Global warming sceptics, some questions for you.?

Question

Past climate changes saw CO2 lagging temperature. I'd like the climate sceptics to explain WHY CO2 lagged temperature then and isn't now. It would be nice if you could please reference a science journal article showing method they used to come to their conclusions so I can really read the study (a real science journal article, not a video or blog article or a web site that receives money from advertising).
Once you have explained that, could you tell me how you know that the CO2 rising in the atmosphere today isn't from fossil fuels? Then lastly, why do you suppose that the southern ocean is becoming saturated in CO2?
Melting glaciers and acidifying oceans don't lie, the earth is warming

Larry said- "What's your source on saturation and acidification?"

"Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms"
Nature 437, pp 681-686 (29 September 2005)

dana- Thanks for your input, but I don't want input from people who a knowledgeable on the subject. I want to see how the sceptics handle direct questions and what they use as sources of information to answer those questions. Dana, I know the answers to the questions I asked, I just want to see if they could answer these questions and so far no sceptic has come close.

Bravozulu said-
"THE OCEAN IS NOT BECOMING SATURATED. Why don't you cite a sane scientist who would say that."

Oky doky then-
(Le Quéré C, et al)

Science 22 June 2007:Vol. 316. no. 5832, pp. 1735 - 1738
"Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change"

Answer 1

I'm not a skeptic, but I can answer the question.

There was a lag in the past because there was no major source of CO2 independent of global temperature. There was one dependent on temperature - CO2 in the oceans. Carbon dioxide is less soluble in warmer water, so as the planet warmed due to natural causes, the oceans warmed, and eventually they released CO2. The released CO2 then amplified the existing warming, which is why the atmospheric CO2 and global temperature graphs match up so well.

The difference now is that there is a major source of CO2 independent of global temperatures - humans burning fossil fuels. Just as in the past, this source of CO2 emissions is warming the Earth, only this time there wasn't a natural cycle initiating the warming.

This tells us that once we reach a critical tipping point in temperature, the oceans will begin to emit CO2 as they did in the past, and global warming will accelerate even more rapidly than it already is.

Larry's theory is unscientific. The 800 year lag is not magical - as I stated, the 800 year lag is how long it took the oceans to warm sufficiently. Since the MWP, the planet has cooled and then warmed again (in between was the Little Ice Age). There is no way the increase in CO2 is due to MWP warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

jbtascam's claims are simply incorrect. Only one model (Schwartz's) has shown that a doubling of CO2 will lead to such a small amount of warming, and it was a very oversimplified model. All other models show far more significant warmings due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

"Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

The other skeptics don't even attempt to answer the question.

Isotope analysis has shown that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing due to human emissions.

*edit* well I knew the skeptics wouldn't be able to answer correctly, and I feel it's important to have the correct answer in response to each question.

Answer 2

acidifying of the oceans wasn't even a concern 5 years ago. It wasn't until the temperatures failed to continue to increase like the alarmist predicted that they had to go looking for some explanation.

Global warming is a reactionary science. You can forecast the future, you only observe events and then show why global warming cause it.

Co2 levels are never constant. They always go up and down. What caused these levels to change when there wasn't any fossil fuels? Why do you think there's something so perilous about the cycle this time? Temp levels are not related to co2. The temps are not increasing even though co2 levels are continuing to climb. You cannot tell us what the temps will be if co2 levels doubled.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

yes half the glaciers are melting. The other half are growing. Is global warming responsible for glaciers growing as well?

20 years ago there was no ice on Mt. St. Helen. Now the top is covered by new glaciers, ice, and snow even though the peak isn't as high as it was before the eruption.

Answer 3

1) Whether CO2 lagged in the past is not the issue, although it's well established that it did. A close examination of the chart in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" will show the lag. Some claim that the increases in CO2 levels "enhanced" the warming, but there is no evidence to prove that. It's a theory.

2) CO2 in the atmosphere today may very well be the result of human intervention. My response to you is that it JUST DOESN'T MATTER. The total rise in temperature from doubling CO2 levels from their pre-industrial levels (from 280 - 560 ) will be less than 1 degree Celsius. The AGW fanatics are arguing about "feedbacks" in their COMPUTER MODELS that really don't seem to be bearing out in real life.

