BUZZ ALDRIN REJECTS GLOBAL WARMING FEARS

[charlou]

I think Robert was referring to the tone of Anthroban's posts there, XC ... and quite so, Robert.

[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?

No. Don't think so.

He tries to shift away from the question and I don't let him. Pointless?

No. Don't think so.

Some guy says that the Vostok ice core data is irrelevant to the question of AGW and I call bullshit on that. Pointless?

No. I don't think so.

Some guy says that he believes the scientific consensus and I call bullshit on that. Pointless?

No. I don't think so.

So what exactly is "pointlessly shitty" in what I've written so far Robert? Mmmm? Being critical of what others write when I think it's obvious BS?

[Blondie]

I think Robert was referring to the tone of Anthroban's post there, XC ... and quite so, Robert.

See above. Feel free to answer the questions.

[charlou]

I think Robert was referring to the tone of Anthroban's post there, XC ... and quite so, Robert.

See above. Feel free to answer the questions.

No thanks .. I'd rather engage with you on friendlier terms and, quite frankly, what Buzz thinks about global warming is of no interest to me. I was just pointing something out to XC there. Make of my agreement with Robert about the tone of your posts what you will.

[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.

[Robert_S]

So what exactly is "pointlessly shitty" in what I've written so far Robert? Mmmm? Being critical of what others write when I think it's obvious BS?

I'm asking you fumb duck. Answer the question.

"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years," Aldrin, the second person to walk on the Moon, said.

This is brilliant, the climate changes all on its own, so therefore we can't be adding to it.

What he said there is 100% correct. If you disagree with him you're a fucking retard.

True Rationalia style?

[GreyICE]

Greyice, you outlined the greenhouse gas theory. Nobody's disputing it. The Earth would be much colder without it. But what you wrote was incredibly simplistic.
No mention of clouds for instance.
And you fail to mention that the earth has been warming and cooling drastically for millions of years, without the help of man. And that CO2 levels follow global temperatures, not the other way round, as proven by the vostok ice cores.
The global warming lobby argue that todays warm temperatures are a result of todays raised CO2 levels. That raised CO2 causes warming within just a few decades.
Evidence for that should be there in the ice cores. They show nothing of the sort.

It is simplistic. You want to know why? The science is simple. Most science really is. Science is, after all, the study of the natural world, and we evolved in the natural world. We have an intuitive understanding of most of it. We understand that if water flows into a pond, water must flow out of a pond at the same rate, or the pond level changes. We understand that when we add heat to something it gets hotter, but eventually it stops getting hotter because heat flows more quickly out of high temperature objects. We understand that some gasses block some wavelengths of light (blue skies give this away fairly nicely - it ain't blue because space has a color).

It is simple. Clouds are a feedback effect. They increase or decrease because of decreasing heat. A feedback effect could never remove the main effect - what would trigger it? The earth would be in a state of stasis if the feedback effects would be that drastic - unable to move temperature at all. And yet you note (as a flaw) that the earth has done exactly that. Your historical records are irrelevant. Many cancers are not caused by smoking - this does not mean that smoking does not cause cancer. Similarly other warmings may not have been caused by CO2. That is irrelevant. This one is being caused by CO2. We understand the mechanisms and the whys. Smoking caused this cancer, even if Aunt Dottie never had a cigarette in her life and died of a tumor in her left eye socket.

CO2 inhibits the flow of heat from the earth into space. Increased CO2 slows the flow of heat from the earth. Thus, the temperature rises. I explain, you and anthroban yell and obfuscate. I suggest that if one side is right and one side is wrong, only one side benefits from yelling "Why it's just too complicated for anyone to understand!" I doubt it's the one that is actually right.

Do you disagree that we are emitting CO2? Do you disagree that more CO2 = less heat escaping? Do you disagree with any main points of the theory? Or are we arguing effects and amounts?

[Beelzebub]

Beelzebub, you've dashed my hopes. You were so confident, I thought you must have something. What you describe is warming. No argument there. And you describe a rise in CO2. No problem. What you've established is that CO2 has risen, and temperatures have risen. That's it. Where's the causal link?
Temperatures rose from about 1880 till 1948. Yet the rise of CO2 was absolutely miniscule. There was NO link. Then for the next 20 years, CO2 rose more quickly. But temperatures fell. Again there was no link.
Since then, CO2 has risen quickly, and temperatures have risen.
So there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two. Why should we link the two for the last thirty odd years?

What you are doing, is what christians do all the time. You are explaining any warming with CO2. It's like the god of the gaps. Any unexplained warming must be down to manmade CO2. Like anything we can't explain must be done by a god.

I want evidence for a god, and evidence for AGW. Not just something unexplained. All climate change has been unexplained up till now. Yet suddenly we're expected to accept it's fully understood.
Understanding might be improving, but it's not there yet by a long shot.

