Viros Debate Here

[gags]

Don't you know that these short-term cold weather patterns are meaningless? However, if there are short-term warming patterns, they provide further confirmation that the world is about to become an uninhabitable burning cinder.

[Michael McGuire]

Global cooling! Quick! Everyone exhale!

I took a look at your first link then followed it further to the complete story, where you can read that scientists analyzing the new growth say it would take decades of such snowpack to reverse the trendline. So taking a quick snapshot in time and using it as evidence for or against something shows a blind willingness to believe any evidence that supports the conclusion you already want to arrive at.

[gags]

I took a look at your first link then followed it further to the complete story, where you can read that scientists analyzing the new growth say it would take decades of such snowpack to reverse the trendline. So taking a quick snapshot in time and using it as evidence for or against something shows a blind willingness to believe any evidence that supports the conclusion you already want to arrive at.

Speaking of a "blind willingness to believe", you must have missed all of these statements in the article that make it clear the glacial retreat has been going on for hundreds of years. Of course, this retreat started prior to man's supposed ability to warm the planet.

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Since Alaska's glacial maximum back in the 1700s, Molnia said, "I figure that we've lost about 15 percent of the total area."

And from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier just kept retreating and retreating and retreating. It is now back 57 miles from the entrance to the bay, said Tom Vandenberg, chief interpretative ranger at Glacier Bay.

Overall, Molnia figures Alaska has lost 10,000 to 12,000 square kilometers of ice in the past two centuries, enough to cover an area nearly the size of Connecticut.

As the climate warmed from 1800 to 1900, the United States tripled in size.

Edited October 15, 2008 by gags

[~Sophia~]

Speaking of a "blind willingness to believe", you must have missed all of these statements in the article that make it clear the glacial retreat has been going on for hundreds of years. Of course, this retreat started prior to man's supposed ability to warm the planet.

Correct.

For example, Kaser et al. (2004) examined glacial retreat on three East African massifs: Rwenzori, Mount Kenya, and Kilimanjaro. They found that a “drastic dislocation” occurred around 1880, when the region shifted from a “very humid” to a dry climate. This meant less cloud cover, exposing the glacier to more direct sunlight, and less snowfall to replace the sublimating (evaporating) ice. In the words of Kaser and colleagues: “The dominant reasons for this strong recession [of all glaciers in equatorial East Africa] in modern times are reduced precipitation and increased availability of shortwave radiation due to decreases in cloudiness.” They emphasize: “In contrast to the ‘switch’ in moisture conditions, there is no evidence of an abrupt change in air temperature…the glaciers of Mount Kenya and in the Rwenzori Mountains seem to have responded clearly to this change in moisture by retreating drastically and in spatially differential patterns.”

1880 is decades before industrial CO2 emissions could have had much impact on global climate. Carbon dioxide levels at that time were approximately 290 parts per million (ppm), only slightly above pre-industrial levels (280 ppm).

Analyzing the Kaser et al. study, climatologist Patrick Michaels observed that the Kilimanjaro glacier retreated in periods of both global warming and cooling. During the warming of the first part of the 20th century, Kilimanjaro lost 45% of its cap. During 1953 to 1976, when the planet was cooling, Kilimanjaro lost another 21%. Since 1976, in the era of significantly elevated CO2 levels, the glacier lost another 12%—“the slowest melt rate of the last 100 years.”

Edited October 15, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Michael McGuire]

Speaking of a "blind willingness to believe", you must have missed all of these statements in the article that make it clear the glacial retreat has been going on for hundreds of years. Of course, this retreat started prior to man's supposed ability to warm the planet.

I wonder why that is. Oh wait, I know. Don't skeptics love to talk about the Little Ice Age? When did that end, i.e., when did things start to warm up? Could it be around the time of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? I'll leave you to piece this together yourself.

Sophia, thank you for posting that. That study is a much misused one to discredit AGW generally and in particular An Inconvenient Truth. That gives me the opportunity to present a detailed account of exactly what that study did say, and details on how the GW skeptic misinformation campaign has "mutated (it) beyond all recognition." You can also read about the real science on worldwide glacier retreat (its from 2005 but its the best I could find). Warning: if you are used to a steady diet of GW disinformation, your mind may not be prepared to handle this much truth all at once, so perhaps read it a bit at a time.

[fletch]

I wonder why that is. Oh wait, I know. Don't skeptics love to talk about the Little Ice Age? When did that end, i.e., when did things start to warm up? Could it be around the time of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? I'll leave you to piece this together yourself.

"The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period." According to your logic, was that Medieval Warm Period the result of the industrial boom that everyone associates with the medieval times?

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, thank you for posting that. That study is a much misused one to discredit AGW generally and in particular An Inconvenient Truth. That gives me the opportunity to present a detailed account of exactly what that study did say, and details on how the GW skeptic misinformation campaign has "mutated (it) beyond all recognition."