3) Rather than watch the Glaciers melt (something they've been doing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1400s), maybe you should watch the Temperature before you say the earth IS warming. It's not, and it hasn't in 10 years. As a matter of fact, barring some really ridiculously unusual spikes in December, 2007 will be COOLER than 2006. That will be 10 years in a row (since 1998) that temperature has failed to trend one way or the other.

DATA - the preferred Kool-Aid of Climate Skeptics.

Answer 4

It is lagging now as well. You have to present a particular time frame. "Now" doesn't mean anything. I hope you realize that. Now could be the last million years, the last decade, or the last second in your meaning but presumably you mean recently and maybe the last hundred years. Obviously some CO2 is from humans. So what. You may not realize it, but CO2 is needed for our biosphere. It is an absolutely critical gas to our existence. If you would stop wallowing in the Kool-Aid Muck created by the media hype, you might understand that increased CO2 has benefits as well as does increased temperature. When temperatures fall, it is a far worse problem, but when that happens, you can bet humankind will be blamed for it by the same gullible leftists that are scare mongering global warming. I am a geologist and understand that glaciers melt. That is what they do. They accumulate, generally move downhill or to the ocean, and they melt. Sometimes greater accumulation can result in greater melting. Melting glaciers means nothing. The oceans have buffers to maintain their acidity that is not changing to any significant degree that I ever heard of and even if the earth is warming, rejoice in it and stop looking at the glass half empty just because a bunch of socialists think it is hip to do so.

Answer 5

The climate replace debate happening good now (interior the media and interior the published solutions) is only as political as that's approximately technology. the shown fact that Al Gore, a political candidate, is the poster infant for worldwide warming speaks to this reality. the two facets makes some surprisingly out-there claims to tutor their element. confident, everybody is generally used with he's not a scientist. yet i've got considered many many people asserting, "in case you have not got faith in worldwide warming only watch An Inconvenient reality zomg and the polar bears and the ocean stages and the polar bears." (ok, i'm paraphrasing) It makes me offended that throughout this debate everybody who questions any element of the "prevalent" thought of world warming is at the instant labelled in a definite way and all extra suitable factors that man or woman would make are nullified. technology is all approximately skepticism. To be completely trustworthy, whether I did have faith the AGW thought in this is entirety, i might nonetheless be careful of Gore. i'm evidently careful of polititicans. you are able to almost see the schedule written on their face.

Answer 6

When the temperature rises, CO2 level rises. That is an inconvenient fact. You are acting like science is on your side and in fact your are making a mockery of science with implied assumptions like glaciers are melting or the oceans are acidifying. The glaciers are expanding in some areas as well. The Oceans are acidifying sounds like there is a drastic difference which is typical propaganda. THE OCEAN IS NOT BECOMING SATURATED. Why don't you cite a sane scientist who would say that.

Answer 7

The ice cores show that CO2 increases approximately 800 years after temperature. The Medieval warming period peaked about 800 years ago, so it is not unreasonable to expect some of the CO2 to be coming from the Earth. CO2 that comes from the burning of fossil fuels has a slightly heavier atomic weight than the natural CO2 coming from the Earth. The atmospheric CO2 contains both and both are increasing. Cold water near the south pole should be absorbing CO2. What's your source on saturation and acidification?

This is your source:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136188

"we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 petagrams of carbon per year"

That "estimate" is hardly saturation.

I would suggest that you & Dana read up on Atmosphere-Ocean Climate Interactions:

http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/research/climatemarine/cmfoceanatm/cmfoceanatm2.html

Here is a report that talks extensively about the acidification scare:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp

Answer 8

Here's a good article for you:

http://www.isil.org/global-warming-file/man-made-or-natural.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Geography_and_climate

Oh BTW. I'm not disbuting that the Global Climate is changing, but that it's a Natural Occurance and not helped along by Humans.

Answer 9

BRAVOZULU - "THE OCEAN IS NOT BECOMING SATURATED. Why don't you cite a sane scientist who would say that."

OK. Here's a few that say exactly that.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/423474/oceans_will_no_longer_absorb_carbon.html
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/07102306.htm