The Coming Meltdown

[sunsettommy]

[size=1]

That graph ends at 1990, and it isn't even attributed to a paper or anything! What a joke! How ridiculous. You think that even counts as any sort of reliable evidence? It doesn't.

You really have no background in science to think junk like that has significance.

I have been asking him for the updated chart and he ignores me.I noticed the source for it is missing and has been the many times he posted this out of date chart.

He somehow must think we are still at year 1990 and his chart is up to date.

:uhh:

[ldb83]

I wonder if Doom thinks that chart is junk science, or if he reserves the term for the science that doesn't align with Christianity...

Damn, I keep sliding back into evolution. I must really wanna talk about this today.

[DoctorDoom]

Ahh yes, the conservative does not recognize the laws of logic. They are terribly inconvenient for your silly claims, after all.Ahh yes, the libertroll cites the laws of logic to make lame accusations against conservatives, and then uses the fallacies in his own posts. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

[DoctorDoom]

I've already given you solutions, which you ignore, like a good creationist.Solutions? "There's a problem and we must solve it!" hardly qualifies as a solution. You have utterly ignored my uncreationist, unreligious, logical, practical list of points because you know damned well that you can't address them without revealing your ignorance of the subject.

According to you, GW isn't a problem, because you see no easy answer.Actually, Bachelor Bobby, it isn't a problem because it isn't a problem. However, bad-science zealots invent problems to scare folks.

So, in the Cretaceous it was very hot ...Why was it very hot? Were the fossil-fuel burning vehicles and industries dumping out prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide then? Was it George Bush's fault?

... and there were no ice caps. Sea levels fell quite a bit when things cooled.And all that sea water migrated to the poles, where it froze.

IAC, you're making absurd assumptions about the extent of GW. Hyperbole is a standard tactic for liberal fear-mongers.

Wake me up when you get back to reality.

[DoctorDoom]

LiberalDingBat83IQ drooled:
I wonder if Doom thinks that chart is junk science, or if he reserves the term for the science that doesn't align with Christianity...No, I reserve if for the crap that evowackos and ecowackos post here. And you have also ignored my list, Mr. Low IQ. Obviously your "science" is as pathetic as his.

Damn, I keep sliding back into evolution.Obviously, since you believe that you descended from apes, your "sliding back" means that you're still descending.

I must really wanna talk about this today.Nah, you just want to post your usual drivel, and like dogs who aren't particular about where they drop their lawn crullers, you aren't particular about what forums you pollute.

[Geoffrey20005]

LiberalDingBat83IQ drooled: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

[Native American]

I have been asking him for the updated chart and he ignores me.I noticed the source for it is missing and has been the many times he posted this out of date chart.

He somehow must think we are still at year 1990 and his chart is up to date.

:uhh:

Also notice how you are unable to provide any scientific data which shows what the temperature has been doing since then?

But wait, let me guess - you believe (despite that lack of evidence on your part - that the globe has "warmed" since then?

LOL at you.

[Native American]

That graph ends at 1990, and it isn't even attributed to a paper or anything! What a joke! How ridiculous.

C'mon Bobby, don't be coy! Post your scientific data for what those temps have done since 1990!

Oh wait, I forgot - you believe in the mythical "global warming", even though you don't have any accurate temperature data since 1990 which would support that personal belief of yours!

You're real quick to criticize the scientific data that others post, but then you can't provide any of your own.

LOL at you! :hahaha:

[sunsettommy]

Also notice how you are unable to provide any scientific data which shows what the temperature has been doing since then?

But wait, let me guess - you believe (despite that lack of evidence on your part - that the globe has "warmed" since then?

LOL at you.

People like you who fail to provide a source for anything is a budding troll.You have done it several times now.

I have asked you several times and you fail to post the source for the link.You apparently will refuse.That makes your above post a stupid one.

I have been here a 13 months longer than you and yes I have posted such data before.I even have the gall to post a source for it.

NaturalizedTexan posted the updated stuff already(gasp even with a link!) and you continue to use the out of date one.That makes you look stupid being 16 years out of date on the data.

Yes the world has warmed a little since 1979.Very little indeed.

There is no serious Global Warming.

The last 3 years even the satellite data shows a slight worldwide warming.Before that it was only the northern hemisphere that was warming and the southern hemisphere was then cooling.

Maybe you catch up with NT and his fully posted charts and the link to show for it? I have known that link and the stuff he posted for years now.

It is obvious that you did not know about it.You still do not.

