How Can Anyone Be Serious about AGW?

_{September 23, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s a graph from the IPCC. I just happened upon it.

IPCC Report Fig 2.22 Historic Record of Temp, CO2 and Methane from Antartic Icecores.

Notice that, historically, global temperatures were, cyclically, about 4 degrees warmer than now. Just look at the repeated cycle! It’s been getting warmer for the last 15,000 years plus.

AGW is just a farce. And the IPCC itself makes this point.

Comments

Did you read my last comment, or check out the data? Why do you think co2 was rocketing up in the last few thousand years? Why do you think plant growth would add co2? (Have you heard of photosynthesis?) Why do you insist on claiming that evidence that solar radiation cause warming in the past means greenhouse gases can't do the same now? Why do you have such strong opinions about something you know so little about?wd400_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Not “out of hand”, but certainly with reference to the wealth of data that rules out those possibilities.
Yet the Mankovitch cycle, illustrated by the graph in question, shows temperature fluctuations, and CO2 levels lagging behind the temperature fluctuations. IOW, it's the amount of solar radiation that is DIRECTLY related to changes in temperature.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been known since 1896.
Think about what this means. If you have a greenhouse, then you have plants inside. If there is no CO2, the plants would die. Greenhouses are made so as to spur the growth of the plants within; I would think more vigorous plant growth would lead to a slightly higher level of CO2. So, to say it's a "greenhouse gas" doesn't really say much. As I've stated on this blog before, when you walk into a 'greenhouse,' you don't choke because the CO2 levels are so high; rather, you sweat, because the H20 levels are so high. H20 is 25 times more powerful a 'greenhouse' gas than CO2, and that's why the temperature of the mantle, related to the earth's core temperatures and reactions, is also related to temperatures of both sea and air. This is what I wrote in the post you're responding to:
The CO2 levels world-wide go up, and yet, per your own reading of the graph, we can see that temperatures are edging downward.
You respond:
The handful of pixels that make the last 5k years in your graph are too hard to read. But it’s from the Vostok ice core data, which has an almost dead flat trend over the last 5k years (other proxies have a slight downward trend)
You've made no mention of CO2 levels, the source of your contradiction. Instead, you actually confirm what I said: that temperatures were downward trending slightly. If you want to insist on the picayune point, unsupported by the actual data, BTW, then nothing changes: for thousands of years the earth's temperatures stayed the same while CO2 levels were rocketing up. I'm afraid your contradiction still stands.PaV_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

You say CO2 isn’t the only thing causing temperatures to rise, but AGW advocates, when you mention heat from the earth’s core, or from the sun, dismiss this right out of hand.
Not "out of hand", but certainly with reference to the wealth of data that rules out those possibilities.
but we don’t have “evidence” that CO2 levels cause warming.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been known since 1896.
There’s this little problem with your statement: it contradicts the graph I posted in the OP. Just a slight problem, this.
No it doesn't. The handful of pixels that make the last 5k years in your graph are too hard to read. But it's from the Vostok ice core data, which has an almost dead flat trend over the last 5k years (other proxies have a slight downward trend)
hen how do you explain that starting about 8,000 years ago CO2 levels began “rising”?!
It didn't really. There'a about a 10ppm raise over 5k years (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt)wd400_{September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

PaV @ 106 What would you predict temperatures today should be doing, just from the sawtooth graph itself showing the effects of natural forces over long periods? - Rising - Falling - Staying steadyCLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Temperatures are going up.
This is the standard, tired, Global Warmer meme. Anyone with the faintest notion of what a scientific idea is realizes that the temperature measurements depend on where and when you are recording temperatures. 'Temperatures are going down.' -Just as valid. Andrewasauber_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

