BUZZ ALDRIN REJECTS GLOBAL WARMING FEARS

[Coito ergo sum]

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a contributing factor to warming temperatures, but they aren't the only factor.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

[GreyICE]

Greyice, your first graph illustrates what I said. I don't see your problem there.
From 45 to 75 it cooled, with one warmer blip in the middle. 75 was significantly cooler than 45. Temps then started climbing again.
That's about thirty years when temps didn't climb, as the "models" say they should have.
When temperatures climb along with CO2, it's hailed as "correlation" and all the proof we need. When they don't, out come the excuses.
Everything is being spun one way. That's why I'm sceptical. Objectivity has been binned, when it comes to AGW.

Did you miss the entire second half of my post about the sulfer aerosols?

You know what? You're fucking dead on. Everything is being spun by one side. Facts are being ignored by one side. Statements are being ignored by one side. Science is being ignored by one side. One side is blind to reason. One side ignores logic. One side absolutely refuses to move off their disproved beliefs. Denial of the moon landings? Creationism? Fair comparisons.

It really does remind me of Phillip Morris. "Look, here's people who got lung cancer who never smoked a day in their life!"
"Cool. So, lung cancer is like 12 times more likely in smokers because...?"
"He got cancer, he never smoked! This guy lived until 95, he smoked every day of his life. These 12 people have been smoking for 40 years, they have no problems! You're not being objective about this!"

Radiative imbalance. Your response to it was "well what about clouds!" Well, what about them? What about science? As much heat must flow out as flows in, Mack. Does CO2 reduce the amount of heat flowing out, Mack? If so, what must happen to correct this situation, Mack?

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a contributing factor to warming temperatures, but they aren't the only factor.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

So you're suggesting that the situation is worse than the IPCC predicts? That's awfully pessimistic of you.

[Coito ergo sum]

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a contributing factor to warming temperatures, but they aren't the only factor.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

So you're suggesting that the situation is worse than the IPCC predicts? That's awfully pessimistic of you.

No. Nor is that fairly the conclusion to be drawn from what I posted.

What I posted was that CO2 levels are a contributing factor but not the only contributing fact Warming causes oceans to give up CO2 and CO2 amplifies the warming. Human generated CO2 also contributes to the warming.

The IPCC data on warming does not isolate that which is directly attributable solely to human generated CO2. So, of course, I'm not suggesting that what I've said says that the situation is worse than predicted by the IPCC.

I'm neither pessimistic nor optimistic on this issue. What I wish to be true, or what I hope to be true is irrelevant. It is what it is.

[GreyICE]

At the moment, human generated CO2 is the major factor in increased CO2 concentrations. We can, after all, get a fairly good idea how much fossil fuel we're burning, and the volume of the atmosphere.

If we're lucky, the oceans will not give up much of their CO2. There's a lot of factors at work here.

[mistermack]

I really don't understand your position here. Do you actually think that the rise in CO2 levels is just coincidental to the rise in global temperatures?

I think it's not proved. And what I object to is being regarded as some kind of heretic for not believing it. ( usually by people who haven't even got a clue about the evidence for or against ). That's why I use the religious comparison. People are behaving like AGW is some religious doctrine that cannot be questioned.

Well actually, the facts are with me. I say it's not proved. The IPCC agrees with me. Where we differ is I say the odds are less than 50/50 that manmade CO2 is the main factor in the observed warming. The IPCC say it's 90/10 that manmade CO2 is a SIGNIFICANT factor, whatever that means.
My justification is the fact that climate has warmed rapidly and significantly in the past, without human production of CO2. Like when the earth shoots out of the ice-age. According to the ice cores, you get 800 years of very dramatic warming, without any rise in CO2.
Or the medieval warm period.
And, if the models were correct, the ice cores would show temperatures following the variation in CO2 with a lag of less than thirty years. They show no such thing. So if you want to know what my best guess is, it's that CO2 has a fairly small effect. Too small to show up in the ice cores. The rest of the variation is caused by other factors. Some known, some unknown.

If we knew all the factors, we COULD predict climate. Including next years. And the year after.

[Coito ergo sum]

At the moment, human generated CO2 is the major factor in increased CO2 concentrations. We can, after all, get a fairly good idea how much fossil fuel we're burning, and the volume of the atmosphere.

If we're lucky, the oceans will not give up much of their CO2. There's a lot of factors at work here.

It's "a" major factor, but not "the" major factor. Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity, per UNEP. "The present carbon cycle - Climate Change". Grida.no. Retrieved 2010-10-16. http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/

However, that same source says things like this:

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities. It is unlikely that the warming is to be entirely
natural. Reconstructions of climate data from the last 1,000
years also indicate that this 20th century warming was unusual
and unlikely to be the response to natural forcing
alone. Volcanic eruptions and variation in solar irradiance
do not explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th
century, but they may have contributed to the observed
warming in the fi rst half.

