Sun’S Fading Spots Signal Big Drop In Solar Activity

[Number79]

You've got it completely **** about tit, you fool! The link you posted states:

Perhaps you'd better spend some time honing your own reading comprehension skills before you start accusing others of fabricating evidence.

ah bolox, I was grasping to make the point and didnt check the link but that 4.72% from oceans, plant decay, animals, volcanoes dwarfs what humans produce. Termites are responsible for more co2 than humans ffs!

I havent slept in over 30 hours so I will have to leave this thread at the mercy of you glowball warmers for a while.

[Riedquat]

ah bolox, I was grasping to make the point and didnt check the link but that 4.72% from oceans, plant decay, animals, volcanoes dwarfs what humans produce. Termites are responsible for more co2 than humans ffs!

Depends upon where it comes from. Getting through vegetable matter doesn't make any net difference (so burn as much wood as you like just as long as you're replacing trees at the same rate).

[snowflux]

ah bolox, I was grasping to make the point and didnt check the link but that 4.72% from oceans, plant decay, animals, volcanoes dwarfs what humans produce. Termites are responsible for more co2 than humans ffs!

I havent slept in over 30 hours so I will have to leave this thread at the mercy of you glowball warmers for a while.

I don't suppose the fact that human CO2 emissions relative to volcanic emissions are 10,000 times higher than you thought they were will have any effect on your position though?

Sleep well. I look forward to your justification for your last statement (edit: about termites) when you are refreshed.

[Number79]

I don't suppose the fact that human CO2 emissions relative to volcanic emissions are 10,000 times higher than you thought they were will have any effect on your position though?

Not sure where you get that figure from but no it doesnt change anything. The article says 26 billion tonnes produced by man and 200 million by volcanos, I make a factor of only 130. Although the general story seems to be that humans produce in 3-5 days what a volcano does in a year which would suggest that the figures in the article are too far apart.

The original point was about the pie chart that I posted, 4.72% from natural sources (including volcano) and only 0.28% from humans.

I suppose that man made CO2 is a little more than a drop in the ocean only being 17 times less than otherwise naturally ocuring CO2 but tbf that isnt 10,000 times higher either

Sleep well. I look forward to your justification for your last statement (edit: about termites) when you are refreshed.

I will let you google termites and co2 while I get some rest.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2004658/Global-cooling-How-sun-caused-frost-fares-Thames-centuries-ago.html

[ccc]

I can just see what is going to happen. All this work going into 'carbon capture'. All these piplines and plans to store huge amounts of Co2 under the sea and in mountains and wherever. Then some time in the near future the Earth starts to noticably cool. So what are we to do ? Aha !! All that carbon captured is going to come to the rescue !! They will decide it makes sense to release it all to 'save the planet' from the dangers of global cooling. Which no doubt will lead to some sort of massive mess.

I can just see it now. And when it happens you can point to this post as the genius that saw it coming. I want a statue.

[ccc]

Carbonite?

Gold. With my eyballs in silver and my balls in platinum. Wont need much.

[snowflux]

Not sure where you get that figure from but no it doesnt change anything. The article says 26 billion tonnes produced by man and 200 million by volcanos, I make a factor of only 130. Although the general story seems to be that humans produce in 3-5 days what a volcano does in a year which would suggest that the figures in the article are too far apart.

The original point was about the pie chart that I posted, 4.72% from natural sources (including volcano) and only 0.28% from humans.

I suppose that man made CO2 is a little more than a drop in the ocean only being 17 times less than otherwise naturally ocuring CO2 but tbf that isnt 10,000 times higher either

I will let you google termites and co2 while I get some rest.

OK, if I must spell it out. You thought human CO2 emissions were about 100th those of volcanoes. In fact they are roughly 100 times those of volcanoes. 100 x 100 = 10,000. Ergo, human CO2 emissions are about 10,000 times what you thought they were, relative to volcanic emissions. Despite this realisation, you still, bizarrely, persist with your assertion that human CO2 emissions are insignificant.

Edit: typo.

[Number79]

OK, if I must spell it out. You thought human CO2 emissions were about 100th those of volcanoes. In fact they are roughly 100 times those of volcanoes. 100 x 100 = 10,000. Ergo, human CO2 emissions are about 10,000 times what you thought they were, relative to volcanic emissions. Despite this realisation, you still, bizarrely, persist with your assertion that human CO2 emissions are insignificant.

Edit: typo.

