Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[satanoperca]

Oh please he is nothing like Tisme, he can at least construct a discussion that the majority can follow, whether we agree or not.

 

[Sdajii]

I choose not to argue with a galah.

Hardly. You were suggesting that if temperatures rises preceded CO2 rises, then CO2 rises could not be the cause of increased temperatures. I just pointed out that was a non-sequitur. If CO2 rises caused global cooling, then you would have negative feedback, which clearly is not the case. Increased temperatures ==> increased in CO2 ==> reduction in temperatures. We know from the science that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures.

The reason CO2 rises can't be the cause of temperature rises is because if that was so, every time temperatures have risen over the last billion years, and CO2 levels inevitably rise, it would have cause a runaway, permanent effect. We can observe that this has never happened. We can observe that every time the temperature goes up and the CO2 levels rise in a lagging pattern, the temperature always comes back down. This shows that either high levels of CO2 cause global cooling (extremely unlikely) or CO2 levels are irrevelant or at least of very little impact (very obviously the case).

What "we know from science" about increased CO2 causing increased temperatures has been disproven by empirical evidence many many times. True 'science' doesn't say this, just biased narratives. I've worked with climate scientists, I've seen this nonsense, but you don't need to believe me, just look at the actual clear empirical data.

Perhaps if you were not so ignorantly bombastic in your opinions you might actually learn something.

Take a look in the mirror. Also, using 'big words' like bombastic isn't really that impressive, it's not working on me, sorry.

 

[Sdajii]

I'm beginning to like Sdajii, he reminds me of @Tisme

I consider that a compliment. To Tisme.

 

[luutzu]

about trees, you are right explod, especially in Australia, but in Europe and northern America, tree cover is increasing dramatically and has been in the last 50y

Is that before or after the recent bushfires they had?

 

[bellenuit]

The reason CO2 rises can't be the cause of temperature rises is because if that was so, every time temperatures have risen over the last billion years, and CO2 levels inevitably rise, it would have cause a runaway, permanent effect.

Again a non-sequitur. It would only cause a runaway effect if in a closed environment with no other contributing factors. But that is clearly not the case with Earth. Increases in CO2, while directly increasing temperature, will cause other factors to come into play, such as increased plant growth which extracts heat from the surroundings. Increased CO2 will effect other greenhouse gases either directly or through the temperature increase it causes and they in turn will effect positively or negatively non-gaseous related factors such as heat radiation from the Earth back into space

A simple Google search will tell you why CO2 traps heat. That is proven science. But there are hundreds of factors that cause temperatures to vary and both the increased temperature itself and increased CO2 can bring into play some of those factors that create a negative feedback to the temperature.

Clearly over the last 200,000 years, these feedback mechanisms have kept the temperature within a range that allows life to thrive, but that does not mean that an imbalance could not cause the temperature to drift out of a life sustaining range.[/QUOTE]

 

[Smurf1976]

What "we know from science" about increased CO2 causing increased temperatures has been disproven by empirical evidence many many times.

What about CH4 (methane)?

What about N2O (nitrous oxide)?

What about water vapour?

Fossil fuels are the largest source of methane emissions and second largest source of nitrous oxide emssions (US figures since I don't have a global one) so to partial extent are wrapped up in the CO2 issue due to a common source. Fossil fuel use is also a source of water vapour emissions.

 

[Sdajii]

Again a non-sequitur. It would only cause a runaway effect if in a closed environment with no other contributing factors. But that is clearly not the case with Earth. Increases in CO2, while directly increasing temperature, will cause other factors to come into play, such as increased plant growth which extracts heat from the surroundings. Increased CO2 will effect other greenhouse gases either directly or through the temperature increase it causes and they in turn will effect positively or negatively non-gaseous related factors such as heat radiation from the Earth back into space

Largely agreed. At least we agree that CO2 doesn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This is a common myth.

A simple Google search will tell you why CO2 traps heat. That is proven science. But there are hundreds of factors that cause temperatures to vary and both the increased temperature itself and increased CO2 can bring into play some of those factors that create a negative feedback to the temperature.