[sunsettommy]

C'mon Bobby, don't be coy! Post your scientific data for what those temps have done since 1990!

Oh wait, I forgot - you believe in the mythical "global warming", even though you don't have any accurate temperature data since 1990 which would support that personal belief of yours!

You're real quick to criticize the scientific data that others post, but then you can't provide any of your own.

LOL at you! :hahaha:

Why dont you beat him to the punch and look smarter for it?

Nahh.

NT beat you to it anyway.

[Native American]

People like you who fail to provide a source for anything is a budding troll.You have done it several times now.

I have asked you several times and you fail to post the source for the link.You apparently will refuse.That makes your above post a stupid one.

I have been here a 13 months longer than you and yes I have posted such data before.I even have the gall to post a source for it.

NaturalizedTexan posted the updated stuff already(gasp even with a link!) and you continue to use the out of date one.That makes you look stupid being 16 years out of date on the data.

Yes the world has warmed a little since 1979.Very little indeed.

There is no serious Global Warming.

The last 3 years even the satellite data shows a slight worldwide warming.Before that it was only the northern hemisphere that was warming and the southern hemisphere was then cooling.

Maybe you catch up with NT and his fully posted charts and the link to show for it? I have known that link and the stuff he posted for years now.

It is obvious that you did not know about it.You still do not.

Wow, lots of words from you, but no scientific data posted, I see.

You're a troll.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

[sunsettommy]

Wow, lots of words from you, but no scientific data posted, I see.

You're a troll.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

Still no update.

You are an ass!

Maybe I will post the update and make a fool out of you.

Want me to do that?

By the way what you post has NO scientific data,just a chart and long out of date too.Only a dork would ignore updated charts based on updated data.

Man you are somethin!

[Native American]

You are an ass!

You are a piece of smegma. And a science-free one at that.

Notice how the rest of us post scientific data, while you don't? That's because you are a dumb piece of smegma.

So, while we're waiting for you to post some scientific data for once in your sorry-assed life, here's some recent scientific data (complete with source reference) for you to ponder, you data-free jackass:

Global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

[ldb83]

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg






http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/22.jpg

See, I can click and drag figures too.

I think if you insist that the planet is not warming, you're ignoring the facts. Where most of you have decent arguments is in the extent to which human activities contribute to it. We're making it worse, but nobody has been able to determine how much worse. It could be considerable enough to justify changing emissions policies, or it could be immaterial.

Short-sighted data like that provided by NA won't tell you much about GW. It's a much more gradual process than that.

[sunsettommy]

You are a piece of smegma. And a science-free one at that.

Notice how the rest of us post scientific data, while you don't? That's because you are a dumb piece of smegma.

So, while we're waiting for you to post some scientific data for once in your sorry-assed life, here's some recent scientific data (complete with source reference) for you to ponder, you data-free jackass:

Global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

What year does this chart end at and what year did you post this chart?

:whistle:

[Native American]

Once again, sunsettommy has no recent data to share with us!

That's because sunsettommy is a fraud, and in fact has no "recent data which shows a slight warming".

On the contrary, the data shows global temperatures are remarkably steady.

[ldb83]

Accusing him of not showing data doesn't make yours more conclusive or credible.

[Native American]

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg


See, I can click and drag figures too..

Yeah, we can see that you can click and drag. Congratulations. But you've got two big problems:

1) we didn't have thermometers capable of measuring to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees C back in 1880, so your chart back then is bogus

2) we did have thermometers capable of 0.1 degree C accuracy from the late-1990's on, but your chart shows global temperature falling from late 1990's on!

Indeed, your spiffy chart shows global temperature in 1998 to be the same (slightly lower, actually) as it was in 1994!!

[sunsettommy]

Once again, sunsettommy has no recent data to share with us!

That's because sunsettommy is a fraud, and in fact has no "recent data which shows a slight warming".

On the contrary, the data shows global temperatures are remarkably steady.

Yeah it is still 1990 for you.While it is 2006 for the rest of us.

Snicker.
<SNICKER>

Just keep digging that hole Native Ass.

[Jesse_Lackman]

No comments??


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.png


I'd still like to know why three of the four co2 spikes since 350000BP were preceded by a temperature spike. It looks like the temperature change leads the CO2 change up and down.

This graph supports the idea temperature is the driver of CO2 swings not the other way around.

Nature is perfectly capable of causing global warming all by itself, we see in the graph linked that natural temperature increase/decrease can swing atmoshperic CO2 without man being involved. If you look at the chart the temperature/CO2 swings are at pretty even time intervals, the current temperature/CO2 swing looks like it is happening at perfectly natural time interval.