What is your source? I see lots of assrtions, but little in the way of referemces.
Here are the facts - CO2 levels have been rising since the 18th century! (See here and here. This is the paper referenced).
The rise in CO2 levels, and the rise in temperature is called a Correlation - we know, for a fact, that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, so a rise in CO2 levels should lead to a rise in temperatures - and guess what? This is exactly what we do see - this is just basic, basic physics.

You say that "there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two" - this is plainly untrue, Reality says this is untrue! The facts say this is untrue!, the evidence says this is untrue!

You claim that my position is like that of "christians"? What the heck are you on about? If you mean the anti-evolution creationists, then your position is way closer to them than mine. Note the similarities...

Creationists assert without evidence (Because they have none)
You assert without evidence (I have asked you before, but you have yet to put up anything - perhaps, like the creationists, you have none?)

Temperatures have risen before. Faster and to a greater degree. See Vostok icecore data. Denying global warming is stupid - denying AGW is not.

Do you even know the difference between the two?

Again see Vostok icecore data - graphs for 400kbp which show CO2 and temp.

This is a complete non-sequiter! We are talking about what is happening to the climate now, and for the past 200 years. Whatever happened in the distant past, it has no immediate bearing on the current situation.
The long term climate shifts, as noted in the Vostok cores (and other proxies), are largely influenced by the Earth's orbital and rotational shifts - this occurs over long periods of time, of the order of 100,000 years peak to peak. What we are observing today, is not a rise over thousands of years, but a rise over 200 years! It is also of interest to note that during the entire 420 thousand year Vostok record, CO2 levels never went much above ~300ppm - and this occured only once, 323,000 years ago.
The 'normal' interglacial CO2 levels were of the order of some 200ppm. This is what we find in the pre-industrial record, but since the industrial revolution got underway, and we began to burn fossil fuels, the CO2 level has risen to 390ppm!! This is unprecedented!

If, as many climate-deniers claim, this current warming was due to natural variability (as seen in the Vostok cores), then the rise in temperature should have no corresponding CO2 rise (Which, according to the natural variability, should lag temperature rise by several (~800) years), and should be happening over thousands of years. This is not what we observe, therefore the Vostok core data is not relevent to todays situation.

With regard to the current warming, would you like to put up some evidence that shows that the apparently tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is not really true? And by evidence, I don't mean evidence-free assertions, nor opinion-based websites, but credible stuff like peer-reviewed papers, research documents etc? Please?

Are you fucking retarded?

Will respond to this later, point by point, when I'm not on my phone.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.....
Looks like we have a Creationist-Clone here!

When presented with REASON and EVIDENCE, he runs away screaming obscenities!!
(I noticed that others here have also felt his ranting spittle flying about )

Hey Anthroban, and you mistermack, how about YOU come up with some EVIDENCE, or even just a REASONED argument, eh?
You don't demonstrate a Scientific fact/observation/hypothesis/theory wrong by quoting ageing has-been's, or by swearing at people.
Many here have given time and effort to clue you guys in, without rancour or overt animosity.
They have pointed you to more information, where you might learn about the subject(s) you are disputing.
They have presented you with copious Evidence and Reasoned statements.

Your considered reply?
Pointless, childish utterants and Profanities!

It's like playing Chess with a pidgeon...
He knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, then flies off to his mates claiming victory!
What sad losers...
.

[mistermack]

What is your source? I see lots of assrtions, but little in the way of referemces.
Here are the facts - CO2 levels have been rising since the 18th century!

Yes, but "rising" doesn't say how much, does it?
I said the rise was insignificant. Here is the graph of human production of CO2 over the same period. As you can see, it's miniscule up to 1945. After 1945, it really takes off, but the global temperatures DROP for a period of about 25 to 30 years.
(Human production of CO2)

You say that "there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two" - this is plainly untrue, Reality says this is untrue! The facts say this is untrue!, the evidence says this is untrue!

No, the output of CO2 from 1880 till 1945 was extremely low, yet the world warmed half a degree. Thats a lack of correlation. Then CO2 output rose dramatically. Yet the world cooled for nearly thirty years. THAT'S a lack of correlation. And that's about ninety years.

[GreyICE]

What is your source? I see lots of assrtions, but little in the way of referemces.
Here are the facts - CO2 levels have been rising since the 18th century!

Yes, but "rising" doesn't say how much, does it?
I said the rise was insignificant. Here is the graph of human production of CO2 over the same period. As you can see, it's miniscule up to 1945. After 1945, it really takes off, but the global temperatures DROP for a period of about 25 to 30 years.
(Human production of CO2)

You say that "there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two" - this is plainly untrue, Reality says this is untrue! The facts say this is untrue!, the evidence says this is untrue!