Yes, a simple google search will reveal that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact is shouted from the rooftops and overblown ad. nauseam. Other greenhouse gases are far more important. Water is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas. CO2 is basically irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. If it wasn't, we'd all be dead long ago. Yes, CO2 is a chemically active gas which does some things such as promoting plant growth which reduces temperature.

Clearly over the last 200,000 years, these feedback mechanisms have kept the temperature within a range that allows life to thrive, but that does not mean that an imbalance could not cause the temperature to drift out of a life sustaining range.

Not merely 200,000 years. Billions of years. In the rare case where the balance does get thrown incredibly out of whack by a stupendous event such as a celestial impact, the system brings itself back to that nice range, which totally kills the 'OMG, it's becoming unstoppable!' myth. Especially in the context of CO2.

 

[Sdajii]

What about CH4 (methane)?

What about N2O (nitrous oxide)?

What about water vapour?

Fossil fuels are the largest source of methane emissions and second largest source of nitrous oxide emssions (US figures since I don't have a global one) so to partial extent are wrapped up in the CO2 issue due to a common source. Fossil fuel use is also a source of water vapour emissions.

What about them?

Water is by far the most important one here, and obviously (I think it's obvious to anyone who has tried to look into it?) water is a gas which very quickly sorts itself out in the hydrosphere, and is obviously an extremely important gas in the regulation and stability of the climate.

 

[IFocus]

Increasing CO2 equals ocean acidification equals end of human kind.....but the earth will go on happily with out us....the end

 

[Smurf1976]

Increasing CO2 equals ocean acidification

Yep there's plenty of problems with fossil fuels even if CO2-induced warming turns out to not be one of them.

 

[qldfrog]

If you add up all the sources then it's a massive amount of heat we're adding directly to the air plus also to the sea and as evaporated water. It's going to have an effect on something almost certainly.

yes basically the released heat by burning oil, gas, wood and nuclear in the volume of air of the atmosphere is consistent within my computation with the actual global warming observed.I did the computation 3 y ago so can not be sure if it still applies, but as it is an extra input, it makes perfect sense for it to have a definite effect, the only way it may not happen is if all this extra heat get dispersed 100% in space, but THAT makes no scientific sense so my conclusion of CO2 being an effect not a cause, and glasshouse effect not being the key point(it probably has a small effect but as opposed to steam in the atmosphere and cloud cover, I bet probably not that much
This is heresy in the current polarised world to say that, and who seems to care with truth when ideology dominate...we still need to stop burning fossil fuels anyway...And stop uranium too
sorry for the delay, just back

 

[basilio]

yes basically the released heat by burning oil, gas, wood and nuclear in the volume of air of the atmosphere is consistent within my computation with the actual global warming observed.I did the computation 3 y ago

Well Qfrog if you can demonstrate the that all of the current extra heat has been caused by just the burning of fossil fuels you have a Nobel prize in your hands.
From everything I understand it just isn't the case. I did see a paper which investigated the direct effect of the heat released by combustion. It appeared to be around 1% of the extra warming that we are experiencing.

Check out this analysis. Also worth reading the comments.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Waste-heat-vs-greenhouse-warming.html

 

[qldfrog]

Well Qfrog if you can demonstrate the that all of the current extra heat has been caused by just the burning of fossil fuels you have a Nobel prize in your hands.
From everything I understand it just isn't the case. I did see a paper which investigated the direct effect of the heat released by combustion. It appeared to be around 1% of the extra warming that we are experiencing.