Picture that methane roiling in ocean also sending deep waters to the surface. Deep water is under high pressure and can contain (much) more CO2. So when the pressure is released at the surface, just like opening a coke bottle, the CO2 comes sizzling out escaping into the atmosphere.

Isn't this the senaro some say killed the dinosaurs?

Secrets Of The Deep May Hold Clue To Ancient Global Warming

Global Warming Periods More Common Than Thought, Deep-Sea Drilling Off Japan Now Demonstrates

In geologic time, episodes of warming began almost instantaneously -- over a span of about a thousand years, Bralower said.


"Warming bursts may have been triggered by large volcanic eruptions or submarine landslides that released carbon dioxide and methane, both greenhouse gases," he said. "Besides reducing the ocean's oxygen-carrying capacity, warming also increased the water's corrosive characteristics and dissolved shells of surface-dwelling organisms before they could settle to the bottom."

This is how a change in the massive ocean CO2 exchange could absolutely bury the amount of CO2 generated by man, man is puny compared to nature. Nature can cause global warming but "Warming bursts triggered by CO2 release" does not match the temperature/CO2 graph. These guys would do well to tighten up their stories. According to the graph something caused a temperature increase first, in three out of four cases, followed by increasing CO2. It makes more sense that warming ocured then methane/CO2 were released by the oceans. This might also be why the temperature/CO2 graph shows CO2 levels lagging after the temperature drops. Has this possibility been absolutely ruled out in the current global warming senario?

This one made me laugh;

Methane theory gets frosty response



The idea that methane escaping from these hydrates explains a pattern of rapid warmings in the climate record has caught on among scientists.

But Mark Maslin, from the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, UK, claims he has shot the "hydrate gun theory" full of holes. Methane was the result - not the cause - of a more temperate climate, he says, and the vast majority came from tropical wetlands - swamps.


Here you have scientists towing the line by saying methane drives temperature and this guy shoots holes in that theory saying methane is a drivee not a driver??

But again the CO2/temperature graph clearly shows temperature driving CO2.

[Native American]

Yeah it is still 1990 for you.While it is 2006 for the rest of us.



http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif

Snicker.

[Bob_Arctor]

Let's forget about NA's pre-1990 stratosphere temp chart. He apparently isn't aware that stratosphere cooling is predicted as the surface - the part that actually matters - warms.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png) (25KB, MIME type: <CODE>image/png</CODE>)

This figure shows the last 25 years of globally averaged instrumental surface temperature measurements according to data collected by the Hadley Centre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Centre) of the UK Meteorological Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office) and the Climatic Research Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit) of the University of East Anglia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia). Data set TaveGL2v (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) was used. The most recent documentation for this data set is Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003).
Also shown is a history of fluctuations in the El Nino Southern Oscillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nino_Southern_Oscillation) and the period of volcanic disturbance due to the stratosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere)-piercing eruption of Mount Pinatubo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo). The volcanic period is defined as the period of satellite discernable volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere (Luo et al. 2002). The El Nino / La Nina periods are defined here as times when the five month average of the Nino-3 Index (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/) deviated from its mean (over these 25 years) by more than 0.5 °C. Many of the interannual variations in temperature relative to the trend can be explained by the release (during El Nino) or uptake (during La Nina) of thermal energy by the oceans. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo, one of the largest of the century, may have depressed global temperature as a result of expelled ash and sulfates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


So this is up to date, and it is surface temperature. That beats stratosphere temp data that ends 16 years ago, I think.

[Native American]

Let's forget about NA's pre-1990 stratosphere temp chart. He apparently isn't aware that stratosphere cooling is predicted as the surface - the part that actually matters - warms.

Bobby, I'll give you the chance to attempt to explain why you think "the surface" of the Earth is the "part that actually matters" and why you think the Earth's atmospheric temperature and the Earth's core temperature "doesn't actually matter".

Failing to do that, I'll accuse you of the same thing I've already accused Naturalized-Texan of: cherry-picking temperature data in your desperate attempt to prop up your "global warming" theory.

[Native American]

This figure shows the last 25 years of globally averaged instrumental surface temperature measurements according to

In addition to the fact that you have chosen to totally ignore the Earth's core temperature, in addition to your deciding to totally ignore the Earth's atmospheric temperature, and your (scientifically unsubstantiated) assertion that "only the surface temperature is what matters", you also have the problem that you have nowhere established that "global warming" (if any) is caused by any behavior of Man whatsoever!