No, the output of CO2 from 1880 till 1945 was extremely low, yet the world warmed half a degree. Thats a lack of correlation. Then CO2 output rose dramatically. The world cooled for nearly thirty years. THAT'S a lack of correlation. And that's about ninety years.

Really now, it cooled for 20 years?



You wouldn't have happened to select that red dot that's flying far above the averages in the mid 40s as your 'baseline year' would you have? And you definitely wouldn't have forgotten to mention Sulfate Aerosols that we were also emitting:



You know, back before the clean air act stopped that, hence stabilizing the graph at the concentrations you see now.

I notice no response on simple science, but more obfuscation. Yes, we could use Sulfate Aerosols to negate global warming by altering the radiative balance in the opposite direction. Yes, there WOULD be consequences. No, we do NOT want to do this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... vanced.htm

[mistermack]

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.

That's right. It's there, it's quite obvious, and accepted by virtually all the scientific "consensus" and it's about 800 years.
Bearing that in mind, how come, superimposed on top of those curves, there isn't an equally clear correlation, with more short-term rises in CO2 causing automatic corresponding rises in temperature, with a delay of about thirty years? Because this is what we are being asked to accept should automatically happen.

This to me is the biggest weakness of the AGW argument. THAT is where the evidence SHOULD be, but isn't. And I have yet to hear why not.
Every rise and fall of CO2 in the ice core graphs should have a corresponding rise and fall in the temperature graph, within thirty years. There is nothing.
If temperatures haven't been following CO2 variations over 400,000 years, why would they start now?

[Coito ergo sum]

But the report is wrong to refer to him as a scientist. That's not in his resumé. Jack Schmitt is a geologist, but Aldrin doesn't really have the authority to comment.

I can't agree with that. You don't need authority to comment, and he's got a doctorate of Science in Astronautics from MIT.

I think he got annoyed when Al Gore tried to hijack the Apollo name for his own ends. Likening global warming dissent to moon landing scepticism is taking a moronic liberty. The IPCC panel doesn't claim certainty for humans being responsible for warming. Only a statistical probability. So those who take the other view are not even disagreeing, they are actually within what is claimed by the IPCC.

It's hardly like denying the moon landings.

I agree with that statement.

[mistermack]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

So if no-one is able to do this, then why on earth should Buzz Aldrin's trashing of global warming predictions be in any way noteworthy - or even remotely credible?

Al Gore got a Nobel peace prize for his silly film. He's not a climate scientist, he's a failed politician. But schoolkids are made to watch his rubbish.
Is all that ok?
Buzz Aldrin is responding to Al Gore trying to hijack the pride that americans feel for the Apollo program. There is no similarity whatsoever.
The GW alarmists constantly trumpet the "consensus" argument, so Aldrin and others are now speaking out, making the point that there is no "consensus".

The consensus is among people who know what they're talking about. Hence you would excluded.

In no other area of science that I can think of is the "consensus" even relevant, other than to conclude what is the prevailing theory.

It is most certainly the prevailing theory - the consensus, if you will - of the vast majority of climate scientists (those who work and publish in the field of climatology) that human action is "most likely" a "significant factor" in global warming.

Even the consensus or prevailing view is not "is definitely" and "the only factor." Those in the consensus apparently allow for there to be some chance that human action is not a significant factor. Also, things may have more than one "significant factor."

I am not a climate scientist, but I do have a good science background and education and a better than average IQ. I have read a fair amount of papers on the subject and looked at the IPCC material available online. I think that it's hard to argue that human action over the last 100 years is not a significant factor in global climate change.

I see no reason to discount, however, other significant factors like the sun and volcanic action. Nevertheless, that doesn't minimize the importance of the apparent fact that human action is also a significant factor.

On the other side of the coin, Schmidt (the Apollo 17 guy) is also correct in saying this: "The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." He's right about that. Fear is being used to push political and economic agendas unrelated to the "truth" or the reality of the impact of human activity.

[Beelzebub]

What is your source? I see lots of assrtions, but little in the way of referemces.
Here are the facts - CO2 levels have been rising since the 18th century!

Yes, but "rising" doesn't say how much, does it?
I said the rise was insignificant. Here is the graph of human production of CO2 over the same period. As you can see, it's miniscule up to 1945. After 1945, it really takes off, but the global temperatures DROP for a period of about 25 to 30 years.
(Human production of CO2)

You say that "there's been nearly 90 years of no observeable correlation between the two" - this is plainly untrue, Reality says this is untrue! The facts say this is untrue!, the evidence says this is untrue!

No, the output of CO2 from 1880 till 1945 was extremely low, yet the world warmed half a degree. Thats a lack of correlation. Then CO2 output rose dramatically. Yet the world cooled for nearly thirty years. THAT'S a lack of correlation. And that's about ninety years.

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?