Re: CO2 Did not End the Ice Age, Gore was wrong
Bonzo
news:1191154551....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 12:42 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> > After all the warming rate did not accelerate as the CO2
increased.
> One doesn't have to deal with any proxy measurements
> to see warming accelerating with increasing CO2.
> That's happening here and now.
> Accelerating warming:
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2006.jpg
>
This graph is a fraud.
There is no plateau between 1998 and 2007 as evident on all other
graphs.
You have also proved yourself to be a fraud on several occasions
Popcock e.g. when you ignored the fact that the Arctic was warmer
in the 30's.
Facts don't fit in with the agenda, eh?
--
Regards
Bonzo
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and
Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now,
about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the
absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. . On the
basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the
recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major
cause of the past century's modest warming?" Professor Tim
Patterson, aleoclimatologist, Carleton University, Appearing
before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development
Bonzo
"Tom" <tada...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191207402.4...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 3:42 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 3:03 pm, Tom <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial
Atmospheric CO2
> > > > Rise and Tropical Warming
> > > > Lowell Stott 1*, Axel Timmermann 2, Robert Thunell 3
> >
> > > > 1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern
California, Los
> > > > Angeles, CA, USA.
> > > > 2 IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HI
96822, USA.
> > > > 3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South
Carolina,
> > > > Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
> >
> > > > * To whom correspondence should be addressed.
> > > > Lowell Stott , E-mail: st...@usc.edu
> >
> > > > Establishing what caused Earth's largest climatic changes
in the past
> > > > requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the
regional
> > > > responses. Here we establish the chronology of high and
low latitude
> > > > climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C
dating benthic
> > > > and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca
records from a
> > > > marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific.
Deep sea
> > > > temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P.
(thousand years
> > > > before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and
tropical
> > > > surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this
deglacial deep
> > > > water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can
its early onset
> > > > between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing.
Increasing austral
> > > > spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks
appear to be
> > > > key factors responsible for this warming.
> >
> > > The fact that CO2 did not initiate the initial warming at
the end of
> > > the last "ice age" (glacial maximum) is old news, known
since the ice
> > > cores were analyzed in the 90s.
> >
> > > The cause of the first 1000 years or so of warming is a bit
of a
> > > mystery which these scientist propose to clear up.
> >
> > > The problem for deniers is that the initial warming started
releasing
> > > greenhouse gases that in turn accelerate the warming in a
feedback
> > > loop, so 80% of the warming since the last ice age makes no
sense
> > > without greenhouse gas theory. And the other 20% does not
contradict
> > > greenhouse gas theory, since nobody claims that greenhouse
gas are the
> > > only cause of climate warming since the last glacial
maximum. And the
> > > authors of the paper allude to that, saying that their
paper does not
> > > undermine greenhouse gas theory.
> >
> > > Here's a cite to the paper, which "chemist" left out:
> >
> > >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1
> >
> > What a trite explanation. How DO they know that 80% of the
> > warming since the last ice age makes no sense without
> > greenhouse gas theory.All the warming could have been caused
> > by natural effects.
>
> It was caused by natural effects. Greenhouse gases were
released when
> the climate heats up. What different now it that humans are
releasing
> greenhouse gases on a massive scale, so its not the climate
warming
> that is initiating the release of greenhouse gases, its the
gases that
> are initiating the warming.
>
> > After all the warming rate did not accelerate as the CO2
increased.
>
caused
> 80% of the warming, we have no explanation for it.
>
You're subconsciously nearing the truth with the word
"assumption".
I would use the word "lie" and a blatant one at that.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote
>> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2006.jpg
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> This graph is a fraud.
Looks right to me. I challenge you to prove your claim that is a fraud,
or else be labeled a fraud yourself.
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> There is no plateau between 1998 and 2007 as evident on all other
> graphs.
You don't know how to read a simple plot do you? there is no plateau
since there isn't one.
Here is a plot of the temperatue data - that you supplied. Ahahahahah
No plateau is evident.
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. A nice self evident warming
trend.
tada...@yahoo.com
> "Tom" <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
One of my favorite things is when a denier points out that warming
preceded the GHG buildup at the end of the last "ice age" (glacial
max), as Chemist did.