Note - most of the "warming" is not the same as saying most of the "CO2."

Also - "attributable to" is not the same as "solely" caused by. Further, "unlikely to be the response to natural forces alone" is not the same as saying "certainly" or "indisputably." And, UNEP says that the "best match" in their modeling comes from a combination of the natural forces and the human forces, relative to CO2 content.

So, I stand by my interpretation of the conclusions drawn by those who support human sourced global warming. Even they don't attribute it solely to human action, and even they don't suggest the degree of certainty that alarmists transform the data into. Nevertheless, the naysayers and "deniers" are incorrect when they claim that there isn't evidence for human-caused global warming. There is. And, it's quite strong.

[mistermack]

Did you miss the entire second half of my post about the sulfer aerosols?

No, I didn't miss it, but I didn't see where you made a point. Perhaps I missed that bit.
I did my best to respond. Did you miss my comment about excuses and spin?

Radiative imbalance. Your response to it was "well what about clouds!" Well, what about them? What about science? As much heat must flow out as flows in, Mack. Does CO2 reduce the amount of heat flowing out, Mack? If so, what must happen to correct this situation, Mack?

Now you're getting all outraged christian on me. I know my name's mack. I mentioned clouds, because any paper on the subject will make it clear that their overall effect is not fully understood.
You are talking there as if CO2 is the only factor, when it comes to heat flow. That's clearly wrong. I would do some reading, if I were you. We don't MEASURE heat flow. We MODEL heat flow. Nobody knows how much heat is flowing in and out of the planet. We attempt to model it, with an incomplete knowledge of all the variables.
And with only todays data to go on, as we haven't been measuring things for very long.

[GreyICE]

Did you miss the entire second half of my post about the sulfer aerosols?

No, I didn't miss it, but I didn't see where you made a point. Perhaps I missed that bit.
I did my best to respond. Did you miss my comment about excuses and spin?

Radiative imbalance. Your response to it was "well what about clouds!" Well, what about them? What about science? As much heat must flow out as flows in, Mack. Does CO2 reduce the amount of heat flowing out, Mack? If so, what must happen to correct this situation, Mack?

Now you're getting all outraged christian on me. I know my name's mack. I mentioned clouds, because any paper on the subject will make it clear that their overall effect is not fully understood.
You are talking there as if CO2 is the only factor, when it comes to heat flow. That's clearly wrong. I would do some reading, if I were you. We don't MEASURE heat flow. We MODEL heat flow. Nobody knows how much heat is flowing in and out of the planet. We attempt to model it, with an incomplete knowledge of all the variables.
And with only todays data to go on, as we haven't been measuring things for very long.

Outraged Christian? Outraged geologist being told that they're making shit up and that the earth is 6,000 years old. Outraged biologist studying viral markers on DNA and being told that they're part of a conspiracy to destroy the church. Stop telling me what I do and do not know, I know a thousand times as much as you do, and can demonstrate it, so lets focus on the demonstration of the ignorance and deception here, not insults to the posters. And, by the way, feel free to get outraged as you like here about what I have written. It's the best strategy for you in debate, you have no hope of responding to the science.

Now, lets debunk the deceptions. We know how much heat is flowing in and out of the planet. You see, we have satellites in orbit. They measure the energy the sun is emitting very, very well.

We know the size of the earth very, very well. And yes, we can include the atmospheric envelope in that. Heat flow into the envelope? Energy (per square meter) * Area of earth (cross section). Heat flow out? Well, the fucking same now in the long term, ain't it? Is this true, or is it not true, Mack?

What's the mechanism for heat flow out? Radiation, and only radiation. No conduction, no convection. Is this true or not, Mack?

And is the absorption wavelength of CO2 near the center of the Earth's blackbody emissions spectra, Mack?

This is the key point. Radiation is the only way that heat leaves the earth. At all. You say that I focus on radiation like there are not other factors. There are no other factors. If you feel otherwise, feel free to demonstrate some. Aliens collecting heat in spaceships and flying it away, magical demons who drain the heat to fuel their lava pools so hell has the right atmosphere, or just a basic violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

It's not a model. It's a first law equation. The first one that everyone learns when studying energy. Ein = Eout + Estored.

[Beelzebub]

I really don't understand your position here. Do you actually think that the rise in CO2 levels is just coincidental to the rise in global temperatures?

I think it's not proved. And what I object to is being regarded as some kind of heretic for not believing it. ( usually by people who haven't even got a clue about the evidence for or against ). That's why I use the religious comparison. People are behaving like AGW is some religious doctrine that cannot be questioned.