Keep trying, Bobby. :grin:

[DoctorDoom]

This thread has been moved to the new Global Climate forum.

[Bob_Arctor]

I'd still like to know why three of the four co2 spikes since 350000BP were preceded by a temperature spike. It looks like the temperature change leads the CO2 change up and down.

Jesse, good question. I can only speculate that the person who created the chart screwed it up a bit by not lining up the two lines properly. This is because I've seen other graphs of the temp versus CO2 concentration, and they line up better. (The graph you're talking about was created by overlaying two different data sets from different studies.)

Examine this one:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

You can see that the peaks match quite a bit better, and also the timescale is much shorter.

This graph supports the idea temperature is the driver of CO2 swings not the other way around.
How should temperature changes alter CO2 concentrations? I'm a little fuzzy on that.

Here you have scientists towing the line by saying methane drives temperature and this guy shoots holes in that theory saying methane is a drivee not a driver??
Well, methane is a potent greenhouse gas. What you're talking about is just one man's idea, so it's premature to say that he's overturned the idea than methane helps GW. However it would seem reasonable that methane would form part of a positive feedback loop - it's created in warm swampy areas, which would increase in area as warming continued...or it would up to a point, then begin to decrease as swampy areas dried out.

[Jesse_Lackman]

Bob, that graph still shows the temperature increase leading the CO2 increase and since each time segment is 10,000 years it is by quite a bit too.

[Timberwolf]

*grin*

[Jesse_Lackman]

The CO2 and temperature lines on those graphs must correspond with the correct time, not "line up with each other" otherwise the graphs are meaningless.

Notice that the second graph shows the temperature spike at 130000BP leading the CO2 spike where the wikepedia one doesn't.

If the second graph is more accurate than the first it then it supports the obvious conclusion, historical CO2 increases follow temperature increases, even more than the wikipedia graph.

[Timberwolf]

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg






http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/22.jpg

See, I can click and drag figures too.

I think if you insist that the planet is not warming, you're ignoring the facts. Where most of you have decent arguments is in the extent to which human activities contribute to it. We're making it worse, but nobody has been able to determine how much worse. It could be considerable enough to justify changing emissions policies, or it could be immaterial.

Short-sighted data like that provided by NA won't tell you much about GW. It's a much more gradual process than that.
Okay, boys & girls, it's time to play, "Let's Buy a Clue"!!!

What is missing from Dear Liberal's assessment of the to graphs presented for our benefit?

Is it that the Earth is warming up? No, it is...that's a given

Is it that global warming is a gradual process? Oh, heavens no. It absolute ly is.

Is it that the "projections" of the 2nd graph aren't based upon "scientific" evidence? No, not really.

What IS missing from his lame commentary is that the 1st graph shows a CYCLE. One that shows a very cool period followed by a gradual warming trend...a trend that in another 75-100 years will likely be trending towards cooling again...regardless of human activity. Notice how nicely things warmed up BEFORE the industrial revolution. Ixnay on the actsfay.



The other, MORE important item missing from his assessment is that the "projection" doesn't take into account that "Mother Nature" will correct herself with or without mankinds involvement. Notice that the "projection" shows the Earth in an ever warming trend which is pure, unadulterated poppycock. Those who put that projection together either:A) Have no understanding of global climatology, or
2) Are purposefully attempting to deceive and frighten because they have an agenda to push


Your call, but my money is on "2" because I'm pretty sure they understand climatology.

I find it to be the height of arrogance and pomposity that these "scientists" actually think that humanity, short of waging an all-out nuclear war, could have any significant impact on the global climate whatsoever. It is truly laughable.

[Geoffrey20005]

Times magazine just realesed a large article on global warming, and my physics teacher thought it worth our time for us to read it during class. Rather interesting, as it was as full of holes as the debate here. Nature can cause its own global warming.
-Geo

[sunsettommy]

Bob, that graph still shows the temperature increase leading the CO2 increase and since each time segment is 10,000 years it is by quite a bit too.

I see that too.

I await Bobs explanation.

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob, that graph still shows the temperature increase leading the CO2 increase and since each time segment is 10,000 years it is by quite a bit too.
Jesse

Then you aren't looking at the recent two graphs I provided - you're still looking at the one from Wikipedia, which as I explained in post 276 is a composite of data from different studies. Other graphs show the temp rises coincident with CO2 increases, rather than before CO2 increases.

Further you haven't explained why temperature increases should increase CO2 levels. Also speculate about the fact that we know CO2 levels today are artificially increased by human activity and are coming before temperature increases.

