Climate Change

[Gepeto]

Klar deserves some kind of award or something. I hope that those who are looking for something to contradict the general understanding of climate change carefully read what she wrote. Unfortunately even if they're satisfied with the above explanations I suspect at least some of them will just move on to something else that they think can be questioned, and Klar could spend her life addressing questions that have already been addressed by people who actually study and understand all of this.

FIFY

just sayin; kudos shouldn't sound gender specific

[::: :::]

Klar, your patience is verging on saintly

SirHeady, your use of pepe, "cucks", "triggered" & "marxism" all in the same post marks you as an ignorant troll, not an interested, thoughtful participant in a discussion...welcome to ignore

[tom tuttle from tacoma washington]

x2.

And thanks for keeping it civil and extremely informative.

[old goat]

Why? How is that not relevant to the discussion when the general narrative is that carbon emissions are causing the rising temperatures, yet we have evidence that temperatures were rising before carbon emissions became significant?

First--fossil fuels are not the only source of carbon emissions. Burning wood, peat, cow dung etc are all sources. Second--look up the industrial revolution. Third--even if recession of the glaciers is part of a natural warming trend that does not preclude man made carbon emissions accelerating the warming. See--the problem is not what you know--the studies you quote that they get from reading anti-global warming literature--the problem is what you don't know and the fact that you don't realize what you don't know.

[Dexter Rutecki]

FIFY

just sayin; kudos shouldn't sound gender specific

Your FIFY is still gender specific...it's just correct now. My assumption woulda been right 99% of the time around here (98%?). Sorry, Klar...

[Gepeto]

Your FIFY is still gender specific...it's just correct now. My assumption woulda been right 99% of the time around here (98%?)

Didn't need to make you defensive... my bad.

[wyeaster]

[wyeaster]

[wyeaster]

[cumicon]

First--fossil fuels are not the only source of carbon emissions. Burning wood, peat, cow dung etc are all sources. Second--look up the industrial revolution. Third--even if recession of the glaciers is part of a natural warming trend that does not preclude man made carbon emissions accelerating the warming. See--the problem is not what you know--the studies you quote that they get from reading anti-global warming literature--the problem is what you don't know and the fact that you don't realize what you don't know.

Honestly, I think you are demonstrating you know even less than me, and I know I don't know much! My understanding is that any climate scientist will tell you that human carbon emissions were not high enough to have much of an impact on the climate before the 1940's. This includes the industrial revolution and burning wood/dung/etc.

"Third--even if recession of the glaciers is part of a natural warming trend that does not preclude man made carbon emissions accelerating the warming."

I don't deny that humans could be accelerating the warming. The mainstream portrayal of climate change is that humans are the sole driver. The fact that glaciers were receding 100 years prior to significant carbon emissions casts some doubts on that narrative.

[cumicon]

Thanks for taking the time klar. I have two more questions for you.

What is your take on the idea that carbon samples from ice cores may not be the best representatives of historical CO2 levels? Modern satellites show that atmospheric CO2 levels in Antarctica are 20 to 30ppmv less than lower latitudes. GEOCARB and plant stomata seem to indicate that CO2 levels were highly variable and not as stable as the ice cores suggest.

What is your opinion on the idea that carbon levels lag behind temperatures, and that temperature is the driving force behind carbon levels rather than the other way around?

[neufox47]

What is your opinion on the idea that carbon levels lag behind temperatures, and that temperature is the driving force behind carbon levels rather than the other way around?

Do you disagree with the physical properties of co2 as accepted by virtually every physicist? How would that even work?

The last two years co2 levels increased 3 ppm each year. The levels of co2 have been increasing at accelerating speeds. If your theory of more co2 will result in more co2 sequestration, why do we see accelerating increases?

Yea, adding .8% more of a gas each year is a big deal when it happens for hundreds of years. We've almost doubled the co2 in the atmosphere. We are on pace to see close to 1,000 ppm by 2100.

The ideas you share really show why the average person is unqualified to develop a personal opinion on this matter. Lacking an understanding of math beyond basic algebra doesn't seem to preclude people from opining on systems that require advanced calculus and statistics. It's like asking a persons opinion on avalanche conditions due to a persistent weak layer only to find out they have never taken an avy course and don't spend time in the mountains during winter.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Didn't need to make you defensive... my bad.

No, I appreciate the correction. Typically I wouldn't assume gender, but again, around here it's a pretty safe bet (unfortunately, I would say). Still amazed at her posts and hope it's not in vain (IMO probably more important for those she's not directly addressing, which is worth keeping in mind).