Well actually, the facts are with me. I say it's not proved. The IPCC agrees with me. Where we differ is I say the odds are less than 50/50 that manmade CO2 is the main factor in the observed warming. The IPCC say it's 90/10 that manmade CO2 is a SIGNIFICANT factor, whatever that means.
My justification is the fact that climate has warmed rapidly and significantly in the past, without human production of CO2. Like when the earth shoots out of the ice-age. According to the ice cores, you get 800 years of very dramatic warming, without any rise in CO2.
Or the medieval warm period.
And, if the models were correct, the ice cores would show temperatures following the variation in CO2 with a lag of less than thirty years. They show no such thing. So if you want to know what my best guess is, it's that CO2 has a fairly small effect. Too small to show up in the ice cores. The rest of the variation is caused by other factors. Some known, some unknown.

If we knew all the factors, we COULD predict climate. Including next years. And the year after.

I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question!
Who cares about past Natural Variation due to regular Orbital Shifts?

The changes you keep on about, take thousands of years to rise and fall. The CO2 levels lag temperature (As you would expect) by centuries.
Now, look at the current warming rate - an order of magnitude faster, and with a corresponding rise in CO2 levels. The two scenarios are clearly different!

Natural Variation - 100,000 year cycle. Thousands of years to warm and then to cool. CO2 levels lagging by ~800 years.

Current situation - No cycle, just increasingly rapid rise in temperatures. CO2 levels in step with temperature, no 800 year lag.

Do you see the difference? or are you still going to bleat on about "..but it was different 100,000 years ago"?

[Blondie]

It's in true rationalia style.

Want a stuffy, log-jammed-up-your-ass tone check out ratskep

Fun and informal =/= bombastic and pointlessly shitty.

Pointless? Guy claims it's a positive feedback loop accounting for the CO2 lag in the Vostok ice cores and that the fellow who he's talking to must 'except' that he doesn't understand that. I ask him how a positive feedback loop could be applied to the data to account for the CO2 lag and this is pointless?

I'll have a go...

Cold seawater is a better sink for CO2 then warm seawater. If temperatures rise, seawater will release CO2 into the atmosphere, creating a delayed rise in CO2 traces in ice cores.

I'm leaving this thread because I don't think this is the forum for this kind of discussion. I'd rather talk about fucking and such here.

I only want to say the above is wrong. The Vostok ice cores are not composed of seawater.

Adios thread.

[JOZeldenrust]

It's in true rationalia style.

Want a stuffy, log-jammed-up-your-ass tone check out ratskep

Fun and informal =/= bombastic and pointlessly shitty.

Pointless? Guy claims it's a positive feedback loop accounting for the CO2 lag in the Vostok ice cores and that the fellow who he's talking to must 'except' that he doesn't understand that. I ask him how a positive feedback loop could be applied to the data to account for the CO2 lag and this is pointless?

I'll have a go...

Cold seawater is a better sink for CO2 then warm seawater. If temperatures rise, seawater will release CO2 into the atmosphere, creating a delayed rise in CO2 traces in ice cores.

I'm leaving this thread because I don't think this is the forum for this kind of discussion. I'd rather talk about fucking and such here.

I only want to say the above is wrong. The Vostok ice cores are not composed of seawater.

Adios thread.

I didn't say they were. They're composed of snow, so their CO2 content correllates to atmospheric CO2 levels. Seawater is only relevant because it's a CO2 sink. It's what makes rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere a positive feedback loop.

IOW, learn to read.

[Trolldor]

OMG REALLY MISTERMACK? AND ALL CAPS MUST MAKE IT EVEN MORE IMPORTANT RIGHT!?!?!?!!


WHERE ARE THE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????

[GreyICE]

I'm leaving this thread because I don't think this is the forum for this kind of discussion. I'd rather talk about fucking and such here.

I only want to say the above is wrong. The Vostok ice cores are not composed of seawater.

Adios thread.

Given the breadth and quality of material that you've presented, I believe that you have made a wise decision. I wish you best of luck in your discussions at the Ke$ha fanclub forums.

[Blondie]

I'm leaving this thread because I don't think this is the forum for this kind of discussion. I'd rather talk about fucking and such here.

I only want to say the above is wrong. The Vostok ice cores are not composed of seawater.

Adios thread.

Given the breadth and quality of material that you've presented, I believe that you have made a wise decision. I wish you best of luck in your discussions at the Ke$ha fanclub forums.

Feel like a big man now? I'm not interested in discussing this, it has nothing to do with breadth of material.. did I present any material? I think I just questioned some assertions, and rightly so. So what the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, I get it. Making yourself feel big. Fuck off then.

[Blondie]

IOW, learn to read.

Learn to write.