Check out this analysis. Also worth reading the comments.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Waste-heat-vs-greenhouse-warming.html

will do when I have the time, I posted my computation on this site a few years ago; very simple: every bit of energy or nearly consumed in the world end up in heat..well we have pushed some rocks up hills, transformed some ore into metals etc so a little bit of the energy we use is stored in chemical, or potential energy, we send light/radiation in space but overall all of it ends up in heat within the atmosphere;
your car from engine to frictions, any heater obviously or
compute the volume of atmosphere, heat it with the energy released by human energy consumption, assume that the previous system (before human) was in equilibrium (solar/core energy released vs space radiation losses) and your added energy matched the observed temperature increase
Thanks for the link

 

[Ann]

Sorry Bas, I am still not feeling too good with the concussion. This is all very serious stuff not to be taken lightly. Until I feel up to a real and energetic response with you I am going to rest. I need to regain my strength and then...back with you. In the meantime, look after yourself and yours over the next number of days and hopefully some time in the new year we will get back to the joust. Bless.

 

[basilio]

Sorry Bas, I am still not feeling too good with the concussion. This is all very serious stuff not to be taken lightly. Until I feel up to a real and energetic response with you I am going to rest. I need to regain my strength and then...back with you. In the meantime, look after yourself and yours over the next number of days and hopefully some time in the new year we will get back to the joust. Bless.

Well that is no fun .. Certainly sounds like a significant concussion.
Hope your Christmas is good and that your kids and hubby are rallying around to take the load... seriously..

 

[Darc Knight]

I know old Footballers suffer from head knocks (memory loss etc) as they age, but I've been knocked out or chooked out over a dozen times but never was I told I couldn't post on an internet forum. Just jump back up, run back into the defensive line or keep on swinging

This new generation, too much cotton wool

i better go check how WSI is doing

 

[Ann]

I know old Footballers suffer from head knocks (memory loss etc) as they age, but I've been knocked out or chooked out over a dozen times but never was I told I couldn't post on an internet forum. Just jump back up, run back into the defensive line or keep on swinging

This new generation, too much cotton wool

i better go check how WSI is doing

You are a cheeky little bugger DK! Still now you tell me about all your head knocks, it explains a lot!
I find if I do any amount of 'critical' thinking, as in trying to learn something or read something critically I get profound headaches and just have to lie down and do nothing. It was suggested not to read, watch TV, use computers or otherwise stimulate my brain. I could think as in a type of day dream state but not a deep thinking state. This was all instructions from my doctor as it appears doing the preceeding can actually cause lasting brain damage. Plus I am reasonably old so the body and brain takes time to recover.

 

[Darc Knight]

You are a cheeky little bugger DK! Still now you tell me about all your head knocks, it explains a lot!
I find if I do any amount of 'critical' thinking, as in trying to learn something or read something critically I get profound headaches and just have to lie down and do nothing. It was suggested not to read, watch TV, use computers or otherwise stimulate my brain. I could think as in a type of day dream state but not a deep thinking state. This was all instructions from my doctor as it appears doing the preceeding can actually cause lasting brain damage. Plus I am reasonably old so the body and brain takes time to recover.

Yeah sorry Ann, we do love you and I'm being a bit of a bugger perhaps. Just blame it on my head knocks and various other calamities I've suffered.
Take care @Ann - seriously

 

[rederob]

Yes, a simple google search will reveal that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact is shouted from the rooftops and overblown ad. nauseam. Other greenhouse gases are far more important. Water is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas. CO2 is basically irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. If it wasn't, we'd all be dead long ago. Yes, CO2 is a chemically active gas which does some things such as promoting plant growth which reduces temperature.

CO2 is by far the most serious GHG because it's the one which makes the greatest contribution to warming. (Methane is more powerful but shortlived, and also breaks down to CO2 and water.)
While water vapour is the largest contributor to a warming effect, it is a feedback and therefore cannot of itself do other than vary as temperature varies.
I have no idea what this - about CO2 - means:"If it wasn't, we'd all be dead long ago."
I took some time to read through much of this thread and it seems that those who deny climate science use information from sites which simply refuse to use peer reviewed material.

 

[cynic]

...
I took some time to read through much of this thread and it seems that those who deny climate science use information from sites which simply refuse to use peer reviewed material.

Would you care to point out a few of the offending posts, so that the merits of the information presented, and/or sources thereof, may be discussed?