The article you linked to does not refute what I wrote nor does it provide proof that glacier retreating is due human activity. I did not claim that preciptation is the only influence. I just highlighted a significant factor - the author of the article called it a dominant reason (big component of the context) ignored by global warming propaganda machinery.

Edited October 16, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Marc K.]

Do you really think that a climatologist confronted with this "fact", that the human net contribution to the atmospheric CO2-concentraion is less than 1%, wouldn't have an answer to it? If your objection is true,

Actually you acknowledge that this "fact" is true in your next post, that it is indeed a fact.

The implication is that those scientists who believe in AGW despite of your objection must be either stupid, massively uninformed about their own area of study or they must be part of an international conspiracy where they are told to avoid or deny the existence of this powerful "fact". But why would you expect any of this?

Since the scientific consensus is actually on my side now I would ask you the same thing.

the objection that the man-made contribution to the net increase of atmospehric CO2 is less than 1 % [...]

I provided two facts which indicated that AGW was probably bunk, this is not one of them. And besides misrepresenting what others have said, how else do you answer? Not with facts to support your argument but with blather, insults and blind assertions as below, typical of the viros mindset.

[...] is, objectively, a joke; the correct figure is slightly higher, namely 100%.

Now, the reason I said probably is because in the 80's this was enough to make me suspicious of what these wackos were saying. After all if one asserts that the globe is warming due to CO2 going into the atmosphere and that man is responsible for putting much of it there it might be helpful to know how much man is actually putting into the atmosphere.

Of course now we know that CO2 has nothing repeat NOTHING to do with global warming. As I indicated, a rise in temperature causes more CO2 in the atmosphere not the other way around (another fact). So I guess my suspicions were confirmed. The viros were not just wrong about where most of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere comes from but more importantly, they are wrong that it has the effect that they claim. They have cause and effect reversed, a sure sign of bad science.

I notice you didn't bother with the other fact I cited. Let me guess, it was all those man-made factories that caused the glaciers to retreat at the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago?

Wouldn't that also be the objective approach, that driven by curiosity you would seek out the counterarguments from the other side until it was either obvious who was right or until you couldn't decide? This simple approach would weed out silly arguments like the one above (an argument that would be destroyed in the first round), and it requires no more than that you are able and willing to challange your preconceptions.

This is a specious argument so I'll pose the same question to you. Considering the consensus has changed and that now there are more scientists disagreeing with AGW why haven't you taken your own advice and destroyed your own silly argument by simply seeking out the counter arguments, perhaps you are unwilling to challenge your preconceptions.

[Marc K.]

Everyone who cares to find out knows that scientists universally acknowledge CO2's relation to temperature change is indirect but still relative.

Actually the relation is direct, it is just the opposite of what the viros propose. A rise in temperature is what causes a rise in atmospheric CO2 not the other way around.

And Jackethan's post is actually quite disturbing in its level of paranoia of worldwide conspiracy. It's one thing thinking that scientists have gotten into a mass groupthink on the science of GW, but to actually assert that its an intentional manipulation by not only these scientists, but now also captains of industry, is quite the leap of imagination.

I don't think anyone has proposed a conspiracy unless you consider stupidity a conspiracy. By the way you are proposing a conspiracy of the scientists who oppose AGW dogma.

[Marc K.]

Don't skeptics love to talk about the Little Ice Age? When did that end, i.e., when did things start to warm up? Could it be around the time of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? I'll leave you to piece this together yourself.

I suppose your answer is the same for the Big Ice Age too? You know, the one that ended 12,000 years ago.

[Michael McGuire]

The article you linked to does not refute what I wrote nor does it provide proof that glacier retreating is due human activity. I did not claim that preciptation is the only influence. I just highlighted a significant factor - the author of the article called it a dominant reason (big component of the context) ignored by global warming propaganda machinery.

Your previous post implied that all glaciers could be compared to the unique conditions in the region of Kilimanjaro, which they most definitely cannot. It is universally acknowledged that Kilimanjaro is an anomaly. All one has to do is read the rest of the article to understand how the study of Mount Kilimanjaro has nothing to do whatsoever with the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding global warming and the contributions to it made by humans. It is surely a massive insult to one's intelligence to portray the study in any other way. Kaser himself has made public that no one should use his study as evidence for or against GW.

I found it amazing that you could read that and not be disgusted with how the study is misused by some skeptics in intentionally misleading ways. Won't you at least address the extreme elements who use devious methods to support the ideas you support? It would only strengthen your credibility with me and anyone else you might try to convince. Maybe you deny there is even a deliberate misinformation campaign to manufacture doubt and uncertainty about GW science. This is at least the 2nd or 3rd time I have provided evidence to directly debunk a study you have cited that purportedly contradicts GW. Each time you have dug up a study or paper that has been so thoroughly repudiated scientifically that one has to wonder if you question anything that aligns itself with your preexisting worldview.