You see, that observation is based on the ice core data, the GHG and
temperature measurements from the ice cores. But, if you accept those
measurements then you have accepted overwhelming evidence that GHGs
have played a big role in driving climate.
person
>
> - Show quoted text -
No you don't. Because the GHGs did not rise until AFTER the temp
increase. That is what the ice cores show.
tada...@yahoo.com
>
You did it again! True, but the *total* core record since the last
ice age cannot be explained without GHG theory! 80% of the warming
is due to GHG. The initial temp increase caused a release of GHG that
in turn boosted the temp in a positive feedback loop. The initial
temp increase was not caused by GHG, but nobody says that GHG is the
only thing that forces temp.
QED: If you accept the ice core record you are playing into the hands
of the opposition big time.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> One of my favorite things is when a denier points out that warming
> preceded the GHG buildup at the end of the last "ice age" (glacial
> max), as Chemist did.
>
> You see, that observation is based on the ice core data, the GHG and
> temperature measurements from the ice cores. But, if you accept those
> measurements then you have accepted overwhelming evidence that GHGs
> have played a big role in driving climate.
The cognitive dissidence fossil fools exhibit is simply
amazing, isn't it?
alanm...@yahoo.com
No, changes in earth's eccetricity due to Milankovich cycles, or
changes in solar input, or natural oscillations due to Arctic melt
initiated the changes. CO2, CH4 FOLLOWED this forcing from the sun,
or whatever.
Temperatures later fell, again caused by the sun, or some other
extraneous factor, and CO2 and CH4 declined.
If the CO2 were a FORCING factor, increased temperatures do to
extraneous factors would have increased CO2 and CH4, which would have
increased temperatures further, leading to a further increase in CO2
and CH4, resulting in an exponential runaway effect. Your
argument is like me pushing a stalled car down a hill (initial
forcing), the CO2 is like the hill, acting as a forcing factor,
increasing the speed of the car, which accelerates downhill, and my
wife at the bottom of the hill gets in front of the speeding car, and
stops it with her low mass and weak strength,
as do the factors which push temperatures downward again. Do you now
see why I don't find the CO2 forcing argument plausible?- A. McIntire
sleepalot
>
You mean that they take an ice core and stick a thermometer
in it at numerous points along its length, and take those measurements
to be the historic suface temperatures?
Whata Fool
Of course, that is the way the present "ever in recorded history"
measurements are made, it guarantees this is the warmest year ever.
Seriously though, it isn't much worse than including observation
stations in far eastern Europe that closed down prior to 1990, as they
usually had average temperatures 10 to 15 degrees below most of
the rest of the world,
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"person" <dsew...@hotmail.com> wrote
> No you don't. Because the GHGs did not rise until AFTER the temp
> increase. That is what the ice cores show.
Well, actually you do. But you just aren't smart enough to realize it.
At the time, climate change was being driven by slow variations in the
earth's orbit relative to it's rotational axis.
Today it is primarily driven by changes in CO2 concentration.
Are you so stupid as to think that there can only be one cause?
tada...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Temperature goes up with the *log* of CO2 concentration, 3 degrees C
for each doubling of concentration. So, as the concentration goes up
it gets harder and harder for a given quanity of released CO2 to
increase the temperature. This prevents the runaway effect.
Eventually, the natural rate of release of CO2 does not keep up with
the geological sequestration rate, a rate which keeps increasing with
the increased concentration.
CO2 and CH4 are released relatively quickly by the warming, but the
sequestration of CO2 is slow. That explains why the Earth exits an
ice age (glacial) quickly (~10K years) and returns slowly (~100K
years). The saw-toothed pattern is what GHG theory predicts:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png
- A. McIntire- Hide quoted text -
tada...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
"derived from deuterium isotopic measurements"
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png
Roger Coppock
> for each doubling of concentration. So, as the concentration goes up
That number is controversial.
(I summoned all my self-control to resist the pun
when I didn't say it was 'hotly' debated.)
> it gets harder and harder for a given quanity of released CO2 to
> increase the temperature. This prevents the runaway effect.
Due to any single greenhouse gas, yes.