[Jesse_Lackman]

Bob, I am looking at the graph in post 276, look close, the temperature change leads the CO2 change.

I don't know why the temperature increase leads the CO2 increase, but it is obvious it does.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob, I am looking at the graph in post 276, look close, the temperature change leads the CO2 change.

I don't know why the temperature increase leads the CO2 increase, but it is obvious it does.
You are correct. I wonder how Bob will try to spin that. :evilgrin:

[Native American]

Bob, have you scurried off into the woodwork again, now that another poster here has spotted the holes in your claim?

No response, Bob?

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob, I am looking at the graph in post 276, look close, the temperature change leads the CO2 change.
I don't know why the temperature increase leads the CO2 increase, but it is obvious it does.
Hey Jesse

It looks to me that the CO2 changes are at about the same time or before the changes in temperature. The resolution of that graph is pretty fuzzy as well. For some reason I can't download the paper at the moment, though I'll keep trying. I want to see the original material and any comments the authors have on this issue.

Also I'm still uncertain as to the basis of your hypothesis that temperature changes cause CO2 changes, and why you would reject the opposite idea.

[Timberwolf]

Bob, the BLUE line represents TEMP...the RED line represents CO<SUB>2</SUB>...the BLUE line spikes before the RED line every time. Since temperature LEADS CO<SUB>2</SUB>, it is logical to conclude that CO<SUB>2</SUB> driven "global warming" is a myth...if not an outright lie.

[Native American]

Bob, the BLUE line represents TEMP...the RED line represents CO<SUB>2</SUB>...the BLUE line spikes before the RED line every time. Since temperature LEADS CO<SUB>2</SUB>, it is logical to conclude that CO<SUB>2</SUB> driven "global warming" is a myth...if not an outright lie.


Bob is a Junk Science bozo who really doesn't have a clue as to what the graphs he keeps posting mean, Timberwolf.

[Native American]

The resolution of that graph is pretty fuzzy as well. For some reason I can't download the paper at the moment, though I'll keep trying.

Yeah, you do that, Bobby.

BTW, your logic is quite fuzzy too, honey.

[sunsettommy]

From Bobs link he posted on post # 76,with the famous chart.
Climate Change: New Antarctic Ice Core Data
The information in this web page was researched on Earth Day, 2000.
This page was last updated on May 30, 2000.

SNIP:


The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing (http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/fumages/chapter3.html), ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/home_10.htm#HEADING10-0).

Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

See how they say they are not certain about about it here in the RED bolding I made.

The Chart does appear to show the Temperature goes up first then the CO2 follows afterwards.

Bob maybe you pay more attention to your own link.:grin:

[Native American]

However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously.
Bob maybe you pay more attention to your own link.:grin:


Oops, Bob Arctor falls down flat on his widdle face again.....

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob, the BLUE line represents TEMP...the RED line represents CO₂...the BLUE line spikes before the RED line every time. Since temperature LEADS CO₂, it is logical to conclude that CO₂ driven "global warming" is a myth...if not an outright lie.
Are you guys reading the graph left to right or right to left? I'm seeing the CO2 line peak before or at the same time as the temp line in most cases.

[Bob_Arctor]

See how they say they are not certain about about it here in the RED bolding I made.
The Chart does appear to show the Temperature goes up first then the CO2 follows afterwards.
Bob maybe you pay more attention to your own link.:grin:

That isn't the conclusion of the paper, it's just the (mistaken in my opinion) idea of whoever put together that page.

Also, which way are you reading the graph?

[Timberwolf]

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

The above is the graph to which I'm referring. It does show a clear correlation between CO<SUB>2</SUB> and Temperature...that a temperature increase/decrease is FOLLOWED by an increase/decrease in CO<SUB>2</SUB> levels...and, this ain't Israel, China or an arab country...we're reading the graph from left to right.

[Naturalized-Texan]

TW: Maybe Bob never learned how to read graphs. It's very clear from the graph that the rise in temperatures preceeded the rise in CO2 levels. The explanation has to be that rising temperatures caused the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere. The question then becomes: Why did temperatures increase? Could it be just a natural phenomenon like increased solar activity, i.e., a hotter sun? Like what is happening today? Of course it could!

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
Yeah it is still 1990 for you.While it is 2006 for the rest of us.


http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif

Snicker.

Yeah like you can tell the difference between the LOWER TROPHOSPHERE and the STRATOSPHERE.

:hahaha:

We argued over the Lower Trophosphere chart.You bring up a different chart suddenly like it means something.That is a NO no!