Nope, you are putting words into my mouth. What I said was

"I dont know but when you consider how much CO2 is produced naturally or even just by volcanic activity then us driving a 4x4 and having coal fires is a drop in the ocean"

I was wrong about the amount produced by volcanic activity (baring large scale eruptions) but the point was about naturally ocurring CO2. Which from the chart that I posted was 4.7% overall compared to a man made 0.28%.

Sloppy wording on my part and lazy for not checking the link but I was pretty tired, still am infact since I still didnt sleep, but that is not a difference of 100,000 times.

Man made CO2 being only 17 times less than what is produced naturally ie a seventeenth of all CO2 is not insignificant but it isnt the end of the world either. There is every possibility that it could affect the warming cycle but what I do not accept is that it is responsible for it.

There have been many instances when there was substantially more CO2 in the atmosphere than today and at higher temps

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

[Number79]

An interesting and well written piece with some interesting comments and other good material http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/22/signs-of-strengthening-global-cooling/

[snowflux]

That temperature curve is one of the most blatantly made-up graphs that I have seen.

[Number79]

That temperature curve is one of the most blatantly made-up graphs that I have seen.

yeah, it would be wouldnt it

This is the source http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

take a look around, there is plenty worth a read on the site. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html

have a go at their test http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html

[snowflux]

yeah, it would be wouldnt it

This is the source http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

take a look around, there is plenty worth a read on the site. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html

have a go at their test http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html

The temperature graph is obviously simply made-up.

The website you quote simply pulled it off another website. I can't find any data to support the graph and, indeed, wouldn't expect to, given its peculiar form. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong by referencing the data used to plot it!

[snowflux]

Hmm, it would appear that the temperature graph in this chart:

is copied from here:

but has been shrunk a little so that it oscillates between 12 and 22 degrees instead of 10 and 25 degrees. Mind you, I suppose that doesn't really matter, given that the graph is obviously fictional to begin with.

You deniers are either extremely gullible or have some sort of vested interest in persuading others that global warming does not exist. I wonder which it is? A mixture of both, I imagine.

[Tiger Woods?]

but has been shrunk a little so that it oscillates between 12 and 22 degrees instead of 10 and 25 degrees. Mind you, I suppose that doesn't really matter, given that the graph is obviously fictional to begin with.

You deniers are either extremely gullible or have some sort of vested interest in persuading others that global warming does not exist. I wonder which it is? A mixture of both, I imagine.

Ah, you mean the temperature graph produced by Professor Scotese from the University of Texas @ Arlington?

Yes, I see. Clearly fictional as he too is an academic at a second rate university, just like the CRU mob. I mean, he only has 89 peer reviewed publications and 2 books on paleogeography and paleoclimatology. Or is it fictional because it crashes straight through your slightly deranged world view?

(In any case, the temperature graph is derived from rock formation data, so the scale is going to be imprecise...whatever the exact temperatures are the implication is that we are in a cold phase, hence on long time scales warming rather than cooling is to be expected. Indeed the world has shown that it survives quite well when it is warmer....and do you really believe that CO2 never got outside the range of 180 to 250ppm for the entirety of the past 600 million years? If not, why didn't the earth turn into a molten lifeless blob when CO2 was 10x its current levels?)

There is a reason geologists tend not to believe in catastrophic AGW. It has nothing to do with them all being in the pay of "big oil."

[fluffy666]

(In any case, the temperature graph is derived from rock formation data, so the scale is going to be imprecise...whatever the exact temperatures are the implication is that we are in a cold phase, hence on long time scales warming rather than cooling is to be expected. Indeed the world has shown that it survives quite well when it is warmer....and do you really believe that CO2 never got outside the range of 180 to 250ppm for the entirety of the past 600 million years? If not, why didn't the earth turn into a molten lifeless blob when CO2 was 10x its current levels?)

Why don't you read the relevant literature to find out?

Of course, any scientist would have noted that using a schematic graph with a resolution of perhaps ~10ma in a discussion of climate change on decadal to centinneal timescales is a bit silly to begin with.

There is a reason geologists tend not to believe in catastrophic AGW. It has nothing to do with them all being in the pay of "big oil."

What's 'catastrophic AGW' when it's at home? Defining terms is so important in science, you know.

[Tiger Woods?]

Why don't you read the relevant literature to find out?

When Elsevier reinstate alumni access, I probably will. Until then, I'm not fond of paying $31.50-$40 per article. In any case, I'm quite willing to accept that one graph's scale is slightly incorrect - it is only the qualitative and directional issues that are important for the purpose of this particular debate. Getting hung up on minutiae when they are irrelevant is the sign of a 2nd rate mind.

Of course, any scientist would have noted that using a schematic graph with a resolution of perhaps ~10ma in a discussion of climate change on decadal to centinneal timescales is a bit silly to begin with.

Good grief. Not an ounce of lateral thought to be observed anywhere. You'd do well as a lab tech.

What was the productive capacity of the biosphere like in the Jurassic, the early Carboniferous, or the Miocene like? How did the earth possibly survive with such a dense atmospheric CO2 blanket for most of the past 600 million years? Without prejudging the effect of CO2, why is the low CO2, cold, unproductive biosphere we have now "just right." If we want to think about bioengineering (i.e. in this case reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere) why not do the opposite and pump CO2 into the atmosphere. If the world's population was half a billion, would any of this matter? Where do you think the world's population is going in the near future, all other things being equal?

The real problem has nothing to do with CO2. It has to do with the fact that there are too many of us, and we are only going to stop the same way locusts stop.

What's 'catastrophic AGW' when it's at home? Defining terms is so important in science, you know.

I just love how you always artfully miss the point. It is a real skill.

[snowflux]

When Elsevier reinstate alumni access, I probably will. Until then, I'm not fond of paying $31.50-$40 per article. In any case, I'm quite willing to accept that one graph's scale is slightly incorrect - it is only the qualitative and directional issues that are important for the purpose of this particular debate. Getting hung up on minutiae when they are irrelevant is the sign of a 2nd rate mind.

Basing one's arguments on an obviously manipulated version of a sketched graph devoid of data points is a sign of religious denial.

[snowflux]

Ah, you mean the temperature graph produced by Professor Scotese from the University of Texas @ Arlington?

Yes, I see. Clearly fictional as he too is an academic at a second rate university, just like the CRU mob. I mean, he only has 89 peer reviewed publications and 2 books on paleogeography and paleoclimatology. Or is it fictional because it crashes straight through your slightly deranged world view?

That smells like an appeal to authority to me. Show me the data.

(In any case, the temperature graph is derived from rock formation data, so the scale is going to be imprecise...whatever the exact temperatures are the implication is that we are in a cold phase, hence on long time scales warming rather than cooling is to be expected. Indeed the world has shown that it survives quite well when it is warmer....and do you really believe that CO2 never got outside the range of 180 to 250ppm for the entirety of the past 600 million years? If not, why didn't the earth turn into a molten lifeless blob when CO2 was 10x its current levels?)

It is well known that CO2 levels were far higher in the past than today - where did I say otherwise? Indeed, it is supposed that the massive greenhouse effect resulting from this CO2 blanket is what allowed liquid water to exist on the Earth early in its history, when the sun's output was only about 70% of its current value.

[fluffy666]

When Elsevier reinstate alumni access, I probably will. Until then, I'm not fond of paying $31.50-$40 per article. In any case, I'm quite willing to accept that one graph's scale is slightly incorrect - it is only the qualitative and directional issues that are important for the purpose of this particular debate. Getting hung up on minutiae when they are irrelevant is the sign of a 2nd rate mind.

You'll find that a vast amount of climate science literature is available free online - including such things as the IPCC reports (although they tend to the conservative side). Spencer weart's 'History of global warming' is also an excellent online resource to get you started. Unless, of course, you are not really interested in the science, just denying science for political reasons.

Good grief. Not an ounce of lateral thought to be observed anywhere. You'd do well as a lab tech.

Hmm. Hurling baseless insults they you couldn't even explain. That's about the average level for skeptic 'scientists', I suppose.

What was the productive capacity of the biosphere like in the Jurassic, the early Carboniferous, or the Miocene like? .

First, there are some good biochemical reasons to expect higher temperatures to lead to lower productivity; but this is in any case irrelevant. As far as agriculture goes.. I suspect it would be much harder in many of the ice-free periods; many of the best areas for agriculture would be under the sea, and the lack of frost would lead to pests surviving year-round.

In the case of changing the current climate, there is a more serious problem still. Many of our best agricultural soils were produced by glacier outwash at and around the edges of former ice sheets; moving the temperate zones away from these soils could cause really serious problems.

How did the earth possibly survive with such a dense atmospheric CO2 blanket for most of the past 600 million years?

By not having ice sheets most of the time. And having sea levels over 100 meters higher. This is pretty basic stuff, why don't you look it up?

I just love how you always artfully miss the point. It is a real skill.

I asked a straightforward question. What is 'catastrophic AGW'? Apparently it's something that climatologists think is likely to happen but that geologists don't. You seem remarkably evasive on this, preferring to go off on a tangent about population. Can't imagine why.

[Riedquat]

I just love how you always artfully miss the point. It is a real skill.

He made a valid point there. The word "catastrophic" sounds like it's trying to shift things to what the extreme end supports (e.g. people that even Greenpeace view as loonies). It sounds massively different from considering people who think that AGW is happening but probably wouldn't describe the likely outcomes as "catastrophic" - whatever that means (for some people it'll be a few more hurricanes and some flooding, for others it's the end of life on Earth, hence the need for definition).

[fluffy666]

We could fight propaganda with propaganda all day long. I know that there are at least 2 skeptic sites that do exactly the same with all the glowball warmer theories. It comes down to what you believe in the end, we arent going to change each others opinions here. I will likely look through that site but am not new to this so dont expect any revelations.

No, I'm fighting propaganda with science.

There is also no exact opposite here. For instance, you may see talking points such as:

- The surface temperature record is unreliable and it's not warming.

- The warming is mainly caused by the sun.

- The warming happens entirely because of internal variation.

These 3 statements are mutually exclusive. So you cannot defend all of them, at least not if logical consistency bothers you. This is a classic trait of denialism, of course - you don't really give a stuff about finding the best scientific framework for understanding and predicting climate, you just want AGW to be wrong. This is why you rarely if ever see the AGW skeptics argue with each other.

And as I've mentioned before.. it appears that the denialists/inactivists have won; there are no serious measures to limit CO2 in place anywhere in the world and emissions are rising as never before. Denialist talking points can be seen in most of the press, especially the murdoch media. Scientists researching AGW can have their computers hacked, labs broken into and death threats made with little apparent comeback. At the same time 'skeptics' complain of persecution as they do laps of the right wing talk circuit..

[ccc]

No, I'm fighting propaganda with science.

There is also no exact opposite here. For instance, you may see talking points such as:

- The surface temperature record is unreliable and it's not warming.

- The warming is mainly caused by the sun.

- The warming happens entirely because of internal variation.

These 3 statements are mutually exclusive. So you cannot defend all of them, at least not if logical consistency bothers you. This is a classic trait of denialism, of course - you don't really give a stuff about finding the best scientific framework for understanding and predicting climate, you just want AGW to be wrong. This is why you rarely if ever see the AGW skeptics argue with each other.

And as I've mentioned before.. it appears that the denialists/inactivists have won; there are no serious measures to limit CO2 in place anywhere in the world and emissions are rising as never before. Denialist talking points can be seen in most of the press, especially the murdoch media. Scientists researching AGW can have their computers hacked, labs broken into and death threats made with little apparent comeback. At the same time 'skeptics' complain of persecution as they do laps of the right wing talk circuit..

[Number79]

No, I'm fighting propaganda with science.

There is also no exact opposite here. For instance, you may see talking points such as:

- The surface temperature record is unreliable and it's not warming.

- The warming is mainly caused by the sun.

- The warming happens entirely because of internal variation.

These 3 statements are mutually exclusive. So you cannot defend all of them, at least not if logical consistency bothers you. This is a classic trait of denialism, of course - you don't really give a stuff about finding the best scientific framework for understanding and predicting climate, you just want AGW to be wrong. This is why you rarely if ever see the AGW skeptics argue with each other.

And as I've mentioned before.. it appears that the denialists/inactivists have won; there are no serious measures to limit CO2 in place anywhere in the world and emissions are rising as never before. Denialist talking points can be seen in most of the press, especially the murdoch media. Scientists researching AGW can have their computers hacked, labs broken into and death threats made with little apparent comeback. At the same time 'skeptics' complain of persecution as they do laps of the right wing talk circuit..

Dont presume to tell me what I want.

The only thing that I really want is to know the truth and I dont believe that we are getting that from either side of the debate.

There are too many vested interests, too much disinformation and too many lies.

For every proof from either side there is a counter from the other. Add to this governments involvement, probably the least trusted bunch of liars in society, and is it any wonder that people refuse to accept what is said anymore?

The whole hockey stick controversy along with the hacked emails from Anglia pretty much destroyed the credibility of AGW research in the eyes of the general public and reinforced the opinions of those that werent sure if we were being told the truth.

[newbonic]

The Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum?

Without trawling through the thread in detail, I'm surprised no one's pointed out that the little ice age lasted 300 years (c 1550 - 1850) and the maunder minimum lasted 70 years (1645-1715) - and started over 90 years after the littele ice age. Why people keep correlating the two is a mystery.