climate change

[Genghis Kush]

"the sun is controlling our climate"

or is it the atmosphere ?

a planets climate is dictated by the make up of its atmosphere and its distance from the sun.

@Trichrider Its very simple. If you think air pollution is nothing more than something that is unsightly, this will explain to you how clogging the atmosphere with CO2 alters the temperature of the earth. There is nothing to debate.


"The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be in the absence of its atmosphere.[1][2] If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e. greenhouse gases) the atmosphere radiates energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.

On Earth, solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface. The surface itself emits energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases also radiate energy, some of which is directed to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, because Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]

Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is critical to supporting life. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[11]

Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[23] This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[24] According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[25]

CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation.[26] Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm[27] in 1960 to about 389 ppm in 2010. It reached the 400ppm milestone on May 9, 2013.[28] The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data.[29] The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.

Over the past 800,000 years,[30] ice core data shows that carbon dioxide has varied from values as low as 180 parts per million (ppm) to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm.[31] Paleoclimatologists consider variations in carbon dioxide concentration to be a fundamental factor influencing climate variations over this time scale."

 

[trichrider]

"According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

that's all i needed to read. no need for citations there.

when will you accept that the IPCC and it's reports/studies are all fabrications to promote a global carbon credit rip-off.

Unionized and i have provided multiple instances of the complete and utter fraud of the IPCC and associated 'consensus' scientists lies.

if something you ate made you sick, would you eat it again?

why would you believe someone after they have been proven to lie about it? for gain...?

your trust is misplaced.

CO2 lags temperature:

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have re-graphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels.
NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data.
Beware of making conclusions about turning points
or lags when only one single point may be involved.
NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data
is 150,000-100,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.(water?)

Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.

Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600

Mudelsee (2001) - Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.

Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

so please in your own words, tell us how CO2 is causing warming when the elevated CO2 follows temperature....

 

[Genghis Kush]

do you own stock in a Coal mine or something?



Keep on believing what you want Trichrider, Science is overwhelmingly against your side of the argument. For every out of context piece of information you post, there is a hundred papers proving it wrong. Its a complete waste of time to debate you on this. Your mind is closed.
Its like debating whether the earth is flat or not.

 

[trichrider]

it is my prerogative. thnx.

....and is my mind any more closed than yours?

...did you purchase those carbon credits and now cannot get rid of them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

part one

[youtubeif]JTSxubKfTBU[/youtubeif]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk

part two

[youtubeif]k69HUuyI5Mk[/youtubeif]

 

[Genghis Kush]

I don't know anything about carbon credits, but I just looked it up and it sounds absurd.

ride a bike, plants trees and worship mother earth

aloha

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI

[YOUTUBEIF]wYLmLW4k4aI[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Genghis Kush]

karmas a bitch trichrider.

you are spreading false and misleading information in an attempt to lure others into a path of destruction

 

[HempKat]

"According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

that's all i needed to read. no need for citations there.

when will you accept that the IPCC and it's reports/studies are all fabrications to promote a global carbon credit rip-off.

Unionized and i have provided multiple instances of the complete and utter fraud of the IPCC and associated 'consensus' scientists lies.

if something you ate made you sick, would you eat it again?

why would you believe someone after they have been proven to lie about it? for gain...?

your trust is misplaced.

CO2 lags temperature:

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have re-graphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels.
NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data.
Beware of making conclusions about turning points
or lags when only one single point may be involved.
NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data
is 150,000-100,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.(water?)

Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.

Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600

Mudelsee (2001) - Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.

Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

so please in your own words, tell us how CO2 is causing warming when the elevated CO2 follows temperature....

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

The problem with Ice core studies is that while they are great at giving information about what was going on at the time they don't have any real correlation with today because there are several factors involved in today's climate that didn't exist in the times the ice cores study. There was no industrialization, most of the land was covered with co2 eating plant life and their weren't 7 billion people constantly exhaling co2 as well as releasing it from other sources while performing our daily activities.

Don't get me wrong though I'm not saying co2 is the cause for climate change necessarily. I'm just pointing out that comparing the earth's atmosphere today to anything older then say 30,000 years is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

 

[trichrider]

karmas a bitch trichrider.

you are spreading false and misleading information in an attempt to lure others into a path of destruction

I know! I dated that chick...

 

[trichrider]

http://projectcamelot.org/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

see pages 50-52
Report From Iron Mountain
development of an alternative to war :

"The war system makes the stable government of societies possible. It does this essentially by providing an external necessity for a society to accept political rule. In so doing, it establishes the basis for nationhood and the authority of government to control its constituents. What other institution or combination of programs might serve these functions in its place?