wd400:
How? The mainstream science position is not that CO2 is the only thing that can make the climate warmer.
The mainstream science position is that elevated levels of CO2 "will" cause the climate to become warmer: that is, temperatures to rise. Do you want to dispute that? Yet, the graph shows temperature going up, while CO2 levels do not, and CO2 levels going up without temperature increasing. There is no 'cause and effect' seen. Furthermore, CO2 is a "lagging" indicator, a byproduct of warmer temperatures---until recent times. You say CO2 isn't the only thing causing temperatures to rise, but AGW advocates, when you mention heat from the earth's core, or from the sun, dismiss this right out of hand. So you don't speak for the "mainstream science position."
As you have been told multiple times, the pattern you see in these graphs is orbital forcing.
Where, and when, did this happen, exactly? And, BTW, "orbital forcing" has to do with increased solar radiation based on the tilt of earth's axis. But, of course, according to the "mainstream" scientists, it's not the sun but added CO2 that is causing present day warming. So, take up your argument with them.
Are you really claiming the fact the earth can be warmed as a result of a change in tilt is evidence that it can’t be warmed by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?
I'm saying we have "evidence" that "the earth can be warmed as a result of a change in tilt," but we don't have "evidence" that CO2 levels cause warming. In fact, as I'll point out in a second, we have "evidence" to the contrary---evidence, in fact, you point out.
Temperatures are going up. Claudius is talking about the last 5000 years, in which the earth was slowly cooling back down from the last interglacial. The temperature cycle is “disrupted”, in that we should be on the downswing now (and we were for thousands of years), but messing up the carbon cycle has caused the earth to warm (more quickly that it does in an interglacial too).
There's this little problem with your statement: it contradicts the graph I posted in the OP. Just a slight problem, this. You say that "we should be on the downswing now (and we were for thousands of years) but messing up the carbon cycle has caused the earth to warm." OK. Then how do you explain that starting about 8,000 years ago CO2 levels began "rising"?! Do you see the contradiction here? The CO2 levels world-wide go up, and yet, per your own reading of the graph, we can see that temperatures are edging downward.PaV_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

of related note to long term temperature stability on earth:
Another Reason to Thank God for Earthquakes - September 26th, 2016 - Dr. Hugh Ross Excerpt: Without plate tectonics, there exists no possibility for compensating for the increasing luminosity of the Sun (see figure below) so that Earth’s surface temperature remains at levels that life can tolerate.4 The primary means by which plate tectonics compensate for the Sun’s increasing luminosity is through the erosion of exposed silicates.''',,, 4. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016) Ibid., 143–64. http://www.reasons.org/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/another-reason-to-thank-god-for-earthquakes Figure: The Sun brightens as it fuses hydrogen into helium in its nuclear furnace. The luminosity or brightness percentages on the y-axis are relative to the Sun’s present luminosity (over billions of years). http://www.reasonsblogs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/faint-Sun-paradox.001-1024x576.jpeg
bornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

From the CATO Institute
Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation. Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.
rhampton7_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

