Is The Sun Causing The Current Climate Change?

[jeb]

Well, I'm getting dragged back in. I just saw a graph in the latest Audubon Society magazine, which basically devoted their whole issue to climate change and what it may do to bird populations. The graph depicted actual global temperatures for each year since 1950, and the range of temps predicted by the various climate models that Jeb says have been wrong. Understand, the models do two things. They go back in time, taking all available factors in, and predict what the temps should have been, and then go forward in time to predict what they should be in the future. There are different temperature outcomes in each model because modeling IS an inexact science. In fact, from the most pessimistic model to the most optimistic there's generally about 0.6 degrees centigrade in any given year. And of course, short term yearly climate is variable; it doesn't go up or down steadily from year to year, so it's impossible for any model to predict exactly what the global temp average will be in any given year. Maybe that's what Jeb means by saying the models are continually wrong.

Nope, this is what I'm talking about:

95% wrong

His chart is different from yours. I suspect your chart uses corrected models, but don't know for sure.

[ozark trout fisher]

I find this debate so sad. By the time everyone agrees that we are destroying our planet, it will be too late. We will forever be remembered for the destruction we did to earth. That will be our legacy. Peace out!!

Yep. Very, very sad.

Just too much money on the side of either "climate change deniers" or those who don't attribute it to humans. For all the talk about money from government grants inspiring pro-climate change ideas, it pales in comparison to the cash in fossil fuels. They don't mind (literally) ruining the world for future generations so they can keep making their billions.

[Mark]

Yep - new report out which show record level of CO2 emissions in 2013 - 2% increase over previous year - 61% increase since 1990 - with a steady increase every year since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of factories and oil using machinery.

Yet to deniers of man contributing to climate change and with all we know about the greenhouse effect, 2 + 2 doesn't = 4

[stlfisher]

yep, we are just a bunch of parasites ruining the planet.

[jeb]

Yep - new report out which show record level of CO2 emissions in 2013 - 2% increase over previous year - 61% increase since 1990 - with a steady increase every year since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of factories and oil using machinery.

Yet to deniers of man contributing to climate change and with all we know about the greenhouse effect, 2 + 2 doesn't = 4

If increases in CO2 levels have been rising steadily and that is the supposed key GHG, why have the temps not gone up with them, like all the (incorrect) models predicted they would? The answer is obviously because there is not a tie between C02 levels and "climate change". C02 is blamed because it is something that can be pinned on humans. Do you know how much of the atmosphere is C02? Wiki says .04%. Yeah, that's right point zero four. Not even a 1/10 of one percent.

And if you want to talk about money, follow all the grant money devoted to CC/AGW, and carbon credits. There is a lot of money on both sides!

[ozark trout fisher]

The answer is obviously because there is not a tie between C02 levels and "climate change". C02 is blamed because it is something that can be pinned on humans. Do you know how much of the atmosphere is C02? Wiki says .04%. Yeah, that's right point zero four. Not even a 1/10 of one percent.

Ok, here goes.

Literally no one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing levels would generally lead to increasing temperature. You can argue (I guess) that it's not the primary driving force behind climate change, but if you're trying to make the case that CO2 has no impact on temperature, you've even lost most climate change deniers.

Further, if you don't understand that a small percentage of a substance in the atmosphere can have a major impact, there's not a lot I can do for you. These are basic tenets for any discussion about climate change.

One more thing. In another post you stated that we're always in a warming or cooling trend. You're right. But do you know how long of a period that occurs over, or how slowly that occurs? What we're seeing now is something entirely different, and it's happening over decades (we're talking entirely different time scales at play.) It's just not comparable to past flucuations in temperature.

[jeb]

Ok, here goes.

Literally no one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing levels would generally lead to increasing temperature.

You can argue (I guess) that it's not the primary driving force behind climate change, but if you're trying to make the case that CO2 has no impact on temperature, you've even lost most climate change deniers.

Okay, then where is the proof of that? I was willing to give the models a chance at it, to show that what you're saying might be the case. But they've been shown to be wrong now. So what proof do you have that C02 'would generally lead to increasing temperature'?

Further, if you don't understand that a small percentage of a substance in the atmosphere can have a major impact, there's not a lot I can do for you. These are basic tenets for any discussion about climate change.

No, they are basic tenets for evangilists to have us assume in order to sell their views and keep the money coming. That's what "consensus science" gets you.

One more thing. In another post you stated that we're always in a warming or cooling trend. You're right. But do you know how long of a period that occurs over, or how slowly that occurs?

No, and neither do you or anyone else. Accurate weather recording was not in place over the last few ice ages. The science behind the guessing at how quickly or slowly past warming and cooling trends is just that, guessing. And it's even less exact than the climate models which have been proven wrong.

What we're seeing now is something entirely different and it's happening over decades (we're talking entirely different time scales at play.) It's just not comparable to past flucuations in temperature.

Well, let's just for fun say that's true. Who is to say that all periods between all the ice ages are the same? I'm pretty sure when the world was much younger and more volcanic, for example, the climate was far different. But it's not even close to what we have now. Yet, man was not there to influence it! How can that be? We have to blame man for it somehow, don't we?

And what arrogance we have that we are here at exactly the right time and believe we know enough to be able to foretell this catalysm that is about to unfold on us. Amazing! We've invented the crystal ball at last.

Well, except for that pesky part where it's wrong all the time. But let's just ignore that.

[ozark trout fisher]

Okay, then where is the proof of that? I was willing to give the models a chance at it, to show that what you're saying might be the case. But they've been shown to be wrong now. So what proof do you have that C02 'would generally lead to increasing temperature'?

I'm sorry, I can't be the one to teach you about the basics of atmospheric science.

[jeb]

I'm sorry, I can't be the one to teach you about the basics of atmospheric science.

I'm sure you can't, since it is quite obviously not a subject anyone has a firm grasp on at this point in time. Which is why research is needed. Obviously they have been wrong about C02, so hopefully they can incorporate the failures into their research and learn from it. Science is not about consensus. It's about building hypothesis and then proving them right or wrong. So far, they have proven themselves wrong in this branch of science.

But if you disagree, again I ask you to show me the evidence that the rise in this supposed key GHG has caused like rises in global temperatures, as the "consensus science" said it surely would.

[ozark trout fisher]

Science is not about consensus. It's about building hypothesis and then proving them right or wrong. So far, they have proven themselves wrong in this branch of science.

If you think science can "prove" much of anything, beyond the existence of gravity, we don't have a great basis for a discussion here. It's about making a hypothesis and gathering enough evidence to infer whether there is very likely a causal relationship. The vast majority of scientists claim that there is.

But if you won't even accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas (which is one of the few things here that is an undeniable, concrete fact) then we can't possibly hope to get anywhere here. Since this is unclear, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases, particularly methane) traps solar energy as it's "trying" to radiate to outer space. This holds the heat in the atmosphere and it eventually finds its way back to the surface.

This is not conjecture. You can argue that our current, unprecedented rise in CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change (though you would probably be wrong) but to claim that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and doesn't effect earth's temperature is simply to be factually incorrect.

And if you don't think that, on the whole, the global temperature has been rising ever since the industrial revolution, I have some prime oceanfront property here in Boone County with your name on it.