We have already pointed out that the end of the war means the end of national sovereignty, and thus the end of nationhood as we know it today. But this does not necessarily mean the end of nations in the administrative sense, and internal political power will remain essential to a stable society. The emerging "nations" of the peace epoch must continue to draw political authority from some source.
A number of proposals have been made governing the relations between nations after total disarmament; all are basically juridical in nature. They contemplate institutions more or less like a World Court, or a United Nations, but vested with real authority. They may or may not serve their ostensible post-military purpose of settling international disputes, but we need not discuss that here. None would offer effective external pressure on a peace-world nation to organize itself politically.

It might be argued that a well-armed international police force, operating under the authority of such a supranational "court," could well serve the function of external enemy. This, however, would constitute a military operation, like the inspection schemes mentioned, and, like them, would be inconsistent with the premise of an end to the war system. It is possible that a variant of the "Unarmed Forces" idea might be developed in such a way that its "constructive" (i.e., social welfare) activities could be combined with an economic "threat" of sufficient size and credibility to warrant political organization. Would this kind of threat also be contradictory to our basic premise?--that is, would it be inevitably military? Not necessarily, in our view, but we are skeptical of its capacity to evoke credibility. Also, the obvious destabilizing effect of any global social welfare surrogate on politically necessary class relationships would create an entirely new set of transition problems at least equal in magnitude.

Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the "last, best hope of peace," etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by "creatures" from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.

Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally far-fetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.

It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environ- mental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.

However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probably, in our judgement, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context. Since there is considerable doubt, in our minds, that any viable political surrogate can be devised, we are reluctant to compromise, by premature discussion, any possible option that may eventually lie open to our government. "

 

[Genghis Kush]

heres an example of what else you can find on projectcameltoe.org:


"The visitors who crashed at Roswell were future humans1. They were not from another planet2, but from a future Earth – stepping (which may be a better word than traveling) back in time to 1947 to attempt to deal with serious problems which had occurred in their history3. Their mission was to try to change their past by creating an alternative branch of their own timeline, so that particular events – about to happen to us in our very near future – would not actually occur. "

great source trichrider

 

[stoned-trout]

I would love to have my plants grow faster and I am sure some of you would like a warmer winter...gonna be in the 80s here next week.....yeehaw...

 

[trichrider]

heres an example of what else you can find on projectcameltoe.org:


"The visitors who crashed at Roswell were future humans1. They were not from another planet2, but from a future Earth – stepping (which may be a better word than traveling) back in time to 1947 to attempt to deal with serious problems which had occurred in their history3. Their mission was to try to change their past by creating an alternative branch of their own timeline, so that particular events – about to happen to us in our very near future – would not actually occur. "

great source trichrider

obviously not my source, nice try.

it's been a fabrication from the get go. for control.

tell the lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.
they created a special department in the UN to do just that.

you believe whatever the hell you want, it's your nickle.

 

[Genghis Kush]

obviously not my source, nice try.

it's been a fabrication from the get go. for control.

tell the lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.
they created a special department in the UN to do just that.

you believe whatever the hell you want, it's your nickle.

So your saying that government attempts to control CO2 air pollution is really just a conspiracy to enslave humanity and that corporations should free to rape the earth as they please?

 

[Cannavore]

"According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

that's all i needed to read. no need for citations there.

when will you accept that the IPCC and it's reports/studies are all fabrications to promote a global carbon credit rip-off.

Unionized and i have provided multiple instances of the complete and utter fraud of the IPCC and associated 'consensus' scientists lies.

if something you ate made you sick, would you eat it again?

why would you believe someone after they have been proven to lie about it? for gain...?

your trust is misplaced.

CO2 lags temperature:

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have re-graphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels.
NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data.
Beware of making conclusions about turning points
or lags when only one single point may be involved.
NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data
is 150,000-100,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.(water?)

Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.

Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600

Mudelsee (2001) - Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.

Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

so please in your own words, tell us how CO2 is causing warming when the elevated CO2 follows temperature....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

 

[Cannavore]

So your saying that government attempts to control CO2 air pollution is really just a conspiracy to enslave humanity and that corporations should free to rape the earth as they please?

never understood how so many people have it backwards lol


the scientists are plotting to control the earth with evil government!!!


it can't be the fossil fuel industry and big business lol noooo, they'd have nothing at all to lose if we moved away from the energy sources they have monopolies on.

govt doesnt own business, business owns the govt my friends.

 

[trichrider]

business is the hand in the glove of government.

 

[Genghis Kush]

yeah , all the "scientists" have gathered together and taken a pact to work together to fool all the uneducated people into slavery.

Its part of the first year of University, If you don't take the oath than you are out

 

[trichrider]

yeah , all the "scientists" have gathered together and taken a pact to work together to fool all the uneducated people into slavery.

Its part of the first year of University, If you don't take the oath than you are out

...so.... you already know?

Here is an inconvenient truth:

“In climate research and modelling we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore that long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
UN-IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001.
Section 14.2.2.2 page 774"



"Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº."


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...l-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgVrvKhAbhA#t=227

[YOUTUBEIF]BgVrvKhAbhA#t=227[/YOUTUBEIF]