PaV,
temperatures increased for a considerable time period (thousands of years) at the same time that CO2 levels did NOT rise. This contradicts the thesis of global warming alarmists.
How? The mainstream science position is not that CO2 is the only thing that can make the climate warmer. As you have been told multiple times, the pattern you see in these graphs is orbital forcing. Are you really claiming the fact the earth can be warmed as a result of a change in tilt is evidence that it can't be warmed by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmoshere?
ou’re saying that CO2 levels are going up, and temperature is going down
No one is saying this. Temperatures are going up. Claudius is talking about the last 5000 years, in which the earth was slowly cooling back down from the last interglacial. The temperature cycle is "disrupted", in that we should be on the downswing now (and we were for thousands of years), but messing up the carbon cycle has caused the earth to warm (more quickly that it does in an interglacial too).wd400_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Let’s focus in on one of Al Gore’s “predictions” (see comment #67):
[E]arlier this year, yet another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32 glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale-- a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency-- a climate crisis that demands immediate action to… avert catastrophe.
Notice the hype and spin. There is “enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea.” No he is not actually claiming that is what is going to happen, nevertheless he uses a healthy dose of extreme hyperbole and rhetoric to create the false impression of impending doom. But why not stick to the facts and tell his audience what could really happen? Maybe it’s because he doesn’t really know-- indeed, maybe it’s because nobody really knows. And if we don’t know how can Gore or anyone claim “we are facing a planetary emergency-- a climate crisis…” Did Gore think that his audience was going to read between the lines and ponder and analyze what he said? Come on, we all know what he’s trying to do here. It’s called demagoguery, fear mongering or alarmism. I am very skeptical about people, especially former politicians, who resort to such tactics. But why resort to such tactics if you really know the truth? Maybe it’s because you don’t.john_a_designer_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Here's my biggest problem with the Climate Change alarmists: why is warmer and more CO2 a bad thing? 1) Crops grow better 2) The amount of arable land increases 3) Migration due to slow changes in environments (e.g. water level rises at the shoreline) has ALWAYS occurred, and is no big deal 4) Animals thrive in warmer temps 5) The northwest passage has been open multiple times in the past. Less ice opens new transportation routes for northern nation states. 6) Animals have also always migrated due to weather pattern changes 7) Colder temperatures have the opposite effect on crops and animals 8) The cost of migration is built-in to normal human movement - very few people live in one location for their entire lives anymore 9) Every environment change predicted is already being lived in successfully at this moment in time - there are deserts, rainforests, plains, woodlands, riverlands, islands, coastal lands, etc. Even at its worst predictions, climate change won't create anything new that humans aren't already living in and have adapted to. 10) Longer warm seasons results in increased human productivity globally. 10) Not a single predicted model's horrible consequences (such as flooding, crop losses, mass migration, disappearing land masses, animal extinctions, etc.) have shown any signs of occurring (e.g. polar bear populations are increasing, crop yields are up, island masses are on average stable, etc.). So, basically, climate change activists want us to spend trillions of dollars to prevent any good things for the environment from happening. Dollars that could be spent on improving living conditions in 3rd-world countries. Or developing new technologies for clean water and bountiful food. Or for charitable organizations. Or education. Or expanding internet access. Or research. Or space exploration. Or...(you get the point). Climate change is a scam. The environment changes. Warmer is better. Exploit it, don't be afraid of it!drc466_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS @ 84: Like most commentators here who disagree with ID, you take an arrogant tone. What ill-informed, hands scraping the ground, people are these! Please desist. I don't know how you can persist in claiming that a temperature and CO2 chart that is slightly different in its fourth manifestation now means that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. We call that hysteria. We should expect the earth to warm up, not cool down. That is, it is a safer conjecture to expect temperatures will go somewhat sideways and then up, then, based on 4 cycles, to believe that temperatures will now decline simply because the pattern is slightly broken. If you can't see that logic, then maybe something is blinding you.
Have you forgotten so quickly?
No, I haven't forgotten anything. The problem is that what you consider "evidence" is not "evidence" but supposition, so I had to try and figure out what you were talking about.
Look at the chart @ 15 which is better than your outdated 1999 one. Both charts show temperature and CO2 should currently be decreasing according to the sawtooth pattern, if only natural forces are at work. But in fact temperature has stayed steady whilst CO2 has risen to historical highs.
And this proves what? That we're living in the Industrial Age? What else does it prove? According to you, that temperatures should be declining. And---trying to understand your logic---I guess this means that the fact that temperatures haven't fallen is an indication of the effects of CO2 (This is the best that I can make of your logic). Now, as I mentioned @ 78, if you look closely at the chart---even your more excellent one; in fact, "your" chart is the one I was talking about---you will see that temperatures increased for a considerable time period (thousands of years) at the same time that CO2 levels did NOT rise. This contradicts the thesis of global warming alarmists. You causally sweep this under the rug, and then have the temerity to claim I'm doing something like that. Absolutely not. By "sawtooth" pattern, you mean a pattern in which temperature is going up and down. This means that the "average" temperature during this time period has stayed the same! Meanwhile, CO2 levels were lower that this 'average' temperature---that is, NOT 'tracking'---and then 'caught up', and are now much higher. With all of the CO2 fluctuating like this, the temperature has stayed the SAME! The only logical explanation is: (1) CO2 levels DON'T determine global temperatures, (2) man-made CO2 is causing these levels to rise. And, so, what is the cause for alarm here? In fact, based on the 'fun' argument I gave up above, it is likely that the world will adapt to higher CO2 with a growth in fauna around the planet. That is, I think we should expect CO2 levels to start leveling off, and, if there is no upsurge in industrial use of fossil fuels, to begin decreasing.
This is prima facie evidence that the natural temperature cycle has been disrupted in the past few decades, in association with massive increases of anthropogenic CO2.
If you are a proponent of AGW, this statement is self-contradictory. You're saying that CO2 levels are going up, and temperature is going down (yes, you've disguised this reality by phrasing it instead as "temperature cycle has been disrupted", but I've just filled in the blanks for you). Please stop sweeping the obvious under the rug. Based on the graph in the OP, there appears nothing to be concerned about. That's the real bottom line. BTW, your statement also contains a blunder. The "disruption" of the temperature cycle has been going on for about 10,000 years, and you say that it's only been the past few decades. How do you account for 10,000 years of "disruption" when, for most of that time, CO2 levels were at historically lower levels? You can't have it both ways here.PaV_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Whatever VY, it is your dog and I'm just telling you 'that dog won't hunt!' Nothing personal. This is my last response to you on that subject on this thread.bornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