[cumicon]

Do you disagree with the physical properties of co2 as accepted by virtually every physicist? How would that even work?

As far as I can tell, in ice core measurements, there is no debate that they show CO2 levels lagging behind temperatures. The general explanation seems to be that in the past temperatures increased due to changes in the Earth's orbit. This led to ocean temperatures increasing, thus releasing carbon from the oceans. This positive feedback loop led to more warming.

The last two years co2 levels increased 3 ppm each year. The levels of co2 have been increasing at accelerating speeds. If your theory of more co2 will result in more co2 sequestration, why do we see accelerating increases?

It's because 100% of the carbon emissions are not getting sequestered. 40% is the number I see being used.

Yea, adding .8% more of a gas each year is a big deal when it happens for hundreds of years. We've almost doubled the co2 in the atmosphere. We are on pace to see close to 1,000 ppm by 2100.

Sure adding .8%/year would be a very big deal if CO2 levels were something that has stayed constant throughout history, but we know this is not the case. CO2 levels are variable, and at times, have been significantly higher than we see today.

The ideas you share really show why the average person is unqualified to develop a personal opinion on this matter. Lacking an understanding of math beyond basic algebra doesn't seem to preclude people from opining on systems that require advanced calculus and statistics. It's like asking a persons opinion on avalanche conditions due to a persistent weak layer only to find out they have never taken an avy course and don't spend time in the mountains during winter.

These are not my ideas. I have no idea about any of this. I came across some skeptic information that presented a more compelling case than I was expecting. Klar is being nice enough to offer a professional opinion.

[::: :::]

As far as I can tell,

the number I see being used.

but we know this is not the case.

These are not my ideas. I have no idea about any of this.

Just stop

[Buster Highmen]

As far as I can tell, in ice core measurements, there is no debate that they show CO2 levels lagging behind temperatures. The general explanation seems to be that in the past temperatures increased due to changes in the Earth's orbit. This led to ocean temperatures increasing, thus releasing carbon from the oceans. This positive feedback loop led to more warming.

I think the question was whether you accept that CO2 holds heat more readily than other common atmospheric gases.

Anyway, see this: https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming/

where it says:
The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

It's because 100% of the carbon emissions are not getting sequestered. 40% is the number I see being used.

I think there's solid data on CO2 increases in the atmosphere, right?

Sure adding .8%/year would be a very big deal if CO2 levels were something that has stayed constant throughout history, but we know this is not the case. CO2 levels are variable, and at times, have been significantly higher than we see today.

I don't understand your point here. CO2 concentrations are rising and CO2 hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases, so that rise in CO2 will drive a rise in warming. What part of that statement is inconsistent?

These are not my ideas. I have no idea about any of this. I came across some skeptic information that presented a more compelling case than I was expecting. Klar is being nice enough to offer a professional opinion.

Science requires skepticism, but it also requires one to acknowledge the arguments that explain the data. Climate change is a pretty well supported theory. It's detractors don't really offer another explanation, another constructive argument about what will happen as CO2 levels rise.

[californiagrown]

[QUOTE=cumicon;5038899] The mainstream portrayal of climate change is that humans are the sole driver. QUOTE]

No. No, that is not true at all. And if that is the way you have understood it, you lack the aptitude to process or analyze scientific journals, arguments, and data. Only morons, and those totally brainwashed by the far right or left wing agenda actually think that is the "portrayal". Its tough to have discussions and conversations with people who cherry pick your words, and hear what they want, instead of actually listenting to you and processing what you are saying. Leave your political views out of it and just focus on the science... not the talking heads with agendas spinning the science to support their agenda.

Science isn't political. What to do about the scientific conclusions IS political, but too many damn idiots don't understand the difference.

[cumicon]

I think the question was whether you accept that CO2 holds heat more readily than other common atmospheric gases.

Anyway, see this: https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming/

where it says:
The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.



I think there's solid data on CO2 increases in the atmosphere, right?

I don't understand your point here. CO2 concentrations are rising and CO2 hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases, so that rise in CO2 will drive a rise in warming. What part of that statement is inconsistent?


Science requires skepticism, but it also requires one to acknowledge the arguments that explain the data. Climate change is a pretty well supported theory. It's detractors don't really offer another explanation, another constructive argument about what will happen as CO2 levels rise.

Rather than get into another point by point debate that no one wants to read, I would say that yes, I do have questions about how well the relationship between CO2 and temperatures is understood. For example, this a graphic I have come across a few times:

If this is accurate (klar?), what are we to make of the relationship between temperatures and CO2?