[Michael McGuire]

Actually the relation is direct, it is just the opposite of what the viros propose. A rise in temperature is what causes a rise in atmospheric CO2 not the other way around.

That's quite a statement. Bold statements require strong evidence, which is lacking in this case.

Since the scientific consensus is actually on my side now I would ask you the same thing.

And you are getting this from...

I don't think anyone has proposed a conspiracy unless you consider stupidity a conspiracy. By the way you are proposing a conspiracy of the scientists who oppose AGW dogma.

I would think even a worldwide conspiracy would be more plausible than simply saying that all atmospheric scientists are just stupid. This is the kind of argument you don't hear often outside of 7th grade debate club.

BTW, I don't hear skeptics talking about the Bush administration's suppression of science that didn't comport with their skeptical view of GW

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism.

Nor do I hear much from GW skeptics about how Exxon and other companies funded numerous front groups who's goal was to put out misleading or false information on climate change. They are following the same playbook that worked for the tobacco industry for decades.

[~Sophia~]

Your previous post implied that all glaciers could be compared to the unique conditions in the region of Kilimanjaro ...

It did no such thing. It was just one example. I picked it because it was specifically mentioned by AlGore.

It would only strengthen your credibility with me and anyone else you might try to convince.

Not my goal at all (to both).

This is at least the 2nd or 3rd time I have provided evidence to directly debunk a study you have cited that purportedly contradicts GW.

From what I recall, just like above, every link you provided was useless.

I think you may benefit from studying a bit of epistemology.

Edited October 16, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Freddy]

Actually you acknowledge that this "fact" is true in your next post, that it is indeed a fact.

There is a natural exchange between the atmosphere and the earth, but this exchange leaves the amount if CO2 in the atmosphere unchanged (over a whole year). The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising fast, this rise 100% manmade and the greenhouse effect is a function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so this rise and its cause is the interesting factor here. In the sense that your fact is true, it has no implications for AGW. You compare the human contribution to this natural exchange, but how does that amount to an objection of AGW when this exchange contributes nothing to the increase of atmospheric CO2?

I provided two facts which indicated that AGW was probably bunk, this is not one of them.

What do you say here then:

First, if CO2 is causing GW then where does most of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere come from? The vast majority comes from the earth itself and most of the rest comes from other animals. Man contributes less than one percent.

How should this be interpeted as to fullfill the crirterias of being both true and being a substaintial objection to AGW?

Of course now we know that CO2 has nothing repeat NOTHING to do with global warming. As I indicated, a rise in temperature causes more CO2 in the atmosphere not the other way around (another fact).

Why do you think CO2 is called a greenhouse gas and Nitrogen is not? And how do you explain that the rise of atmospheric CO2 is about half of the human emissions, this implies that the earth is currently working as a sink for human CO2. To claim that the rise of CO2 has another cause than human emissions commits you to a theory that you will have a very hard time to find support for, even among sceptics.

I notice you didn't bother with the other fact I cited. Let me guess, it was all those man-made factories that caused the glaciers to retreat at the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago?

In contrast, there is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. The present ice ages are the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume. Within this period, the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milankovic orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted. The combined effects of the changing distance to the Sun, the precession of the Earth's axis, and the changing tilt of the Earth's axis redistribute the sunlight received by the Earth. Of particular importance are changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, which affect the intensity of seasons. For example, the amount of solar influx in July at 65 degrees north latitude varies by as much as 25% (from 400 W/m² to 500 W/m²).[...]

[Jake_Ellison]

If someone comes up with an independently reviewed study that proves The Global Warming Theory (CO2 and methane emmisions are causing global warming, this will have disastrous consequences to human civilization and we know that a slow, gradual reduction in human emissions will for sure stop this phnomenon), there is no reason to even discuss the idea that our governments should do something about it.

By the way, the scientists who take part in both the study and the review should satisfy certain requirements:

1. None of their jobs or any part of their incomes shuld depend directly on any government(or the UN) investing in research to prevent GW.

2. None of them should have made any false claims (intentionally or by mistake) in the past, related to GW(for or against it).

3. None of them should have a history of belonging to organizations that advocate against individual freedom or technological advances(whether for religious or ideological reasons).

4. Both teams should contain scientists who in the past made significant contributions to human progress (in areas other than ecology and sociology/culture - otherwise you could argue that Al Gore or the rev Al Sharpton are such men:).

Unless you can point to such a study, any links provided by those who argue in favor of GW can easily be debunked, and are therefore not worth the time it takes to read them.