I consider your arguments above par save for when you venture into YEC territory.
Same here. :)
And I would hope that we could focus on where you excel instead of where you lack.
Well, I certainly wouldn't let um, weird, remarks against YEC slide.Vy_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

They did not even acknowledge the paper I cited
You keep repeating this so I gotta ask, so what??? Does every paper on topic X acknowledge every other paper on topic X? Feel free to ignore this again.
much less overturn it with new research.
So you claim.
i.e. They either were completely ignorant of the paper of ignored it.
No kidding.
I dug into the paper and found it robust.
Perhaps because you presuppose the BB is true?
You really have selective way a viewing empirical science.
Maybe, but you certainly do.Vy_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Whatever Vy. I consider your arguments above par save for when you venture into YEC territory. And I would hope that you would focus on where you excel instead of where you lack. Atheists will continue to pick on this weak YEC point of yours and ignore the bigger issues you excel at. IMHO, YEC is a side issue and a losing proposition at that. Moreover, it is doctrinally unnecessary.bornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

They did not even acknowledge the paper I cited much less overturn it with new research. i.e. They either were completely ignorant of the paper of ignored it. I dug into the paper and found it robust. You really have selective way a viewing empirical science.bornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

I let the YEC position slide because I would rather have YECs as close friends than antagonists.
And yet it seems you prefer beating down strawmen YEC arguments. That's not very friendly.Vy_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Vy, I actually recall that you were the one who ignored my main points to focus on what was being overturned. Don’t try to claim victory in that argument when you are the one who ignored the science!
Like I said the last time, whatever makes you feel sleep well at night. I remember your claim that I ignored your most important quote. The same one I quoted, highlighted the relevant parts (more that once), and showed how new research rendered it invalid. But of course like you said, I "ignored" it. Maybe the meaning of "ignore" has changed in the last few weeks...Vy_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Vy, I actually recall that you were the one who ignored my main points to focus, and refocus, on the point that was being overturned. Don't try to claim victory in that argument when you are the one who ignored the science! Overall, I let the YEC position slide because I would rather have YECs as close friends than antagonists.bornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Claude, so I'm suppose to be embarrassed because you made a Theistic argument for atheism, i.e. 1+1=2? An argument that backfired on you in such a humorous way? Well by golly Claude, if defending the atheistic worldview with such self imploding arguments is your definition of embarrassing a Christian, then please keep the embarrassment coming! What is you next supposed proof for atheism besides the broad category of 'any subject'? Claude's present stance: http://img.memecdn.com/must-find-a-way-to-backfire_webm_6475785.gifbornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