There are many different greenhouse gases,
however.
Tom
> On Oct 4, 5:10 am, "tadams...@yahoo.com" <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > Temperature goes up with the *log* of CO2 concentration, 3 degrees C
> > for each doubling of concentration. So, as the concentration goes up
>
> That number is controversial.
> (I summoned all my self-control to resist the pun
> when I didn't say it was 'hotly' debated.)
>
> > it gets harder and harder for a given quanity of released CO2 to
> > increase the temperature. This prevents the runaway effect.
>
> Due to any single greenhouse gas, yes.
> There are many different greenhouse gases,
> however.
True, was keeping it sort of simple.
Note that the issue here is why there was no runaway in the last few
interglacials. None of the gases caused a runaway as one would
expect. No?
In the distant past there have been some whopping big warmings that
may have involved big releases of deeply trapped methane stores.
>
>
>
> > Eventually, the natural rate of release of CO2 does not keep up with
> > the geological sequestration rate, a rate which keeps increasing with
> > the increased concentration.
>
> > CO2 and CH4 are released relatively quickly by the warming, but the
> > sequestration of CO2 is slow. That explains why the Earth exits an
> > ice age (glacial) quickly (~10K years) and returns slowly (~100K
> > years). The saw-toothed pattern is what GHG theory predicts:
>
> >http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png
>
leona...@gmail.com
> sleepalot wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 1:32 pm, "tadams...@yahoo.com" <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> You see, that observation is based on the ice core data, the GHG and
> >> temperature measurements from the ice cores. But, if you accept those
> >> measurements then you have accepted overwhelming evidence that GHGs
> >> have played a big role in driving climate.
>
> >You mean that they take an ice core and stick a thermometer
> >in it at numerous points along its length, and take those measurements
> >to be the historic suface temperatures?
>
> Of course, that is the way the present "ever in recorded history"
> measurements are made, it guarantees this is the warmest year ever.
>
> Seriously though, it isn't much worse than including observation
> stations in far eastern Europe that closed down prior to 1990, as they
> usually had average temperatures 10 to 15 degrees below most of
> the rest of the world,
The historical records show that the period between the
switch from interglacial interludes and the return of
glaciation is about 20 short years.
Moreover, as the earth proceeds through that 20 year
period, all hell breaks loose, with each year getting worse
and more violent than the previous one. Mother Nature
appears to go more and more berserk each year and by
the time that glaciation begins to set in Mother earth and
its inhabitants- us - are devastated - if still alive - to say
the least.
Do I have your attention now?
Dr. George Kukla is a member of the Czechoslovakian
Academy of Sciences and a pioneer in the field of
astronomical forcing. In the early 1960s, Dr.Kukla and
Julius Fink examined glacial loess deposits and found
evidence of ten ice ages in the samples. Later, in 1977, the
journal Quaternary Research published their findings in
an article "Pleistocene Climates in Central Europe: At
least 17 Interglacials after the Olduvai Event."
Now comes the Financial Post's Lawrence Solomon with
a piece "Forget Warming - beware the next new ice age,"
in which he discusses Dr. Kukla's warnings harking back
to the 1970s and his present contentions. Solomon himself
is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and
Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe
Research Foundation. He has recently written about and
identified many scientists who deny the claims of Al Gore
and his chums who claim falsely that all reputable
scientists say the science is settled and that's it!
Before I cite Solomon's article I want to dispel any
questions skeptics might have about Dr. Kukla and
his solid credentials. According Solomon, Dr. Kukla
is a micropalentologist and Special Research
Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
of Columbia University, and is a pioneer in the study
of solar forcing of climate changes. He was the lead
author of the scientific paper that first supported
Milutin Milankovic's theory of glacial cycles by
investigating the stratigraphy in deep-sea sediment
cores from the southern Indian Ocean. In the cores
were clear imprints of Milankovic's proposed cycles.
In his paper he wrote, "We are certain now that
changes in the Earth's orbital geometry caused the
ice ages. The evidence is so strong that other
explanations must now be discarded or modified." Prior
to joining Columbia in 1971, he had published landmark
studies in Czechoslovakia, where he was a member of
the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences.