Buy a clue and try to bring the UP TO DATE Satellite of the LOWER TROPHOSPHERE satellite chart the ones we sparred over onboard and updated to year 2006.

The rest of us are waiting for you to wake up and realize it is now 16 years later.

[sunsettommy]

Let's forget about NA's pre-1990 stratosphere temp chart. He apparently isn't aware that stratosphere cooling is predicted as the surface - the part that actually matters - warms.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png) (25KB, MIME type: <CODE>image/png</CODE>)

This figure shows the last 25 years of globally averaged instrumental surface temperature measurements according to data collected by the Hadley Centre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Centre) of the UK Meteorological Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office) and the Climatic Research Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit) of the University of East Anglia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia). Data set TaveGL2v (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) was used. The most recent documentation for this data set is Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003).
Also shown is a history of fluctuations in the El Nino Southern Oscillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nino_Southern_Oscillation) and the period of volcanic disturbance due to the stratosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere)-piercing eruption of Mount Pinatubo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo). The volcanic period is defined as the period of satellite discernable volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere (Luo et al. 2002). The El Nino / La Nina periods are defined here as times when the five month average of the Nino-3 Index (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/) deviated from its mean (over these 25 years) by more than 0.5 °C. Many of the interannual variations in temperature relative to the trend can be explained by the release (during El Nino) or uptake (during La Nina) of thermal energy by the oceans. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo, one of the largest of the century, may have depressed global temperature as a result of expelled ash and sulfates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


So this is up to date, and it is surface temperature. That beats stratosphere temp data that ends 16 years ago, I think.

I think you are confusing the two different satellite measurements and their respective charts.

The ones most of us refrer to is the LOWER TROPHOSPHERE satellite(near the surface) chart.

NA was trying to look smart with his STRATOSPHERIC satellite chart.I caught him at it.He was losing the sparring with me and wanted to see if he could sneak a different satellite chart on me.

The one he was using that was 16 years short was the lower trophosphere chart.The one in brown colors and lacked a link.

[sunsettommy]

That isn't the conclusion of the paper, it's just the (mistaken in my opinion) idea of whoever put together that page.

I note your opinion.

Also, which way are you reading the graph?

From the past towards the present time.


I still see the temperature leading the CO2 a little.

[Bob_Arctor]

From the past towards the present time.

I still see the temperature leading the CO2 a little.
Okay good, the only thing I could imagine is that you guys might have been going backward. Keeping in mind that the resolution of this graph is terrible, I'm still not seeing CO2 peaks after temp peaks. They are either before or at the same time. In fact the poor resolution may be the heart of the problem.

"According to these findings, the greenhouse gas concentrations are correlated to the Antarctic temperature over the entire period under study, which confirms previous observations made for the last 150,000 years. This link also appears during the warmest interglacial periods, when greenhouse gas concentrations were at their highest (300 ppmv of CO2 and 750 ppbv of CH4). These values are nevertheless far below the level of present concentrations — 360 ppmv of CO2 and 1,700 ppbv of CH4. Such levels are unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
Each of the four large glaciation periods was followed by a transitional interglacial period, towards the years – 310,000, -240,00, -135,000 and –15,000. The end of the glacial period was usually the coldest, and the transition towards a warmer climate took 5 to 10,000 years. In each of the four transitional periods, according to the analysis of the ice samples, the same sequence of events took place: the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4) was almost immediately (more or less 1,000 years) followed by the warming of the upper southern latitudes. And only several thousand years later, the Northern hemisphere warmed up and the ice caps that had formed massively merged. These findings show how the climate transmission system between the two hemispheres worked, and will serve as a basis for climate modelling systems."

http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html

I think if we had access to the actual paper we'd see that the gas concentration changes come before temp changes, not vice versa. The graoh simply can't resolve down to periods of 1000 years or less, but evidently changes on that scale are clear in the original data.

[Bob_Arctor]

The above is the graph to which I'm referring. It does show a clear correlation between CO₂ and Temperature...that a temperature increase/decrease is FOLLOWED by an increase/decrease in CO₂ levels..
Nonsense, it shows that the changes are at the same time. With the exception of two peaks at 410 kya and 40 kya the changes are either at the same time or the temp peak is after the CO2 peak. There are many more examples of the latter case.

Then, consider that the thickness of the lines themselves look to be about 2000 years. The resolution is too poor. We need to get the original paper. I'll get it at work tomorrow (should be online) and I can send it to you guys.

