Global Warming and the Environment

[WinePusher]

It's bad enough when individuals deny reality or threaten others, but when such views are widespread, that's when its damaging.

Examples:

denying global warming.

Questions:

Generally speaking, what are the main concerns of environmentalists and how should these concerns be dealt with?

Is denial of Global Warming a denial of reality?

[chestertonrules]

Where correlation exists CO2 level increases lag temperature increases.

Sorry.

This is a repeated unsubstantiated claim, and a half strawman/half misunderstanding that has been addressed numerous times within this thread, including here and here.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in science, reality, or a productive conversation.

All you seem to be able to do is toss out irrelevant data and insults. The claim has been substantiated but you ignore the data each time.

Facts are facts. CO2 does not lead temperature increases historically, it lags increases.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[nursebenjamin]

Where correlation exists CO2 level increases lag temperature increases.

Sorry.

This is a repeated unsubstantiated claim, and a half strawman/half misunderstanding that has been addressed numerous times within this thread, including here and here.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in science, reality, or a productive conversation.

All you seem to be able to do is toss out irrelevant data and insults. The claim has been substantiated but you ignore the data each time.

Facts are facts. CO2 does not lead temperature increases historically, it lags increases.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

A. What data that I presented is irrelevant, and why?

B. How have I insulted you? I've specifically asked if you care whether or not your understanding of climatology is based on reality, and you responded with nonsense about causative correlation. I feel that you are intentionally insulting our intelligence with your posts.
Stating that "causative correlation" amounts to a logical fallacy is not an insult.
Pointing out how your arguments are a strawman and explaining why your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the science is not an insult.
Asking you to acknowledge points made is not an insult.
Discussing infrared spectrometry and CO2 is not an insult.

C. If "facts" are facts then you must admit that energy leaves the surface of the earth mainly in the infrared frequencies and greenhouse gases absorb and reemit energy in the infrared spectrum. However, you won't even acknowledge this fact.

D. Changes in atmospheric CO2 may lag changes in temperature, but only when another radiative force acts upon the system first. If you are talking about the climate transition between a glacial and interglacial periods, then CO2 forcing still play a dominate role. You won't acknowledge this fact either. Sources for this are found here and here.

E. A personal web blog doesn't substantiate your claims, especially when I've painstakenly demonstrated (post 212) how the author of the said blog is clearly trying to mislead scientifically illiterate people on the subject of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

[chestertonrules]

Where correlation exists CO2 level increases lag temperature increases.

Sorry.

This is a repeated unsubstantiated claim, and a half strawman/half misunderstanding that has been addressed numerous times within this thread, including here and here.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in science, reality, or a productive conversation.

All you seem to be able to do is toss out irrelevant data and insults. The claim has been substantiated but you ignore the data each time.

Facts are facts. CO2 does not lead temperature increases historically, it lags increases.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

A. What data that I presented is irrelevant, and why?

B. How have I insulted you? I've specifically asked if you care whether or not your understanding of climatology is based on reality, and you responded with nonsense about causative correlation. I feel that you are intentionally insulting our intelligence with your posts.
Stating that "causative correlation" amounts to a logical fallacy is not an insult.
Pointing out how your arguments are a strawman and explaining why your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the science is not an insult.
Asking you to acknowledge points made is not an insult.
Discussing infrared spectrometry and CO2 is not an insult.

C. If "facts" are facts then you must admit that energy leaves the surface of the earth mainly in the infrared frequencies and greenhouse gases absorb and reemit energy in the infrared spectrum. However, you won't even acknowledge this fact.

D. Changes in atmospheric CO2 may lag changes in temperature, but only when another radiative force acts upon the system first. If you are talking about the climate transition between a glacial and interglacial periods, then CO2 forcing still play a dominate role. You won't acknowledge this fact either. Sources for this are found here and here.

E. A personal web blog doesn't substantiate your claims, especially when I've painstakenly demonstrated (post 212) how the author of the said blog is clearly trying to mislead scientifically illiterate people on the subject of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

The data, which can be found on multiple web sites, proves my point.

Your rambling is irrelevant.

CO2 is an insignificant factor when it comes to the temperature of the earth.

[LiamOS]

If CO₂ is essentially irrelevant in determining atmospheric temperature, why does it have such a massive impact in all small scale tests?

[nursebenjamin]

The data, which can be found on multiple web sites, proves my point.

Your rambling is irrelevant.

CO2 is an insignificant factor when it comes to the temperature of the earth.