Note that I could prove any scientific fact you can think of by following the above standards in minutes(and probably more restrictive ones as well, I'm sure I left stuff out), they are in no way too demanding.

[~Sophia~]

There is a natural exchange between the atmosphere and the earth, but this exchange leaves the amount if CO2 in the atmosphere unchanged (over a whole year). The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising fast, this rise 100% manmade and the greenhouse effect is a function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so this rise and its cause is the interesting factor here.

This is all false.

There are variations within a year and between years and between places on the planet. Generally, the Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO₂ concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations peak in May as the spring greenup begins and reach a minimum in October when the quantity of biomass undergoing photosynthesis is greatest.

Additionally, there is a lot of evidence from various sources that CO₂ concentrations have been significantly higher in the distant past than they are today.

[~Sophia~]

What I say is this: the objection that the man-made contribution to the net increase of atmospehric CO2 is less than 1 % is, objectively, a joke; the correct figure is slightly higher, namely 100%. The 1% figure is the human addition in relation to the natural exchange between the earth and the atmosphere

Anthropogenic C02 emissions are about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon.

[Juxtys]

There are lots of carbon beneath our feet in the ground as we speak. The most of it was in our atmosphere millions or billions of years ago. But carbon dioxide didn't stopped the birth and evolution of life. So why should it do a thing like that?

[Freddy]

Anthropogenic C02 emissions are about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon.

The rise is 100% manmade. The sinuspattern is seasonal variation. What I've written is accurate. And what does is matter that the human emissions are 3% of the natural exchange when this exchange contributes nothing to the rise of atmospheric CO2?

Edited October 16, 2008 by Freddy

[~Sophia~]

The rise is 100% manmade.

There is no conclusive evidence to support this claim.

when this exchange contributes nothing to the rise of atmospheric CO2?

This is also false.

And the graph you posted indicate to me that you don't have enough knowledge of what certain facts (or graphs) represent.

I have made few posts here on the topic. You may benefit from reading them. This one especially as it puts in prospective and in context the graph you linked above.

[~Sophia~]

Another graph to consider (Mauna Loa data is that last bit on the very right):

[Freddy]

There is no conclusive evidence to support this claim.

The evidence are very solid.

1) The human emissions are twice the annual atmospheric rise, thus the earth currently works as a sink for human emissions.

2) Plants discriminates against C13 and thus a plant has a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere from where it draws its coal. Coal and oil is made of plants and therefore also have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere. If the atmospheeric rise is due to fossil fuels you would expect the atmospheric C13/C12 ratio to decrease as well in a predictable manner. And this is exactly what is seen, thus the human contribution to the atmospheric rise leaves a finger print (this is only one of many finger prints) that you wouldn't expect if the rise had another source.

3) If you look historically, there is an odd look to the recent peak which just happen to coincide with the industrial revolution

I have made few posts here on the topic. You may benefit from reading them. This one especially as it puts in prospective and in context the graph you linked above.

The studies by Jarowski and Beck are simply absurd. And I'm not sure how the rest relates to the points I make.

[Freddy]

Another graph to consider (Mauna Loa data is that last bit on the very right):

If you measure CO2 in downtown Manhattan you get very high values. Look at your own graph at the correlation between Ice cores and Mauna Loa, that should tell you that readings from Mauna Loa is not dominated by local pollutions, they actually measure the well mixed value of CO2, which most certainly is not the case with the measurements making up your graph. Think about it, why does the violent swings stop when a proper measurements station is intalled at Hawaii?

[~Sophia~]

You should watch the youtube video I linked to in one of my previous post. It addresses your new graph.

[~Sophia~]

1) The human emissions are twice the annual atmospheric rise, thus the earth currently works as a sink for human emissions.

I have not looked up what the ratio is but so what? Again, the levels of C02 in the atmosphere were much higher than today in the past. Our contribution to the total amount is tiny.

2) If the atmospheeric rise is due to fossil fuels you would expect the atmospheric C13/C12 ratio to decrease as well in a predictable manner. And this is exactly what is seen, thus the human contribution to the atmospheric rise leaves a finger print (this is only one of many finger prints) that you wouldn't expect if the rise had another source.

C13 content of CO2 is just over 1.1%.

C13 index that is reported can go down not only from decreasing C13 content, but also from an increasing C12 content (the other 98.9% of the CO2).

If you dig you will find that C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends. Therefore one can not conclude that the trend signal is manmade.

(Look up Roy W. Spencer for a more detailed explanation)

3) If you look historically, there is an odd look to the recent peak which just happen to coincide with the industrial revolution

If you look historically you will see much higher C02 atmospheric concentrations pre-industrial revolution.

is not dominated by local pollutions

Based on what information did you conclude that the other data is "dominated by local pollutions"? Please provide your evidence.