NASA says Climate Change exagerated?

[Massimo]

^
That would be more likely then GW.

[mrsleeve]

Its nice to theorize impossible things when you don't have anything real to fall back on. Increased CO2 = increased temps = more droughts = less food. Plants need water to grow too. C'mon Farmin Kaiber, you should know that :)

well wasn't it the Jurrasic Period when the earth was COVERED IN FUCKING JUNGLE and the CO2 levels were 8% higher than than now or some shit like that.

More CO2 = MORE PLANTS not Less you dolt, more plants = More transpiration = more moisture in the atmosphere = more rain not less. Have you never lived near or in a corn field you talk about miserable humidity in the summer ??? Same reason the East is far muggier in the summer than the west, Leafy (deciduous palnts) pump far more tons of H2O into the atmosphere than conifers.

[DTM190]

Interesting graph

many a spike over the last 800,000 years in both directions

[mrsleeve]

^

the last 12k years of stability is the anomaly not the norm.

[gwb72tii]

Its nice to theorize impossible things when you don't have anything real to fall back on. Increased CO2 = increased temps = more droughts = less food. Plants need water to grow too. C'mon Farmin Kaiber, you should know that :)

this has been proven false from historical records

[Farbin Kaiber]

Interesting graph

many a spike over the last 800,000 years in both directions

Will you just look at all the fluctuation from coal fired power plants, clear cutting and burning dense brush/tree covered land for growing produce, and all those damn automobiles causing this irreparable, impossible to resolve, ruining of the planet for future generations in the past 800,000 years.


Oh yeah, and aerosol cans being used other than specified on the warning label.

[gwb72tii]

Will you just look at all the fluctuation from coal fired power plants, clear cutting and burning dense brush/tree covered land for growing produce, and all those damn automobiles causing this irreparable, imposable to resolve, ruining of the planet for future generations in the past 800,000 years.


Oh yeah, and aerosol cans being used other than specified on the warning label.

who knew the daimler was invented 800k yrs ago?

[mrsleeve]

I love you guys

[DTM190]

Larger timeline

[CorvallisBMW]

I find of rather hilarious that any graphs, data or evidence presented by supporters of climate change are instantly shot down as 'unreliable', 'easily manipulated', or 'totally false'. Yet the contractors of climate change throw up their own graphs (albeit with zero supporting evidence or sources) and treat it like the gospel.

If your going to hate, be an equal opportunity hater.

[DTM190]

Why do you have to turn it into hate, its not hate, its a discussion.
Right click and copy url if you want the source.

And I have not once shot any of herbs graphs down as unreliable/false/manipulated.

But hate away lol

[joshh]

I'm starting to think "Ancient Aliens" were responsible for the temperature changes before the modern C02 conquest. Because it HAS to be caused by evil beings.

[herbivor]

1. you have not shown any data, anywhere, that proves anthropogenic GW. what you have shown is conjecture and opinion, ie models that seek to prove your points, but are models where the input can be changed to bring about your desired conclusion.

I guess that article I linked from NASA on NASA's website is conjecture and opinion? If so, you're right, I don't have anything else to offer.

2. i pointed out, and herb agreed, that annual anthropogenic C02 accounts for less than 4% of total C02 emissions. i also pointed out C02 is not linear. nowhere have you shown that this "less than 4%" is the driver of GW.

Again, we've been over this. I'm not going to repost shit if you're not going to read it. (By the way I've read all of your "conjectures and opinions" you linked below. Please have the courtesy to do the same for me)

3. the Hadley CRU emails prove your side lies, or at least has lied about the data used to support AGW

The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions relating to peer review. In one case, it judged their strong reaction to a controversial paper was not unusual. In another, it turned out the alleged victim had actually been spreading malicious rumours about CRU. In a third, the allegation of collusion fell apart when the full email exchange was examined. The Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and did not threaten the integrity of peer review.

links and quotes

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...ing_it_on.html
Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence - actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate - shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing.

How reliable are climate models?

The skeptic argument...
Models are unreliable
"Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They are full of fudge factors so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2." (Freeman Dyson)
What the science says...
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:


Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality the events are all within the upper range of the model’s predictions. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling chaotic systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...global-warming
But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.

