

His conclusion is based on some fairy-tale assumption that the Antarctic is free of regional effects, that things like albedo and wind patterns don't play a role, and that the Antarctic data are free of any measurement errors. The worst assumption is, that you can put a CO2 graph and a Temperature graph on top of each other, and compare them 1:1 without taking into account the other possible effects. And the conclusion is pretty serious: let's not do anything because CO2 has an insignifcant effect.

 

This is not a flaw in the data, but it's a flaw in reasoning, that's what I'm trying to explain.

 

Jafo
Reply #1654 Monday, December 23, 2013 9:13 AM

GeomanNL
let's not do anything because CO2 has an insignifcant effect.

This is not a flaw in the data, but it's a flaw in reasoning, that's what I'm trying to explain.

 

OK...I'll type it again, but more slowly so you can follow....

Ice cores show CO2 increases AFTER...that's AFTER...as in NOT BEFORE temperature increases.

That means...[no, just ignore some other side issue you keep repeating]...the SEQUENCE of EVENTS shown in the ice cores implies/indicates [which-ever you prefer] that temperature goes up...AFTER which CO2 levels rise.

That's what I see in the graph 'data' that Frogboy posted.   THERE IS NOTHING ELSE to be inferred in that graph.

No 'flaw', reasoning or otherwise.

It's a simple timeline.

 

NOW...on the other hand...I DID suggest....that data may be absolute and infallible...in an ice core....thus in polar regions...you know....where ice is.... BUT...and it's pure speculation...if there were some equivalent 'ice core data' available from the equator it may show different results....but such data cannot exist ergo the speculation is MOOT....

 

Now, don't counter with some other tangent.  Just say 'you finally get it'...

 

 

GeomanNL
Reply #1655 Monday, December 23, 2013 9:22 AM

That means...[no, just ignore some other side issue you keep repeating]...the SEQUENCE of EVENTS shown in the ice cores implies/indicates [which-ever you prefer] that temperature goes up...AFTER which CO2 levels rise.

Yes, of course you could conclude that from those data.

But you cannot conclude that this means that temperature regulates CO2 in a real and physical sense, because there are also other physical processes that take place.

And therefore you cannot conclude that CO2 is insignificant in regulating temperature.

 

Just take this fictitious example:

Suppose there's a current that was stopped and started flowing again because of melting glaciers.

Suppose that the current transports a lot of heat towards the southpole (warming the southpole all of a sudden).

Also suppose that the current slowly but gently mixes deep oceanic waters with surface waters, releasing CO2 (creating more warming afterward).

 

Now... does this have ANYTHING to do with a temperature / CO2 relation?

No it doesn't.

It's a completely different physical process.

 

 

Well anyway... have a nice christmas just in case I forget tomorrow.

 

 

Jafo
Reply #1656 Monday, December 23, 2013 9:51 AM

Now, don't counter with some other tangent. Just say 'you finally get it'

I give up.

Your middle name isn't 'troll', is it?....

GeomanNL
Reply #1657 Monday, December 23, 2013 10:36 AM

No I'm not a troll....... it's just hard to explain.

The whole point is that you cannot simply say that temperature precedes CO2, because that assumes there's a simple physical process that relates the two.

Such a process simply does not exist...

 

Oh maybe if I explain like this :

Someone can ALWAYS put 2 graphs on top of each other and claim there's a relation between the two.

But without a sound physical process, that relationship is just meaningless and something that's fictional.

 

Do you agree so far?

 

Daiwa
Reply #1658 Monday, December 23, 2013 12:27 PM

I, for one, do not agree.  You actually can say that temperature precedes CO2 if the observed facts so demonstrate.

Observations 'assume' nothing, Geo.  And observations are not 'fictional'.  You are trying to put words in Frogboy's mouth that have never been uttered by him.

No one, certainly not Frogboy, is saying there is any linear cause >> effect relationship between the observed initial temp increases and the subsequent CO2 rises, only that the latter can't possibly be the 'cause' of the former.  If the observations are indeed correct.

caseagainstfaith
Reply #1659 Monday, December 23, 2013 2:02 PM

caseagainstfaith
Reply #1660 Monday, December 23, 2013 2:04 PM

Frogboy
I don't have a problem with scientists. I have a problem with left wing ideologues misrepresenting science to justify policies that grant them more power and enrich their cronies.

Great.  Another conspiracy theorist about the evil left wing cabal.  Great.  I'll be avoiding purchasing of Stardock products Froggy.

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!

Articles Filters

Category:
View:
Search:
Apply



walnut3