[cumicon]

No. No, that is not true at all. And if that is the way you have understood it, you lack the aptitude to process or analyze scientific journals, arguments, and data. Only morons, and those totally brainwashed by the far right or left wing agenda actually think that is the "portrayal". Its tough to have discussions and conversations with people who cherry pick your words, and hear what they want, instead of actually listenting to you and processing what you are saying. Leave your political views out of it and just focus on the science... not the talking heads with agendas spinning the science to support their agenda.

Science isn't political. What to do about the scientific conclusions IS political, but too many damn idiots don't understand the difference.

The "mainstream" are not analyzing scientific journals and data. It seems crazy to me that you take exception to this. I'm pretty sure if you ask any random person on the street who believes in climate change what is causing it, they will tell you its humans (agriculture, fossil fuels, etc.)

[Buster Highmen]

Rather than get into another point by point debate that no one wants to read, I would say that yes, I do have questions about how well the relationship between CO2 and temperatures is understood. For example, this a graphic I have come across a few times:

If this is accurate (klar?), what are we to make of the relationship between temperatures and CO2?

Klar already addressed that very graph. See earlier in the thread: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...41#post5038141

Is the root of your skepticism hinged on the claim that CO2 holds more heat than other common atmospheric gases?
Or do you accept that?

[Buster Highmen]

The "mainstream" are not analyzing scientific journals and data. It seems crazy to me that you take exception to this. I'm pretty sure if you ask any random person on the street who believes in climate change what is causing it, they will tell you its humans (agriculture, fossil fuels, etc.)

If the average person concedes that climate change is caused by people, that's consistent with AGW theory.

I'm missing what's wrong with that.
,
Are you saying people are just going with the theories posited in mass media? And this is a fault?

[californiagrown]

The "mainstream" are not analyzing scientific journals and data. It seems crazy to me that you take exception to this. I'm pretty sure if you ask any random person on the street who believes in climate change what is causing it, they will tell you its humans (agriculture, fossil fuels, etc.)

Yes, AGW is caused by humans. The A part is pretty critical to that acronym. That is the focal point of the debate, and is why there is all this debate. People will think you are asking about the most popular aspect of climate change to debate... and its the most popular aspect because its the one that WE CAN AFFECT, and is the one that is NOT NATURAL OR NORMAL.

Its like talking about oil spills in the ocean and saying they are not a problem because the earth naturally seeps many times more oil naturally into the environment than any man made spills. Its true, but its an oblique point whose intent is to distract from and lessen the importance of the debate at hand.

[cumicon]

Klar already addressed that very graph. See earlier in the thread: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...41#post5038141

Is the root of your skepticism hinged on the claim that CO2 holds more heat than other common atmospheric gases?
Or do you accept that?

I just skimmed through the thread, and did not see anything relating to that graph.

My skepticism is not hinged on CO2 holding more heat than other gases. I would say these are the main points that sum up my skepticism:

-There are many factors that influence climate, this appears to be a complex system and not totally understood.
-The climate on earth is never constant, and sometimes changes drastically
-The temperature changes we have seen in the past century are totally normal in the context of Earth history
-CO2 levels are not constant have been significantly higher in the past than they are today

Also, I should say I absolutely believe humans are having an effect on the climate. It is the significance of the human factor that I am skeptical of.

[cumicon]

Buster and californiagrown:

I am confused what we are even arguing about here. This is what californiagrown originally quoted out of context in bold:

I don't deny that humans could be accelerating the warming. The mainstream portrayal of climate change is that humans are the sole driver. The fact that glaciers were receding 100 years prior to significant carbon emissions casts some doubts on that narrative.

Then cg said this:

No. No, that is not true at all. And if that is the way you have understood it, you lack the aptitude to process or analyze scientific journals, arguments, and data. Only morons, and those totally brainwashed by the far right or left wing agenda actually think that is the "portrayal". Its tough to have discussions and conversations with people who cherry pick your words, and hear what they want, instead of actually listenting to you and processing what you are saying. Leave your political views out of it and just focus on the science... not the talking heads with agendas spinning the science to support their agenda.

Science isn't political. What to do about the scientific conclusions IS political, but too many damn idiots don't understand the difference.

It sounds to me like he is saying that the idea that humans are driving climate change is not mainstream at all.

[::: :::]

I am confused what we are even arguing about here.

anthropogenic climate change is driven by human influence

that idea is not at odds with the existence of a natural climate cycle already in place