The fact that you neglected to provide any source for this unsubstantiated claim of yours, let alone one from the scientific literature, proves my point.

Your responses are inadequate.

If CO2 and other greenhouse gases were an insignificant factor when it comes to climate, then why would Earth's surface be 33°C cooler[2] if the atmosphere completely lacked greenhouse gases?

[Goat]

The data, which can be found on multiple web sites, proves my point.

Your rambling is irrelevant.

CO2 is an insignificant factor when it comes to the temperature of the earth.

Please support your claim with a peer reviewed scientific journal, and not some mining engineer...

Your source does not have any scientific training, and his lively hood is based in the coal industry. I am sure that you can see the conflict of interest for one.

I am wondering why you are repeating graphs that have been shown to you to be highly inaccurate, and actually lying >??

[chestertonrules]

The data, which can be found on multiple web sites, proves my point.

Your rambling is irrelevant.

CO2 is an insignificant factor when it comes to the temperature of the earth.

Please support your claim with a peer reviewed scientific journal, and not some mining engineer...

Your source does not have any scientific training, and his lively hood is based in the coal industry. I am sure that you can see the conflict of interest for one.

I am wondering why you are repeating graphs that have been shown to you to be highly inaccurate, and actually lying >??

I've provided the chart multiple times, and the nurse has already admitted that there is no historical proof that CO2 increases cause temperature increases. Our temperatures are controlled by other factors. High CO2 levels will not stop an ice age.

If you can provide historical evidence that rising CO2 levels have led to rising temperatures, feel free!

[Goat]

The data, which can be found on multiple web sites, proves my point.

Your rambling is irrelevant.

CO2 is an insignificant factor when it comes to the temperature of the earth.

Please support your claim with a peer reviewed scientific journal, and not some mining engineer...

Your source does not have any scientific training, and his lively hood is based in the coal industry. I am sure that you can see the conflict of interest for one.

I am wondering why you are repeating graphs that have been shown to you to be highly inaccurate, and actually lying >??

I've provided the chart multiple times, and the nurse has already admitted that there is no historical proof that CO2 increases cause temperature increases. Our temperatures are controlled by other factors. High CO2 levels will not stop an ice age.

If you can provide historical evidence that rising CO2 levels have led to rising temperatures, feel free!

Now, where did Nursebenjimun do that?? Have you read his, and nygreenguy's response? It seems what I read people's response to you, and what you read are two entirely different things.

[nursebenjamin]

Please support your claim [that "CO2 is an insignificant factor" when it comes to climate] with a peer reviewed scientific journal, and not some mining engineer...

I've provided the chart multiple times, and the nurse has already admitted that there is no historical proof that CO2 increases cause temperature increases. Our temperatures are controlled by other factors. High CO2 levels will not stop an ice age.

You've seriously mischaracterized my posts. What I've said is that the evidence for such has been discussed ad nauseum within this thread.

<<<"Our temperatures are controlled by other factors.">>>
Such as???

<<<"High CO2 levels will not stop an ice age.">>>
This is a unsubstantiated claim, and a strawman. We are discussing greenhouse warming, not "stopping an ice age".

If you can provide historical evidence that rising CO2 levels have led to rising temperatures, feel free!

Well, the following is what was discussed in post #104:

... Look at the charts. CO2 increases LAG temperature increases. ...

Can you pleaseeeeeee source this claim for once!!! Nevermind, I know that you won’t bother. Therfore, let us take the time and follow the sources backwards to see where your claim comes from. You claim is that “CO2 increases LAG temperature increases.� There are numerous such claims on the internet and in Wall Street Journal editorials. Almost all of these arguments can be traced back to a 2007 movie named the The Great Global Warming Swindle.
[center]
A graph from the movie.[/center]
Following the source backwards, we see that The Great Global Warming Swindle is citing (Callon et al, 2003). The article is “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III�. FYI, Termination III is the period surrounding the termination or end of a previous glacial period.

Here is what Caillon et al. says in their widely misquoted article: “This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing.�(Page 1730)

“Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. … [W]e should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the present day and future climate.�(Page 1731)

Do you see any difference between this myth you keep peddling and what's found within the scientific literature??

[otseng]

You know as well as I do that you have no evidence to support a causative correlation between historical CO2 levels and the temperature of the earth.

Give it up. Your irrelevant filibuster accomplishes nothing.

Moderator Warning


Accusing others of "irrelevant filibuster" would not be considered a civil remark. Neither would telling others to "give it up". Also simply dismissing what others present is not a sign of a sincere debate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.