O.K. Here's what Dr. Kukla says now. He maintains that
the record clearly shows that global warming always
precedes an ice age. That makes the current period of
global warming a mere blip that constitutes additional
indication of the ice age to come.
He insists that the fundamental issue here could not be
more clear: For millions of years, the geologic record
shows, Earth has experienced an ongoing cycle of ice
ages, each typically lasting about 100,000 years, and
each punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called
interglacials, such as the one we are now in. This
ongoing cycle closely matches cyclic variations in
Earth's orbit around the sun.
"I feel we're on pretty solid ground in interpreting orbit
around the sun as the primary driving force behind
ice-age glaciation. The relationship is just too clear and
consistent to allow reasonable doubt," Dr. Kukla said.
"It's either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just
doesn't make sense."
In 1997 I wrote about the 20 year period between
interglacial periods and glaciation. I quoted paleologist-
pollen specialist Genevieve Woillard as writing in a 1979
Nature article about that period. She wrote that the only
real question remaining is how long it will take for the
glaciation process to set in.
Woillard reported on her studies of pollen samples in a
lake bottom in South Vosges, France. She wrote that at
the start of a number of past glacial periods, the
vegetation changed from temperate zone trees to
subarctic needle-bearing trees in a period of 150 years
plus or minus 75 years. The change was one of gradual
deterioration until the last 20 years. During that final
score of years, the type of vegetation completely changed.
What her studies, and those of other paleoclimatologists
who have examined past ice ages show, is that the
transition between interglacial and glacial periods is one
of increasing violence -- more volcanic eruptions, storms,
earthquakes and other natural disasters.
To sum up, here are a few facts - that's facts, not the
computer models (guesses) that pass for evidence in the
global warming community:
For at least the past five million years, the earth has
experienced ice ages lasting 90,000 years or so, followed
by interglacial periods like the present one that last about
12,000 years.
The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago.
Every time the atmospheric levels of CO2 have exceeded
300 ppms an ice age has occurred. Those levels now
exceed 400 ppms.
The transition period between ice ages and temperate
climates is about 20 years and that period is one of
increasing violence.
Galciation is an acceleration of the normal process of
using evaporated water to carry heat energy from the
warm zones to cold zones. The effect of an increase in
atmospheric greenhouse gases such as water vapor - the
real greenhouse gas - is to increase cloud cover over polar
latitudes. The clouds have a cooling effect as well as
providing the snow for glaciation. The energy is dissipated
in arctic space. Spring and Fall seasons get shorter and
shorter until all that's left is winter.
The former government scientist Dr. George Kaplan, the
real historian of the global warming/global cooling
dispute, wrote in 1997:
"Has the warming theory 'campaign' been the last stand
of an arrant scientific ideology?" he asked "Such a
hypothesis can be acceptable to some, but the obvious
failing of the theory in the face of global catastrophe
argues for a more substantial motivation.
"It would pay to investigate this motivation further to
consider whether politics has been responsive to poor
science or whether economics and politics have made
false tools out of science for narrow interest.
"If the latter is true the manipulation and subversion of
the truth seeking apparatus by political and private
interests is, in the present situation, of such extreme
malevolence that it ranks as the greatest malfeasance
in history."
Whata Fool
>On Oct 3, 4:37 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> sleepalot wrote:
>> >On Oct 2, 1:32 pm, "tadams...@yahoo.com" <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> You see, that observation is based on the ice core data, the GHG and
>> >> temperature measurements from the ice cores. But, if you accept those
>> >> measurements then you have accepted overwhelming evidence that GHGs
>> >> have played a big role in driving climate.
>>
>> >Temperature _measurements_ from ice cores?
>> >You mean that they take an ice core and stick a thermometer
>> >in it at numerous points along its length, and take those measurements
>> >to be the historic suface temperatures?
>>
>> Of course, that is the way the present "ever in recorded history"
>> measurements are made, it guarantees this is the warmest year ever.
>>
>> Seriously though, it isn't much worse than including observation
>> stations in far eastern Europe that closed down prior to 1990, as they
>> usually had average temperatures 10 to 15 degrees below most of
>> the rest of the world,
>
>The historical records show that the period between the
>switch from interglacial interludes and the return of
>glaciation is about 20 short years.