A quote from your own article you sited:
"Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman." So this geologist who co-wrote a diet book is now an expert climatologist? Come on man. Do I really need to reply to this?

http://www.co2science.org/about/posi...balwarming.php
A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The first sentence is a correct statement and one that I think most scientists would agree if evidence was limited. The rest is misleading at best. Let me first let you know who you are siting as stated from Wikipedia:
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Arizona in the United States.[1] Its stated purpose is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."[2] The Center produces a weekly online science newsletter called CO2Science.
The Center was founded and is run by Craig D Idso, along with Sherwood B Idso, his father, and Keith E Idso, his brother. They came from backgrounds in agriculture and climate, and became involved in the global warming controversy through their study of earth's temperature sensitivity to radiative perturbations and plant responses to elevated CO2 levels and carbon sequestration. The Center is sharply critical of the position of the IPCC and believes that global warming will be beneficial to mankind. In late 2009, Mother Jones ranked the Center number 8 on its "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" list.[3]
The Center has a policy of not disclosing its funding sources because "ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them."[4] According to its website, it accepts donations from foundations, individuals, and corporations, including ExxonMobil.[5] According corporate give statements and IRS filings, ExxonMobil has contributed $90,000 to the Center since 1998.[6][verification needed] These contributions have been the topic of attention by various media outlets including the BBC, USA Today,[7] the Seattle Post Intelligencer,[8] and Salon.com.[9]

I have already responded to this argument quoting scientific data from more reliable sources. Please reread previous posts

Unstoppable Global Warming; every 1500 years

http://books.google.com/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&pg=PA21&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

You're quoting a book that supports your position written by a guy similar in scientific stature and skepticism to Dick Leipzig. I respect their opinions and positions as I do yours but I would have to disagree based on the available data. We already had a similar discussion on this too if you recall earlier. Please reread. But you can also read below:
It's a 1500 year cycle
"Climate records of the past show a roughly 1,500-year cycle. It was first discovered in ice cores in Greenland. Then it was seen in ocean sediments in the Atlantic. And now it's found everywhere including stalagmites in caves. It shows warming and cooling that could well account for the current warming." (Fred Singer)
What the science says...

The 1500-year cycle in question has been observed mainly through ice core data as a warming in the northern hemisphere matched at precisely the same time by a cooling in the southern hemisphere. So it’s a heat distribution issue: a global temperature ‘see-saw’ effect. The total heat in the global system remains constant.

In contrast, human-produced global warming has been caused by the rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 200 years -- rising over 390 parts per million after remaining below 300 parts per million for the previous 800,000 years. And unlike natural heat variations, the current temperature increase caused by CO2 is being recorded occurring all around the globe – on the ground, in the air and in the oceans.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php...rue&position=5
A growing number of independent scientists, applying the latest satellite data, are strident in their argument that there is no longer any credible scientific evidence to support the faltering greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the cornerstone of UN climate science.

You are quoting a blog based on a scientific study that started this thread in the first place. Did you forget? Anyway, I find the actual scientific study (not the blog or article) to be interesting. I think it will be scrutinized in further detail and perhaps it will trigger more studies that would help explain the observations. If it requires readjusting the models, then that's what will be done. But I would take the blog with a grain of salt and let the experts go through the scientific process and see what transpires. If it turns out scientists are incorrect about AGW, they will be the first to admit it, but given the amount of evidence to date, it would take the same amount of evidence to prove they were incorrect. So far it hasn't happened.

here's a challenge for you;
please show me any data/research/proof that reducing anthropogenic C02 20% will save us all from doom. in other words, that a 8/10th's of 1% decrease in annual CO2 emissions (20% X 4% anthropogenic CO2) will save the world.

I can't. I've already agreed with you that I do not believe a 20% reduction in anthropogenic CO2 will help much at all. This isn't only my opinion, a growing number of scientists are seeing the positive feedback loops play out sooner than expected and they are beginning to think it's pretty much too late.

[herbivor]

Larger timeline

"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)
What the science says...

The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.
Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

The following (somewhat simplified) diagram may make this easier to understand:



When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong.

[gwb72tii]

sigh........

edit for herb et al

what is the motivation of the anthro GW camp?
altruistic? money? power?