EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_The CCC]

CO2 is not a lagging indicator. CO2 has a multiplier effect. Slight changes in earth tilt and orbit effect the the Albedo Effect which increase water temperature. Hot water is less dense than cold water so it expands rising sea levels. Sea level rising has already threaten Miami; Florida. Yes people can move. But moving millions of people is expensive, and cities don't move.
SEE http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea- ... feet-19211

More precisely, over the past 800,000 years or so, we've had cycles of CO2 and temperature that track each other almost exactly. Changes in cycles of earth's orbit were the main driver of these cycles. Starting from the end of the colder portion of the cycle, the sun would begin to warm the planet. The warming caused sequestered CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. That added CO2 also warmed the planet. That's called "feedback." Warming caused an increase in CO2, which in turn caused more warming.

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/f ... ecords.jpg

However, ice core records don't work for the recent past because it takes a while for the surface snow to compact down into ice that we can take a sample and read. Take a look again at the right-hand end of the graph. Someone has added the recent growth in CO2 to the ice core graph using data from actual measurement. The CO2 rate of increase becomes almost vertical. That's us adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's why the "CO2 is a lagging indicator" argument is nonsense. In the past, the main driver of CO2 increase was the changes in the sun. We weren't dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Today, the main driver of warming is us. Tobin's continued reference to CO2 as a lagging indicator, even after having this explained to him, is one example of the evidence he is ignoring.

I pretty much agree. However the sun itself hasn't changed enough to account for the increase in warming. The amount of sunlight we receive is more a function of changes in earth tilt, and orbit. Those are well established. We'd actually be in a slight cooling trend, as is happening in our upper atmosphere, if those were the only drivers. I agree it is us that is using our increase CO2 as a driver/blanket for that heat.

[_Res Ipsa]

I pretty much agree. However the sun itself hasn't changed enough to account for the increase in warming. The amount of sunlight we receive is more a function of changes in earth tilt, and orbit. Those are well established. We'd actually be in a slight cooling trend, as is happening in our upper atmosphere, if those were the only drivers. I agree it is us that is using our increase CO2 as a driver/blanket for that heat.

So, yeah, the primary driver of changes in atmospheric temperature depends on what period of time you look at. With the sun, you have three main causes of variance. First, there is a very slow increase in solar irradiance caused by the evolution of the sun itself. Second, there are cycles of changes due to changes in tilt and orbit. (Milankovitch cycles). Third, there is a change in irradiance caused by the sunspot cycle. If you take those changes in the sun starting at the beginning of the industrial age, when we started emitting significant amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, the TSI from the sun has been declining. We would expect it to decrease for several thousand more years. That's because the magnitude of the Milankovitch cycles over that period is greater than magnitude of change from the sun's evolution and the sun-spot cycle.

The cooling in the upper atmosphere is a different issue and is one of the fingerprints of global warming caused by human emissions of CO2. If the current warming were due to the sun, we would expect to see warming of the entire atmosphere. If the warming is caused by the addition of greenhouse gases, we would expect to see warming in the lower layers and cooling in the upper layers. When we actually look, we see the latter.

[_Themis]

That's because you aren't taking into account the brightening of the sun. How much brighter do astronomers say the sun is today than it was in the Jurassic?

Not much. A billion years ago, the sun was 90% as bright as it is today. So 200 million years ago, maybe 98% as bright. That is not significant.

That is actually quite significant. Without the sun the surface temperature of the earth would soon be not much above absolute zero which is -273.15 degrees Celsius. 2% is then quite a bit.

[_Res Ipsa]

About 5.5C, right?

[_Themis]

About 5.5C, right?

Due to a complicated environment I wouldn't guess exactly how much, but that is probably not that far off. It only takes a few degrees or so to put us back into an ice age. A few degrees the other way we will see more areas uninhabitable for humans that many call home today. Tobin shows a huge lack of understanding of the many problems of quickly warming planet and how vulnerable human civilizations are. The Mayans are believed to have been hugely impacted by climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

[_Res Ipsa]

About 5.5C, right?