And only took a difference of 2 or 3 degrees, right? :-)
>Moreover, as the earth proceeds through that 20 year
>period, all hell breaks loose, with each year getting worse
>and more violent than the previous one. Mother Nature
>appears to go more and more berserk each year and by
>the time that glaciation begins to set in Mother earth and
>its inhabitants- us - are devastated - if still alive - to say
>the least.
>
>Do I have your attention now?
No, but I may skip over your posts like I do most of those
by Nutts.
When there were ice ages, there was not many men,
and all climate and weather was determined by nature.
Now we have AGW to keep us safe. :-)
The last ice age didn't end 12000 years ago, there was
still a lot of ice in places, and there still is quite a bit, to hear some
tell it, it is as if it has all melted.
If the warming that melted the major ice sheets across
the north is still ongoing, who knows how long it will take, if
ever, to revert to cooling.
While I am not convinced that CO2 is the big player,
I do think man can do things to avoid a cooling easier than
he can do things to avoid a warming.
I have seen things go from 60 degrees one afternoon
to minus 20 F the next night, but without some event happening
that seriously reduces the solar insolation at the surface, there
isn't much chance of an abrupt cooling to ice age conditions.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> No, changes in earth's eccetricity due to Milankovich cycles, or
> changes in solar input, or natural oscillations due to Arctic melt
> initiated the changes. CO2, CH4 FOLLOWED this forcing from the sun,
> or whatever. Temperatures later fell, again caused by the sun, or some
> other
> extraneous factor, and CO2 and CH4 declined.
Wrong again. Shit Sucker. The last ice age was caused by a
synchronization in the earths' time of parahelion passage and it's axial
inclination.
Historically it has been the conjunction of these effects that causes
sufficient warming to drive the earth out of each ice age, and the
opposition that triggres the onset of each ice aage.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> If the CO2 were a FORCING factor, increased temperatures do to
> extraneous factors would have increased CO2 and CH4, which would have
> increased temperatures further, leading to a further increase in CO2
> and CH4, resulting in an exponential runaway effect.
Wrong again. Shit Sucker. Signal amplification is below unity so the
feedback effect does not explode as it did on Venus. If it were easily
exploitable, then it would already have happened, and life on earth would be
extinct.
tada...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ice age is a vague term. By one definition an ice age is when we have
at least one persistent polar cap. By that definition we are in an
ice age now.
I was refering to the recent glacial maximums which are 100,000 years
or more apart.
alanm...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > No, changes in earth's eccetricity due to Milankovich cycles, or
> > changes in solar input, or natural oscillations due to Arctic melt
> > initiated the changes. CO2, CH4 FOLLOWED this forcing from the sun,
> > or whatever. Temperatures later fell, again caused by the sun, or some
> > other
> > extraneous factor, and CO2 and CH4 declined.
>
> Wrong again. Shit Sucker. The last ice age was caused by a
> synchronization in the earths' time of parahelion passage and it's axial
> inclination.
>
> Historically it has been the conjunction of these effects that causes
> sufficient warming to drive the earth out of each ice age, and the
> opposition that triggres the onset of each ice aage.
>
>
> > If the CO2 were a FORCING factor, increased temperatures do to
> > extraneous factors would have increased CO2 and CH4, which would have
> > increased temperatures further, leading to a further increase in CO2
> > and CH4, resulting in an exponential runaway effect.
>
>
Signal amplification is below unity so the
> feedback effect does not explode as it did on Venus.
So you finally understand my argument that the supposed forcing
effects of CO2 are overblown- A. McIntire
alanm...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "person" <dsewiz...@hotmail.com> wrote
You AGWers are that stupid. Temperatures fluctuated up through
the 19th century, but in arguing that CO2 is the sole, or even
principal cause of climate change in the 20th century, you assume that
temperatrues would have remained static without CO2- A. McIntire
alanm...@yahoo.com
(cut)
Over the 20th century CO2 increased from 280 to 380 ppm.
ln 380/280 = 0.305.
ln 2 = 0.693
If temperatures increased 0.7 K over the 20th century
(a slight overestimate)
they would increase 693/305* 0.7 = 1.59 K with a doubling, quite a
bit less
than your 3 K estimate- A. McIntire
leona...@gmail.com
> leo wrote:
> >On Oct 3, 4:37 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> sleepalot wrote:
> >> >On Oct 2, 1:32 pm, "tadams...@yahoo.com" <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> You see, that observation is based on the ice core data, the GHG and
> >> >> temperature measurements from the ice cores. But, if you accept those
> >> >> measurements then you have accepted overwhelming evidence that GHGs
> >> >> have played a big role in driving climate.