And because your position can so easily be shown to be unreasonable
So far all you've done to back this unsubstantiated claim is ignore my posts, regurgitate Darwinian arguments and repeat the same things like saying it a million times makes it true.
... best to just not discuss it.
It was less than a week ago I "defended" YEC on site and it wasn't much of a defense, just me talking to someone who ignored my posts and repeated the same things. Much like you're doing. I'd rather not do that again, not immediately anyway.
You don’t have to explain how “dating method x is invalid” for all dating methods. What you have to explain is why, if they are all invalid (as you claim) they all converge on the same ages.
From my post @29:
When your dating methods over a certain age are corrected against themselves, the fact that they match up “just right” is not a coincidence. It’s more like circular reasoning.
Vy_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Andre, What Al Gore actually said was that there are scientists who are predicting that the north pole (that's one pole) would be ice free in the summer time by around 2013. So far it hasn't happened but it's gotten close the past several years.goodusername_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 This is about your ridiculous claim @ 55 that people who use atheist arguments should be regarded as atheists themselves. You made that claim about me. It's obviously ridiculous. Laughable. I'm embarrassed for you. So now you're desperately trying to divert attention to avoid looking too stupid. Too late.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Claude at 64 "So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too? What a ridiculous argument." Claude at 66 "So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too – that’s your argument. That’s ridiculous." Claude at 85 after being shown that 1+1=2 is an argument for theism "It’s your stupid argument, bornagain77, that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist. It doesn’t matter if the subject is “1+1”" Claude scoring own goals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPr-8jsBODQ An own goal is when a player scores in their own team's net or scoring area, not the opposing team's, during sports gamesbornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

The deception of the graph is that c02 and methane proceed warming cycles - only problem is if you expand the graph's X axis, we see c02 levels ALWAYS, lag warming periods as gigatons are driven from the oceans during warming along with more rotting vegetation, etc. This is the purpose of their graph it to show some 1:1 relationship of c02 with temp, but we have known for about 30 years now, c02 increases have NEVER preceded heat - it is the inverse..Tom Robbins_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 83 It's your stupid argument, bornagain77, that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist. It doesn't matter if the subject is "1+1" or "Ganesh is a false god". Your argument is still ridiculous, as anyone can see. So don't try to blame your own goal on me. See if you can get anyone here to agree with you that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

PaV @ 78
First, I like your quote from Galileo. I think it pefectly reflects the debate we have here at UD with Darwinists. They close their eyes to the truth. As to this comment:
You are not dealing with the evidence contrary to your position. You are just trying to sweep it under the rug,
I can only respond by asking: what contrary evidence? Would you like to point it out to me, please?
I already did, and you already commented on it. Have you forgotten so quickly? Look at the chart @ 15 which is better than your outdated 1999 one. Both charts show temperature and CO2 should currently be decreasing according to the sawtooth pattern, if only natural forces are at work. But in fact temperature has stayed steady whilst CO2 has risen to historical highs. This is prima facie evidence that the natural temperature cycle has been disrupted in the past few decades, in association with massive increases of anthropogenic CO2. Now, when Bob O'H referred to this evidence you said: "The comment I made was based on the graph in the OP. Would you like to contradict my statement using that graph?" This is Exhibit A for you sweeping the evidence under the rug, instead of dealing with it. This is what Galileo was talking about.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Claude states "And now you’re trying to backpedal." And yet Claude himself has backpedaled in his very next statement: "that agreeing with an atheist on "any subject" makes one an atheist" So instead of the 1=1=2 example he repeatedly used, now it is "any subject" once he realized that he could not defend that 1+1=2 example. And Claude wonders why no one takes him seriously.bornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Andre @ 75
You’ve been highly irrational on these pages on numerous occasions so there are no presumptions, I don’t think you are a materialist I just think based on the evidence you are wrong most of the time.
That's not credible. I think your posts @ 68 and 71 just showcase an irrational prejudice that anyone who disagrees with an ID proponent must be an atheist, materialist evolutionist. As I predicted @ 64. And now you're trying to backpedal. And you haven't acknowledged that bornagain77's argument - that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist - is ridiculous. It is, isn't it?CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply