Little by little the “concensus” that Anthropogenic Global Warming exists is being broken.
In what is becoming a death by a thousand cuts, AGW takes another hit:
A new peer-reviewed scientific study counters a major premise of global warming theory, concluding carbon dioxide did not end the last ice age.
The study, led by University of Southern California geologist Lowell Stott, concluded deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before the rise in atmospheric CO2, which would rule out the greenhouse gas as the main agent of the meltdown.
cross-posted @ Celestial Junk
For newcomers to SDA, be sure to search the archives for “The Sound of Settle Science” or “Y2Kyoto” for a glimpse of what a thousand cuts look like. If load times are slow, try this or this.
Of course what would an expert in paleoclimatology know about anything relating to today’s climate. Especially when he is a geologist.
The AGW proponents that hang around here claim that historical infrences do not count, because ‘this time is different’.
Get ready for a couple of them to cut to the front of the line to get their T-shirts that say:
“Ya, but… this time is different”.
But why not quote a little more? From the link you provided:
‘Stott’s new study suggests the rise in greenhouse gas likely was a result of warming. It may have accelerated the meltdown, he says, but was not its main cause.
He cautioned that the study does not discount the role of CO2.
“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” he said. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.” ‘
Let’s hear it again: “I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate.”
Doesn’t quite sound like the end of AGW, does it?
ra: Nice Try! It still doesn’t change the fact that if true, the study destroys a major plank of AGW. Of Course the researcher paid lip-service to AGW theory, as he’s in no position to say anything else but that. He is simply respecting fields of research that are not his.
So I ask … do you honestly think that your observation in any way changes the fact that AGW just took another hit.
“do you honestly think that your observation in any way changes the fact that AGW just took another hit.”
Depends on whether you think AGW is/ever was as simple as “CO2 goes up, temperature goes up.”
“but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.” ‘
Let’s hear it again: “the important point is”
Paul: I am not aware of any major plank that this destroys. Which one are you referring to?
Regards,
John
“If the United States had participated in Kyoto and it had been fully implemented, according to economist Bjorn Lomborg in his new book, “Cool It,” it would have cost the developed world about $9 trillion to lower the global temperature by about .3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. That would have put off predicted warming by the end of the century by about five years.”
Rest here
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/warming__wisdom.htm
The idea isn’t a new one, it’s long been held that rising temperatures will lead to rises in CO2 as well as methane.
This is the same kind of simplistic gotcha argument that creationists use when having a go at evolution.
Posted by: Yoop at September 29, 2007 2:28 PM
Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist you would know the connection between CaCO3 and CO2 concentration in atmosphere dating back to those 600 million years of the chart you posted yesterday.
Are you trying to tell me that today’s atmosphere is exactly the same as it was 600 million years bp. or that climate patterns are exactly the same as they were 600 million years ago, or even that the ocean’s circulation patterns are the same as they were 600 million years age? Are you even trying to tell me that the planet’s eccentricity/obliquity/precession is the same as it was the same as it was 100 thousand years ago let alone 600 million?
So yes things are different today than they were at the beginning of the Palaeozoic and that is why scientist look mainly at recent past climates (geologically speaking) rather than 600 million years. Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist you wouldn’t even consider bringing up climates older than a couple of millions years to compare today’s climate.
You forgot to put legs on that straw man Yoop, he doesn’t stand up as an argument.
The Plank: Increases in CO2 precede warming … according to the “models”. Problem is, the geological record doesn’t support the digital model. Skeptics argue that CO2 increase is a result of warming … and they are building their case. By the way, the article misquotes the icecore record, which determines as well, that CO2 increases follow climate warming. Furthermore, nobody has said that this new study destroys AGW theory, but rather it erodes it.
CO2 is omly one of the so called greenhouse gases, but even though it is one of the major ones after water vapour, it is still only about three per cent, where water vapour is the other ninety seven per cent. As far as I can tell none of the computer models on which the AGW proponents base their cataclysmic forecasts factor in known cyclical variations in the heat output of the sun. Neither do they factor in variances in solar irradiation reaching the earth due to known variations in the earth’s elliptical orbits around the sun and wobbles in the axis on which the earth rotates. These ecentricities with varying and long term cyclic patterns of as long as 100,000 years effect the irradiation received by earth and are felt differently on the north and south hemispheres. How on earth ( pardon the apropos pun) can these models be depended on when they deliberately ignore the most likely causes of climate variations?
Bob Wood: I disagree with your 3% number. Also in regards to your comments about climate models I would encourage you to take a look at this.
Regards,
John
Bob Wood at September 29, 2007 6:12 PM
“As far as I can tell none of the computer models on which the AGW proponents base their cataclysmic forecasts factor in known cyclical variations in the heat output of the sun. Neither do they factor in variances in solar irradiation reaching the earth due to known variations in the earth’s elliptical orbits around the sun and wobbles in the axis on which the earth rotates…”
Oh they certainly do Bob, just look at the IPCC AR4.
Ok, look at past climates within the Holocene and you will see temperatures that were much higher than they are today. Go back 410kya, 340kya, 230kya and as recent as 7.5kya and you will see global temperatures as much as 4 degrees warmer than today. The reason for the warmth then is not the same reason we are seeing the warmth today. Then it was the earth-sun relationship, but today it’s (mostly) human emissions of greenhouse gases. Left to it’s own without these anthropogenic emissions, by all rights when we look at the earth and how it is effected by the sun’s insolation, we should be entering an ice age. Instead we are getting warmer at a great rate.
Paul, that is a straw plank ;-). The current hypothesis is that warming precedes CO2 release. How else would you explain the timing with the Milankovitch cycles? The problem with milankovitch cycles is that they do not cause a large amount of change in the radiation reaching the earth, but do change how it is distributed. Hence the need for an amplifying effect.
Regards,
John
“The Pollyanna of global warming”
An intersting article found in the Globe and Mail today.
theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/LAC.20070929.BKCOOL29/TPStory/Environment
“Then it was the earth-sun relationship, but today it’s (mostly) human emissions of greenhouse gases.”
That has to one of the most stupid statements I has heard yet from a global warming cultist’s.
What happened did the sun join a union and go on strike.
“That has to one of the most stupid statements I has heard yet from a global warming cultist’s.”
Well now there’s a hit and run if I ever saw one. Can expand on that a bit?
Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 5:25 PM
“Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist…”
?!!!??
“Yoop if you were indeed an expert in paleoclimate and a geologist …”
???!!!?
And your expertise is in what? Specifically, what might be your field or research experience in the Pliestocene?
(I’ll see you 40, and, ah-h-h-h, raise you another 5 to boot)
What happened to the earth-sun relationship? did it just end when humans invented the automoble? last time I looking the sun was still there.
Alan: I don’t mean to speak for Albatros, but I would interpret his comment to refer to the orbital mechanics that go into Milankovitch cycles. I will only add that as we go back millions of years in time other climate drivers become more important. For example, one of the greatest drivers is continental drift. Also consider that the solar output has increased a great deal over the last billion years.
Regards,
John
[Posted by: alan at September 29, 2007 7:35 PM ]
“That has to one of the most stupid statements I has heard yet from a global warming cultist’s.
What happened did the sun join a union and go on strike.”
Alan,
You have to understand. “This time is different”. No less than The National Geographic Magazine has actually said it that way. “This time is different.”
Yoop at September 29, 2007 7:43 PM
You’re dodging the question Yoop. The question was, are today’s climate mechanisms the same today as they were 600 million years ago as depicted in your “Junkscience” graph that you posted yesterday? Are the gases the same as they were? Have biologics ever transformed the surface or atmosphere of the planet in any way? Are the continents the same as they were? Are the oceans the same as they were?
It only requires a yes or no answer Yoop. Any geologist should instantly know the answer to this question without trying to avoid it.
Oh and remember, based on your junkscience link we are primarily talking about conditions since the Palaeozoic, not the Pleistocene.
“What happened to the earth-sun relationship? did it just end when humans invented the automoble? last time I looking the sun was still there.
Posted by: alan at September 29, 2007 7:47 PM”
I already addressed that Alan, as I said we should be slowly sliding into an ice age, but we are instead we are quickly getting warmer. Obviously other factors besides the influence of the sun’s insolation are at work here.
AGW is being taken apart one little bit at a time by serious scientists … not by us here. We just echo those who know better; or are in a position to make educated arguments. And, to that end, those who are skeptics are not cranks and losers, but serious qualified individuals who are finding error after error after error in the science that the IPCC has used to come to its conclusions.
Now, here’s my challenge to the AGW crowd, as I’ve issued it at my blog many times. Since AGW is such a pressing and all encompassing issue, the IPCC owes us a clear digital trackback to who, what, where, when, and how it came to it’s conclusions. That means that I should be able to follow-up on every single tidbit of research that went into it’s conclusions; including who did what. I should also be able to find serious rebuttal to those who find errors in AGW science. I should be able to find this on the IPCC website, or associated websites … not have to google my way fruitlessly around the world.
Yet, one can’t even find the CV of most of the IPCC contributors … your average scientist or layperson can’t even go to the IPCC website and discover who the “people” behind this myth are. This makes the IPCC methodology incredibly suspect … for an organization that is asking that modern humanity to take the most drastic measures in it’s history to correct what it claims will be a sure catastrophe … yet can’t even produce a digital trackback to it’s data, is scandalous.
Anybody with a shred of skepticism should have red flags popping all over … hell, your average blog has more accountability built in. There is no excuse for this … none; and all my AGW friends who visit Celestial Junk have never been able to meet my challenge in this because as far as I know, the IPCC has clearly erased or refused to make available a way of tracking its contributors and sources in an efficient way. Some we know; others we don’t; and some we assume.
I remain a skeptic on this account alone … I know when I’ve been fed a load of crap … and the IPCC, the way it conducts itself and controls information, screams warning to all who care to think. The scientific community is a leader in digital transference of information, so there is absolutely no excuse.
“Ok, look at past climates within the Holocene”
Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 7:20 PM
Correction, it should read “before the Holocene”
Paul, there is nobody behind any myths. The scientists behind the science however…
Paul, it’s all right here-
ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf
and the references are at the end of each chapter of the IPCC AR4 for everyone to see. Nothing is being hidden.
To paraphrase scripture, To argue with a fool makes one more foolish than the fool.
Alb: before you post something, please check it over … been there, done that. I asked for CVs.; I’ve had some very sincere people look for what I ask for … and come up empty.
So Alb and friends, for starters, tell me:
Which research sources did the IPCC use as it’s primary sources and how were they weighted?
Which sources were rejected, and why?
Which sources were used for minor consideration, and why?
What scientific based counter evidence/research/rebuttal was used when the IPCC encountered peer review that did not agree with conclusions?
And finally, please provide a CV for all the major contributors to the IPCC consensus and a list of the names of the 2500 scientists the world over who apparently signed on.
Thanks!
So alba if we are entering an ice age and cold is a lot worse for us than warmth…..I fail to see the problem.
So it has no shifted from, well maybe the warming isnt as much as we predicted but thats only because it was supposed to be colder.
Sorry, no credibility. Not one, I repeat not one AGW model has been correct in its prediction. So we should believe that big hanging lougie as well.
I am sorry, I like eveidence and predictive models. I dont see any so I dont think we need to run around like chickens.
The model is proven….as I have saod in the past there are only a couple of facts
1) C02 is significantly higher than 1940 but not as high as other times in the past
2) Mankind is largely responsible for the increase in CO2
After that….we have lots of debate on Sea Surface temperatures, air termperatures, hurricanses, sea ice, ice caps and glaciers.
Settled Science it aint. I am not saying it wont ultimatley be proven but the worst mistake the AGW group have made is say that the fat lady has sung and it is all proven.
Not proven, Kyoto has holes in it big enough to put a few hundred chinese coal plants in it and some of the core hypotheses are falling apart.
When will there be some acknowledgement that there is more study required because we just dont know.
Alb: Your list has about 1224 names, with no way of knowing who actually did the research and who were just bureaucrats writing reports. It’s a completely useless tool, other than to fall short of 2500 names. The list is window dressing.
“So alba if we are entering an ice age and cold is a lot worse for us than warmth…..I fail to see the problem.”
You’ve never heard the phrase “tipping point” before?
(Oh patience Alby, patience)
“So it has no shifted from, well maybe the warming isnt as much as we predicted but thats only because it was supposed to be colder.”
No Stephan, it’s still getting warmer and possibly if we don’t fix the problem, dangerously warmer.
Alby,
As I have stated in many past post, the climate of the earth has been in a near constant evolution and change since the early Archean. Much has changed since, and through, that time. But there are good coorelations to today’s climate buried in much of the geologic history. There in even proof of an ice age in the Archean (yes, I had actually visited and examined the exposure that proved that before it was changed by mining).
To ignore that history, and what the geochemical data indicates, and to *off-handedly* claim that it is simply evident to all that “this time is different” is to ignore a lot of good science. That scientific consensus exist regarding AGW is a myth.
I see a lot of AGW proponents make the claim that that time was different, and this time is different than all that has gone before it.
That has not been proven, and I am, personally, highly suspect of any scientist that makes the claim that all that is needed has been proven, and the science of AGW is settled.
BTW, I have stuck my nose, my shovel, my geochemical tools, and about 2,500 drill holes into Pleistocene sediments and debris all over the Canadian shield for over 45 years. My backyard is full of the crud. Don’t pretend that you are going to educate me on the field relationships of the Pliestocene.
So, what changed at the end of the Pleistocene that made that big slab of ice disappear so QUICKLY? What mechanism was at work then that isn’t at work now?
Paul, you may have a valid point, the IPCC documents could be more interactive to make it easier to trace, but I think they do make this tracing possible in paper to a certain extent. For example I just happen to have Chapter 3 of the AR4 in front of me and it lists the Coordinating Lead Authors, the Lead Authors, the Contributing Authors and the Review Editors. So you can see who wrote it. Also, Annex II has a list of all the authors for that Chapter.
They also reference where they get the information from, for example, this paragraph is from Section 3.2.1.
As a result, coverage has been improved substantially before 1920, especially over the Pacific, with further modest improvements up to 1950 (Worley et al., 2005; Rayner et al., 2006). Improvements have also been made in the bias reduction of satellite-based infrared (Reynolds et al., 2002) and microwave (Reynolds et al., 2004; Chelton and Wentz, 2005) retrievals of SST for the 1980s onwards.
So all the work is referenced. As you might imagine this is a lot of references and we have 17 pages of references with almost 1,000 works cited. So the information seems to be traceable.
In regards to looking at those who find errors in the science, it does look at this to a certain extent. For example it references some of Svensmark work on cosmic rays. (Incidentally, it also has a nifty index which I used to look up cosmic rays.)
What it won’t do is to look at issues that have not made it into peer review. Thus you won’t see the tired old argument that we only produce 3% of the CO2 or that CO2 is already saturated or any one of a number of similar statements.
However, I confess that I have not looked at the process of the IPCC this way before. I have reached my opinion by looking at the science involved and especially examining the statements that challenge it.
In this regards, I don’t really care who said something as long as they can back it up and the science hangs together. That is what matters in the end.
Regards,
John
Yoop uniformitarianism may work well in geology but it only goes so far in climatology.
You imply here that thing have not changed in 600 million years.
“Get ready for a couple of them to cut to the front of the line to get their T-shirts that say:
“Ya, but… this time is different”. -Yoop at September 29, 2007 2:28 PM
Now you say that “As I have stated in many past post, the climate of the earth has been in a near constant evolution and change since the early Achaean. Much has changed since…” So Yoop, now you are saying things change. Right, then why are you posting graphs showing temperature and CO2 concentration that cover earth time back to the Cambrian as if it had some relevance in today’s climate?
What caused the end of the last ice age you ask? The insolation hitting the planet’s surface increased, and it didn’t happen suddenly, it took 6000 years. Ok 6000 years in geologic time is sudden, but in this case it’s plenty of time to get the job done.
2) Mankind is largely responsible for the increase in CO2
Sigh…. Stephen, did you read my bank account argument on the other thread? Can you make an argument that would see us not being responsible for ALL the current rise in CO2 (there Yoop, I used current rise – happy)?
I would also add a third certainty to your list – adding CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Regards,
John
John: Consider the claims made by the IPCC. Consider it’s budget. Consider that this is the single biggest issue facing the world today … an issue led and championed by the IPCC.
Now consider the level of trackback available to anyone wanting to examine the process. It’s archaic. Given the IPCCs budget … you get my drift.
Paul, I agree it could (and probably should) be made better, but my points are:
1) The kind of trackback you want exists.
2) The archaic condition of the report in no way invalidates the science that is being produced.
Regards,
John
John: Agreed, it in no way invalidates the science, but it certianly makes it more difficult to invalidate it as well. It’s like putting a filter in front of the facts.
You and I both know that the modern world is full of capable people in an incredible diversity of fields who could “possibly” shred some of evidence or the process itself or at least find problems (the recent temp data for NA is an example). The more people you open it up to, the more room for errors or omissions or fraud to be uncovered … that’s why the “filter” concerns me.
Furthermore, I find the lack of serious rebuttle to the skeptics disturbing. They are simply dismissed … it reminds me of ninteenth century science, where challenges to established but false norms weren’t even considered or cast off with glib argument (ie: He works for Big Oil). I can’t even find serious counter arguement to some of the “skeptics” serious complaints.
This looks more like politics to me, instead of science.
Albatross,
Care to explain how/why the phenomenah which has caused the Earth to warm and cool over the Earth’s history,
ceases to exist now?
It was the Sun (or other non-human causes), which cause the Earth’s warming cycles over and over and over again, but THIS TIME its humans, and almost exclusively so.
Like the sun is, what, no longer that massive firey ball that’s the sole source of heat in the solar system.
Forget the “thousand cuts” of new studies, of which many, many are more rigourously scientific than the ideologically driven global warming drivel, forget all that for the moment,
the theory doesn’t even pass the basic logic test.
The theory doesn’t even attempt to DISCOUNT the most obvious cause of temperature rise (again, that firey ball hundreds of thousands of times the size of earth), but looks past it.
In fact it looks past any other plausible cause, and starts with the conclusion and works to only prove that singular theory.
And after looking past other plausible (and in the case of the Sun, likely) scenarios, the door is then slammed shut, the sceintific method of enquiry is closed, and other studies which seek to gain knowlege, are castigated, smeared and belitted.
No, this so called science based theory is nothing of the sort.
Sorry Albatross, but the “cuts” will continue, until this theory, like many other disproven theories in mankind’s history, is finally laid to rest.
CO2 in the atmosphere ‘traps’ all of the electromagnetic radiation in the 13.5 to 15.5 micron band.
This is 8.4% of the Earth’s black body radiation.
To the rest of the spectrum CO2 is transparent.
The probability of radiation being ‘trapped’ by CO2 molecules is a function of the frequency of molecules (concentration) and the distance travelled. At 20ppmv this distance is in the order of 5000m. At the present CO2 concentration (~385ppmv) almost all of the 13.5 to 15.5 micron wave-length EM energy (IR or heat) is attenuated within 200m of the radiating body. This makes the atmosphere slightly warmer near the ground especially at night.
Since a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ‘traps’ all of the heat in the 13.5 to 15.5 micron band, and essentially none of other wavelengths, changes in CO2 concentration can have very little influence on the improperly designated ‘greenhouse effect’ of the gas.
The atmosphere developed some 4 billion years ago. It consisted largely of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, the latter making up ~20% of the total. About 2 billion years ago blue-green algae evolved in the oceans. They consumed carbon dioxide and exhaled oxygen. Gradually the oxygen content of the atmosphere increased to the ~21% we now enjoy. Carbon dioxide concentrations gradually came down, in part due to extensive development of limestones (~440kg CO2 per tonne) during the Palaeozoic.
Since the early Precambrian we have evidence of glacial periods – diamictites – lithified glacial tills. These deposits are separated by about 200 million years, which suggests a glacial period once each 226 million year orbit of the Solar System through the Milky Way Galaxy. If one considers that the CO2 in the Precambrian atmosphere was generally several percent, reaching 7000ppm in Cambrian Time, and still there were glacial periods, it seems CO2 did not contribute significantly more than it does today – and cannot be expected to, based on its Electromagnetic energy absorption characteristics.
Major climate forcings originate externally to the Earth (e.g. the Sun) and some major influences are external even to the Solar System.
In this regard one can find an interesting paper that deals with the waltz of the planets and the influences on the Sun’s energy out-put at http: //www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html
Re: biff at September 29, 2007 11:06 PM
“Care to explain how/why the phenomenah which has caused the Earth to warm and cool over the Earth’s history, ceases to exist now?…”
Biff, Biff, Biff, Biff, Biff, it didn’t “cease to exist”, I already answered that question at 7:20 PM. Look up.
Soooo, that massive firey ball of gas up in the sky,
that causes me to feel warm when it is out, and cooler when it is gone (behind clouds, buildings trees whatnot),
that makes my skin burn when I don’t wear UV 250,
that overheats my car in mid-July, but keeps me slightly warm when my car heater busts in January,
that made my retinas burn when I was seven (even though my big brother Timothy promised nothing would happen if I lookes straight at it),
that makes the white stuff on my driveway melt in the spring (I believe the the technical term is “snow”… though the “s” may be silent),
that makes my neighborhood pool (which is so bloody cold it induces extreme shrinkage – if you know what I mean) when it’s first filled in June, nice and comfy by mid August,
that gave my great Aunt, Beatrice, heat sroke last year (sweet ladie that Beatrice),
may actually have something to do with…..well……our warming?????
Gee, who’d of thunk it.
Woops, I see that Albatross, posted after Jet.
I guess the Sun isn’t the culprit for that warming thing after all.
I feel so stupid.
It is points such as this that are shredding the Kyoto Kult;
[Since a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ‘traps’ all of the heat in the 13.5 to 15.5 micron band, and essentially none of other wavelengths, changes in CO2 concentration can have very little influence on the improperly designated ‘greenhouse effect’ of the gas.] JET
The AGW debate is evolving;
The Kult is loosing scientific ground by the day.
The Kult is now desparately preaching with the only thing it has left; “ya but, this time it is different.”
Some (Jane Stewart) have long ago admitted the science is phooney but will fall back on the ‘our religion is no worse than your religion’ argument.
Many blogs are turning up the heat on the Kult. The media is slow or just does not want to give up the best scam story in history.
Anonymous trolls may be used by well financed groups to ‘muddy the water’ in a desparate attempt to stave off the inevitable.
The big-guns[sic] of the Kult will continue to hide from a debate they know they will loose.
Bjorn Lomborg, Parick Moore and others have huge credibility in all this.
Albert Gore, David Suzuki and others have little credibility left. It is the reason they will not debate.
“What caused the end of the last ice age you ask? The insolation hitting the planet’s surface increased, and it didn’t happen suddenly, it took 6000 years. Ok 6000 years in geologic time is sudden, but in this case it’s plenty of time to get the job done.
Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 9:32 PM ”
There you have it folks! Alby is afraid his type can’t adopt to a changing climate,like species have done for millions of years. But then if I had his logic,GorSuziki would probably scare the crap out of me to with their blathering. 6000 years???? Saaaayyyyyy. Isn’t that around the time the earth has been here,according to creationists? Ummmm. One cult siding with another Kult?
Ron, this is a battle for hearts, not minds. Those who wish to push an agenda which is based on shaky “facts” will always play the emotion card because fear can cause brains to stop functioning properly.
The people steadfastly sticking to “the sky is falling, again” meme are a graphic example of psychological projection when they accuse “deniers” of being luddites, uneducated or unscientific.
Global warming is, like yoga, a “gateway belief” which logically leads to harder beliefs such as depopulation, which is a nice euphemism for genocide and mass murder, left-wing/communist style. I don’t know why greens don’t get called on this crypto-malthusian crap more often.
I don’t know why greens don’t get called on this
Could it possibly be because of this (excerpt below)?
“definitely fewer than one hundred people, and maybe as few as twenty people, actually decided what constituted national news in the United States”
[Posted by: albatros39a at September 29, 2007 9:32 PM]
“You imply here that thing have not changed in 600 million years.
“Get ready for a couple of them to cut to the front of the line to get their T-shirts that say:
“Ya, but… this time is different”. -Yoop at September 29, 2007 2:28 PM”
The implication is not as you interpret it. I say that things have been changing constantly since the Archean, and they are changing today, yet you are ready to say that this present change is *different* from any part of the prior changes. Hence the “Ya, but… this time is different.
So. Prove it.
“Now you say that “As I have stated in many past post, the climate of the earth has been in a near constant evolution and change since the early Achaean. Much has changed since…” So Yoop, now you are saying things change. Right, then why are you posting graphs showing temperature and CO2 concentration that cover earth time back to the Cambrian as if it had some relevance in today’s climate?”
Please prove there is no relevance.
“What caused the end of the last ice age you ask? The insolation hitting the planet’s surface increased, and it didn’t happen suddenly, it took 6000 years. Ok 6000 years in geologic time is sudden, but in this case it’s plenty of time to get the job done.”
Interesting point. That last big ice cube retreated approximately 1200 miles in 6,000 years. That would be an average recession rate of about 1,000 feet per year. That is much faster than the average recession rates observed for most of the glaciers today. (Not counting the ones that are actually advancing) So, I guess the average recession rate has actually slowed during this part of the present interglacial period.
AGW is a cult, based on psychological rather than scientific axioms.
These axioms are few; they are simple; they are common to most psychological utopian cults.
The axioms are that humans are Sinners; that because of their sinful behaviour, an Apocalyptic end to them and their work(the planet) is imminent; that Redemption can be achieved by a vow of poverty and a return to ‘nature’ (rejection of progress and capitalism); and Prostration to a Higher Power (Big Govt).
This pyschological aberration has been abrogated by the socialist/communist UN, which is marketing this psychological cult, as a tactic of an enormous money laundering scheme. The tactic is to insist that the industrial nations of the world reduce their industrial progress, and pay massive amounts of money – not as loans but as Sin Money – to the so-called ‘developing countries’ so that they, heh, can industrialize.
So, the West pays China to put up one new coal plant a week. Neat.
If AGW were a valid scientific agenda and not a handmaiden of a money transference agenda, then, there would be no UN money transference agenda. No Sin Money would be allowed. The focus would be on practical, incremental tactics all over the world. And, if it were a valid science, dissent and debate would be required rather than denigrated and condemned; ie, there would be no ‘sides’ in the issue. Furthermore, if it were valid science, it would never consider a reduction to one cause (human CO2) as a valid conclusion in a complex system.