Due to a complicated environment I wouldn't guess exactly how much, but that is probably not that far off. It only takes a few degrees or so to put us back into an ice age. A few degrees the other way we will see more areas uninhabitable for humans that many call home today. Tobin shows a huge lack of understanding of the many problems of quickly warming planet and how vulnerable human civilizations are. The Mayans are believed to have been hugely impacted by climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Yeah, rough calculation. When I did the calculation by calculating the change in TSI, converting to forcing, then converting to temperature, it was more like 4C. Even so, it's a significant increase.

[_Tobin]

CO2 is not a lagging indicator. CO2 has a multiplier effect. Slight changes in earth tilt and orbit effect the the Albedo Effect which increase water temperature. Hot water is less dense than cold water so it expands rising sea levels. Sea level rising has already threaten Miami; Florida. Yes people can move. But moving millions of people is expensive, and cities don't move.
SEE http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea- ... feet-19211

I'll repeat, CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming and not a major cause of it. CO2 is such a tiny part of our atmosphere (less than 1/100th of 1%), it can't do much on its own. The major greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere is water. After the Sun, it is the primary cause of global warming. That is why I get a chuckle out of you global warming nuts. If people found out that you wanted to rein in the SUN and WATER, you'd be laughed out of the room.

And I'll ignore your alarmist propaganda links. It is clear you have no interest in presenting real facts.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, before we get into the details of what evidence I think you are ignoring, I really think we need to clarify what you mean when you say that the earth will be fine. I really have no idea what you mean when you say that. I asked you a series of questions upthread to try and understand, but you did not answer them. You seem to have read that list as suggesting they were proposed consequences of global warming -- they weren't. They are simply hypotheticals to help me understand where you are drawing the line between "the earth is fine" and "the earth is not fine" So, please answer:

A billion years isn't relevant to us. We will either have been long extinct or evolved far beyond this lone planet and our species would be unrecognizable to us.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin, before we get into the details of what evidence I think you are ignoring, I really think we need to clarify what you mean when you say that the earth will be fine. I really have no idea what you mean when you say that. I asked you a series of questions upthread to try and understand, but you did not answer them. You seem to have read that list as suggesting they were proposed consequences of global warming -- they weren't. They are simply hypotheticals to help me understand where you are drawing the line between "the earth is fine" and "the earth is not fine" So, please answer:

A billion years isn't relevant to us. We will either have been long extinct or evolved far beyond this lone planet and our species would be unrecognizable to us.

Why are you refusing to answer?

[_Tobin]

More precisely, over the past 800,000 years or so, we've had cycles of CO2 and temperature that track each other almost exactly. Changes in cycles of earth's orbit were the main driver of these cycles. Starting from the end of the colder portion of the cycle, the sun would begin to warm the planet. The warming caused sequestered CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. That added CO2 also warmed the planet. That's called "feedback." Warming caused an increase in CO2, which in turn caused more warming.

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/f ... ecords.jpg

However, ice core records don't work for the recent past because it takes a while for the surface snow to compact down into ice that we can take a sample and read. Take a look again at the right-hand end of the graph. Someone has added the recent growth in CO2 to the ice core graph using data from actual measurement. The CO2 rate of increase becomes almost vertical. That's us adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's why the "CO2 is a lagging indicator" argument is nonsense. In the past, the main driver of CO2 increase was the changes in the sun. We weren't dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Today, the main driver of warming is us. Tobin's continued reference to CO2 as a lagging indicator, even after having this explained to him, is one example of the evidence he is ignoring.

That isn't entirely accurate. There are a number of reasons knowledgeable climatologists refer to CO2 as a lagging indicator of global warming. Most of the problem is CO2 is really a nonfactor in our atmosphere. While increases in CO2 corresponds to higher temperatures, water is really the primary greenhouse gas that causes global warming since it is a major portion of our atmosphere.