Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Remarkable. The evidence, in fact, shows all six of ican's points are wrong. They are, in fact, the opposite of what he says is the case.

What evidence shows all six of my points are wrong?

1. Everything changes, eventually. Eventually the sun will go nova, for example. However as long as we pour CO2 into the atmosphere, and burning fossil fuel and making cement do that, the current global warming will continue, at least until the next turn of the Milankovitch cycle starts the feedback loops for the next ice age. And then we will have other problems.

The evidence is that CO2 is precipitated out of the earth's atmosphere along with H2O with which it is mixed.

2. The IPCC and the consensus of climate and atmospheric scientists completely disagree with you. The CO2 is responsible for the warming. Simple physics. Solar variability doesn't account for it (as far back as the SAR, quantified at less than 30% of the warming trend. Since we've had accurate satellite measures of solar output there has been no increase in solar output, but the gloabl mean temp. has gone up, more quickly in the last decade.

Peak solar radiation has been observed to have increased with every eleven year sunspot cycle over the last 100 years, just as it has been observed that the planet Mars is warming--absent human releases of CO2 into its atmosphere.

3. Humans are responsible for the CO2. The historical record shows no previous spike above about 310 ppm in the last six interglacials (you're wrong about ice cores, incidentally, ican, they don't show some mythical amount of CO2 precipitated out with snowfall as you seem to think--they are actual small samples of atmospheric gases--snowfall is permeable until it gets compacted and sealed into ice). The difference this time around is us burning quite a few million years of sequestered carbon. Isotopic ratios of carbon in the present-day atmosphere show the increase is due to fossil fuel--even the president of BP has said as much.

Your allegations about the historical record of CO2 density in the atmosphere are are at best incompetent and at worst a hoax. Yes humans are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But the sun's heating of surface water mixed with CO2 and its subsequent evaporation into the atmosphere has historically as well as presently caused all but a tiny percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

And as for your second set of three points,

1. If by "eventually" you're talking in terms of millenia, then yes, it will "eventually" stop, if for no other reason than we will run out of fossil fuels. However in the near term, i.e. the next several centuries, without a complete change in our technological basis, it won't stop if we keep producing the CO2.

Natural cycles including solar radiation cycles will reverse and reverse again the current increasing CO2 atmospheric density trend, just as they have in past millennia without humans having anything to do with it.

2. Yes, it has. Solar variability isn't doing it. There is no other creditable explanation.

Solar radiation cycles, volcanoes, earthquake caused earth fissures, meterorites, surface fires caused by lightning, absorbtion by atmospheric CO2 in precipitation of H2O into earth's oceans and onto other earth surfaces that is subsequently followed by evaporation from same, and oh yes, human caused fires and other combustions.

3. Yes, humans have caused it, see point 3 above.

Human contributions to CO2 density in earth's atmosphere and earth warming are trivial.

ican, you may have knoweldge of how oxygen affects aircraft engines, however that has as far as I can see essentially zero relevance to how CO2 gets into the atmosphere, how it interacts with water vapor (it's ADDITIVE, not subtractive as you seem to think, for some reason; and as a matter of fact can under some circumstances create a positive feedback loop(try looking up "runaway greenhouse effect", for example)), and how it's removed. You seem completely unaware of the carbon cycle, as parado properly gigged you for. The major short-term variability in CO+2 concentration has nothing to do with CO2 being transported out of the atmosphere with rainfall, as you say, but rather with the summer/winter cycle, CO2 peaking when its winter in the N. hemisphere, since the biota is less active then, since there's more land mass in the northern hemisphere and the plants go dormant and don't breathe it in. But even that variability looks rather like the teeth on a very wide saw blade if you look at the graphs--it's very small in comparison to the rising atmospheric concentrations we're engineering.

You also seem to have no comprehension of the major carbon sequestrations that have gone on for miilions of years, which have acted to keep CO2 concentrations essentially constant, and of how we're screwing them up. We are, in fact, having significant effects on the carbon cycle, contra your uninformed take on the subject.

Just to take a few (and there are quite a few more):

The arctic tundra and permafrost are melting. That's unprecendented since the last ice age, and as the now unfrozen vegetation rots, it's releasing huge amount of sequestered carbon.

The ocean has taken up as a carbon sink, according to physical and chemical principles, just what it should have by climate models to match what's in the atmosphere today. However that CO2 has turned the ocean more acidic and made it fizzy, like salty soda, some oceanographers have described it. That screws up marine invertebrates' shell formation, which is strongly reducing the carbon sequestration when they die and their shells sink to the bottom, and eventuqally become compacted into limestone (which is why concrete production contributes to CO2 caused global warming, incidentally, because you burn limestone to make it). It also screws up coral reefs, so they expel their symbionts and die, and reefs are incredibly diverse marine habitats, which in turn screw up fish production, which much of the world's population depends on for food).

And incidentally, I don't know where you get that crap about Antarctica's ice increasing, which you've trumpeted several times. The research shows about half of the continent remaining essentially constant, and the other half warming and calving off ice several orders of magnitude greater than the historical record (which seems to have been responsible for the sinking of that cruise ship two days ago--far more floating ice than in years past).