.and, this ain't Israel, China or an arab country...we're reading the graph from left to right.
Some graphs you can read the other way. Going backwards is the only thing I could think of to explain your claims! :grin:

[Jesse_Lackman]

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

<<<-------longer ago --------- more recent-------->>>
<<<------Temperature --------- CO2------->>>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.png


<<<-------more recent --------- longer ago-------->>>
<<<------CO2 --------- Temperature------->>>

The only temperature and CO2 spike that overlays exactly is the one at 120,000BP on the second graph.

[Timberwolf]

Bob, when you can't even interpret data which is right there in front of your face, how can you expect people to take you seriously on other claims that you make?

Good grief.

[Jesse_Lackman]

Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures? (http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3064&pubType=HI_Opeds)


A team of ice-core researchers, led by Hubertus Fischer of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California, analyzed an Antarctic ice core that gives real-world records of atmospheric CO2 and air temperatures back to 240,000 years ago. The ice core record includes three massive Ice Ages, and the warming periods that followed them.


When the Ice Ages ended, the Scripps researchers found that air temperatures warmed long before there was any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, they said, the increases in CO2 lagged the warming by 400 to 1,000 years! That’s just the opposite of the greenhouse theory that CO2 increases lead to warming. (The Fischer team’s analysis was published in the March 12, 1999 issue of Science.)


Eric Steig of the Earth and Environmental Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania argues that CO2 rises during cold periods because they are drier. (Less moisture is evaporated into the air from the oceans, and thus there is less moisture to fall as rain or snow). The drier climate supports less plant life, and carbon is eventually released into the atmosphere from dying trees and then from the soil itself.


In addition, the Fischer team found a 15,000 year period following the second Ice Age when the air’s CO2 content stayed constant while the air temperatures dropped back to near-glacial levels. That doesn’t follow the greenhouse theory either.


Recently, another Scripps team, led by French expert Dr. Nicholas Caillon, also tested Antarctic ice cores, but used a more-accurate argon proxy to measure the CO2 lag more precisely. The Caillon team says their work confirms the Fischer findings (that CO2 increases lagged behind the Antarctic warming) but say argon gives them a more precise estimate of the lag—800 to 200 years.


“This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation,” they wrote in Science, March 14, 2003


So real-world Antarctic history shows several cases of CO2 lagging behind, not leading, when the earth warms. It shows another case of CO2 holding constant when the earth is getting cooler. These events do not conform to the greenhouse theory.

Here is the Caillon team paper;

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf)


The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (-240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.


The Caillon team paper goes on to mention a delay of 800 years "seems to be a reasonable time period to transition from an initial Antartic temperature increase into a CO2 atmospheric increase though oceanic processes". The mechanism might be "a change in vertical ocean mixing", consistent with "a process that involves the deep ocean as its mixing time is close to the observed 800 year lag".

This is all I have time for this morning.

[Timberwolf]

Oops!! Darn those pesky facts!! They get in the way of hysterical propaganda every time!!

[DoctorDoom]

"Man's activity is causing global warming."
"Can you prove that?"
"Well ... no."
"How are we supposed to reduce man's alleged contribution?"
"We have to reduce our output of carbon dioxide."
"What percentage of our output do we have to eliminate to result in a 1% change in the rate of global warming?"
"Well ... I don't know."
"How much will it cost to reduce our output by 10%?"
"I don't know."
"What technologies will be required to do the 10% reduction."
"I don't know."
"What economic effects will this have on the country?"
"I don't know."
"What adverse effects such as toxic waste will result from the reduction technology?"
"I don't know?"
"Would it cost less to prepare for the warming than it would to try to stop it?"
"I don't know."
"Then why should we do it?"
"Because man's activity is causing global warming."

[sunsettommy]

I have seen some of the stuff Jessie Lackman posted,over the years.

When a huge warming that made the ending of the last ice age specific.The CO2 levels stayed about the same.

When the little ice age came along.The CO2 levels stayed about the same.

This has been known for sometime.

[Bob_Arctor]

[/URL] Jesse, have you read the original papers? I just looked at two of them - those by Fischer and Caillon - and they do not indicate at all what you quoted from the Hudson Institute.

From Hudson:
"Recently, another Scripps team, led by French expert Dr. Nicholas Caillon, also tested Antarctic ice cores, but used a more-accurate argon proxy to measure the CO2 lag more precisely. The Caillon team says their work confirms the Fischer findings (that CO2 increases lagged behind the Antarctic warming) but say argon gives them a more precise estimate of the lag—800 to 200 years.
“This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation,” they wrote in Science, March 14, 2003
So real-world Antarctic history shows several cases of CO2 lagging behind, not leading, when the earth warms."