Sorry, ican, you're just plain in conflict with the evidence.

Human contributions to CO2 density in earth's atmosphere, in and on earth's surface, and earth warming are trivial. Your essay is merely another hysterical repetition of the human-caused-earth-warming propaganda. I've underlined those of your statements which most contradict reality.

Your strangeous one is the one about "calving off" of ice from the antarctic is evidence of earth warming. Clearly, the thicker the ice over land in the antarctic the thicker is the ice extending over the antarctic's ocean waters, and consequently the thicker the ice that is "calving off."

Your most pretentious is the one about CO2 concentrations being kept essentially constant over past millennia and ages. That one reveals your own ignorance of the actual scientific geological findings.

Your most idiotic one is the one you alleged about unprecendented melting since the last ice age. There is a preponderance of geological evidence that the last glacial age included subsequent melting of glacial ice and vegetation growth. In particular, some of that ice melted back from south of the US's northern border to not only north of its northern border but north of the arctic circle. But that is not the half of it. How did the "now unfrozen vegetation" get there in the first place? Obviously, there was a previous warming cycle in which it grew--not human caused--that caused that "now unfrozen vegetation" to exist in the first place.

now ican resorts to large print and colour.

now ican resorts to large print and colour.

Steve 41oo wrote:

now ican resorts to large print and colour.

Next phase, really big exclamation marks. And, I fear, we will soon have to watch for italicized/capitalized/underlined swear words (Improvised Expletive Devices).

Steve 41oo wrote:

now ican resorts to large print and colour.

Congratulations! Your eye sight has improved markedly! I've been doing that here on able2know for four years, but you have only now detected it. Perhaps your reading comprehension will now improve as well. Good luck!

ican711nm wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

now ican resorts to large print and colour.

Congratulations! Your eye sight has improved markedly! I've been doing that here on able2know for four years, but you have only now detected it. Perhaps your reading comprehension will now improve as well. Good luck!

should have said large print and colour again.

and whats this word "markedly"?

The evidence is that CO2 is precipitated out of the earth's atmosphere along with H2O with which it is mixed.

Peak solar radiation has been observed to have increased with every eleven year sunspot cycle over the last 100 years, just as it has been observed that the planet Mars is warming--absent human releases of CO2 into its atmosphere.

ican711nm wrote:

The evidence is that CO2 is precipitated out of the earth's atmosphere along with H2O with which it is mixed.

When asked for your so called evidence of this ican you failed to produce it.

So.. let's ask again.. WHERE is your evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is decreased after a rain storm?

blatham wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

now ican resorts to large print and colour.

Next phase, really big exclamation marks. And, I fear, we will soon have to watch for italicized/capitalized/underlined swear words (Improvised Expletive Devices).

Been there; done that! Except I don't underline "swear words (Improvised Expletive Devices)"!



By the way, the subject of this thread is not ican. However, I realize your subject switch is your artless but courteous capitulation to my argument.

Ok! Now back to the subject: the cause or causes of GLOBAL WARMING.

ican711nm wrote:

Peak solar radiation has been observed to have increased with every eleven year sunspot cycle over the last [/color]100 years, just as it has been observed that the planet Mars is warming--absent human releases of CO2 into its atmosphere.

I would love your source for this one as well...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

I am curious what your definition of "increase" is based on the last 30 years.

ican711nm wrote:

...

Ok! Now back to the subject: the cause or causes of GLOBAL WARMING.

You deserve everything you get for violating the terms of my ican-containment directives.

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

The evidence is that CO2 is precipitated out of the earth's atmosphere along with H2O with which it is mixed.

When asked for your so called evidence of this ican you failed to produce it.

So.. let's ask again.. WHERE is your evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is decreased after a rain storm?

Science has provided the evidence that CO2 molecules mix with H2O molecules in water and in the atmosphere. The additional evidence in this case is called logic.

CO2 molecules mix with H2O molecules, whether those H2O molecules are in gaseous, liquid, or solid form. When that mixture precipitates from the atmosphere, it leaves the earth's atmosphere and condenses in earth's surface water or on the earth's surface ground in the form of water containing CO2.

This has been going on for more than a century, for more than a hundred centuries, for more than a hundred hundred centuries ... (i.e., more than a million years). Consequently, the CO2 content of the oceans has been increasing for more than a million years.

When some but definitely not all of that water evaporates from the surface water into the atmosphere, that evaporation increases not only the H2O content of the atmosphere, it also increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere. This cycle has all by itself increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere without the aid of cave or current humans.

Almost all of the CO2 in earth's surface water has come originally from earth's ground erosions, volcanoes, earthquake fissures, meteorites, lighting caused surface fires, and animal exhalations. Since humans appeared on earth, about a quarter of a million years ago, they too have caused a little CO2 to come into existence by the fires and other combustions they caused.

Where, sir, is your evidence that anything I posted previously is false? Also, I await your evidence that anything I said here is false.