So what does the paper itself say?



"This confirms that CO₂ is not the forcing that initiallydrives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciationis probably initiated by some insolation forcing ([URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728#R1"]1 (http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3064&pubType=HI_Opeds),31 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728#R31), 32 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728#R32)), which influences first the temperaturechange in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere)and then the CO₂. This sequence of events is still in full agreementwith the idea that CO₂ plays, through its greenhouse effect, akey role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total durationof the temperature and CO₂ increases (~5000 years). Second, theCO₂ increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation(Fig. 3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728#F3))."
...
Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO₂ increase. As recently noted by Kump (38 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728#R38)),we should distinguish between internal influences (such as thedeglacial CO₂ increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenicCO₂ increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO₂ increasehas clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities,it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO₂ to outgasfrom the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change thatis first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events duringthis Termination is fully consistent with CO₂the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing dueto CO₂ may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, whichis then further amplified by fas participating int atmospheric feedbacks (39 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728#R39))that are also at work for the present-day and future climate."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728


Wow. So the guy writing for the Hudson Institute is basically a quoteminer.

[dPrasse]

Excellent summation , Dr Doom .... :D

You did forget ...
"why we should exempt some of the worst countries ?"

,"because they are developing ..."

[Jesse_Lackman]

Bob do you even read my posts? I quoted the original Caillon paper!

The fact is the Caillon did say "CO2 is not the forcing that initially<SUP> </SUP>drives the climatic system during a deglaciation" didn't they?

They admit temperature change does lead CO2 change just as the graphs clearly show during some of the deglaciation periods.

They then go on to say things like "sequence of events is still in full agreement<SUP> </SUP>with the idea that CO<SUB>2</SUB> plays, through its greenhouse effect, a<SUP> </SUP>key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. "

Ok an "idea", what's that? The absolute objective truth?

"The radiative forcing due<SUP> </SUP>to CO<SUB>2</SUB> may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, "

"May"?? What's that, the absolute objective truth?

"Initial orbital forcing"?? What's that? Temperature increasing first?

One more thing the Caillon paper states is that the the 800 year lag cannot rule out any of these mechanisms - "vertical ocean mixing, sea-ice cover changes, or a biological mechanism such as atmospheric dust flux or ocean productivity" - as having sole control of CO2 outgassing.

"Sole control", how about that?

Team Caillon doesn't really know what's going on for sure, I don't either, and neither do you.

[Jesse_Lackman]

Where is Bob Actor ... whoops ... Arctor?

Has he been around to drop any more gems like this?

"I can only speculate that the person who created the chart screwed it up a bit by not lining up the two lines properly."

Man I would be embarassed to have said that....


Keep up the good work guys...

[DoctorDoom]

Maybe Bachelor Bobby WAS embarassed and departed.

[Republican_Legion]

Maybe Bachelor Bobby WAS embarassed and departed.

Or perhaps he realized no one gave two shits about his posts lol.

[sunsettommy]

Where is Bob Actor ... whoops ... Arctor?

Has he been around to drop any more gems like this?

"I can only speculate that the person who created the chart screwed it up a bit by not lining up the two lines properly."

Man I would be embarassed to have said that....


Keep up the good work guys...

He thought Naomi Oreskes published a credible paper on consensus.

THAT is embarassing!

[sunsettommy]

Maybe Bachelor Bobby WAS embarassed and departed.

He had mentioned one time that he does not have a personal computer and that he uses one at work to use for posting here.

Maybe he was told not to use it for this forum anymore?

But then again he did look dumb when Lackman pointed out what the chart showed contradicting what Arctor thought it showed.

I am wondering if the Wegman report finally opened his eyes as to the statistical flop the H.S. paper was?

Maybe we will never know since he became inactive suddenly 4 months ago.

[sunsettommy]

Where is Bob Actor ... whoops ... Arctor?

Has he been around to drop any more gems like this?

"I can only speculate that the person who created the chart screwed it up a bit by not lining up the two lines properly."

Man I would be embarassed to have said that....


Keep up the good work guys...

I hope YOU come around more often since you make good postings on this subject.

I enjoy reading them.

[DoctorDoom]

He had mentioned one time that he does not have a personal computer and that he uses one at work to use for posting here.Sounds likely. Many companies tolerate a little personal Web surfing, but clamp down when it becomes excessive.