>
> >> >Temperature _measurements_ from ice cores?
> >> >You mean that they take an ice core and stick a thermometer
> >> >in it at numerous points along its length, and take those measurements
> >> >to be the historic suface temperatures?
>
> >> Of course, that is the way the present "ever in recorded history"
> >> measurements are made, it guarantees this is the warmest year ever.
>
> >> Seriously though, it isn't much worse than including observation
> >> stations in far eastern Europe that closed down prior to 1990, as they
> >> usually had average temperatures 10 to 15 degrees below most of
> >> the rest of the world,
>
> >The historical records show that the period between the
> >switch from interglacial interludes and the return of
> >glaciation is about 20 short years.
>
> And only took a difference of 2 or 3 degrees, right? :-)
* Perhaps 2 or 3 degrees per year.
> >Moreover, as the earth proceeds through that 20 year
> >period, all hell breaks loose, with each year getting worse
> >and more violent than the previous one. Mother Nature
> >appears to go more and more berserk each year and by
> >the time that glaciation begins to set in Mother earth and
> >its inhabitants- us - are devastated - if still alive - to say
> >the least.
>
> >Do I have your attention now?
>
> No, but I may skip over your posts like I do most of those
> by Nutts.
* That labels you an ignorant jackass, unwilling to learn
from others.
>
> When there were ice ages, there was not many men,
> and all climate and weather was determined by nature.
* It still is. Only 3.5% of the greenhouse gasses are
man made. Of the 400+ ppm of CO2 presently in
the upper atmosphere only 14ppm is man made.
CO2 is an essential factor on earth, and if we were to
seriously reduce it, nothing at all, neither plant nor
animal. <G>
Also much of the CO2 and methane emitted, combine
with methane to produce water and Nitrogen. If you
see water dripping from your tailpipe that is how it got
there.
> Now we have AGW to keep us safe. :-)
* SSSUUUURRRE kid--- not in the best year of your
misbegotten life
>
> The last ice age didn't end 12000 years ago, there was
> still a lot of ice in places,
* So what, when you are talking about thousands of
years, a few hundred here and there don't count.
and there still is quite a bit, to hear some
> tell it, it is as if it has all melted.
* If you listen to the alarmists this fall the arctic ice
is about to disappear, but that won't happen. There
will be another cold winter this year to rebuild it and
will be a lot of snow to build it up. How much will
depend on the on the hydrothermal activity on the
Gakkel ridge. The International AMORE team led by
Maxx Planck Inst. were astonished at the
hydrothermal activity they found last summer
> If the warming that melted the major ice sheets across
> the north is still ongoing, who knows how long it will take, if
> ever, to revert to cooling.
The energy is dissipated
in arctic space. Spring and Fall seasons get shorter and
shorter until all that's left is winter."
> While I am not convinced that CO2 is the big player,
> I do think man can do things to avoid a cooling easier than
> he can do things to avoid a warming.
* Nature will take its time and there is nothing we can
do to accellerate or decellerate the action.
>
> I have seen things go from 60 degrees one afternoon
> to minus 20 F the next night, but without some event happening
> that seriously reduces the solar insolation at the surface, there
> isn't much chance of an abrupt cooling to ice age conditions.
* If you had read my posts all your questions would
have been answered:--
Lloyd
wrote:
No, we've amassed overwhelming data that the warming, which is a fact,
is being caused mostly by CO2.
leona...@gmail.com
* No, you've amassed a lot of bullshit -- Lloyd you destroy the
rep of
Emory, with every post. While we had a hot summer, you have
already forgotten the cold of last winter. These extremes are
part
and parcel signaling the onset to glaciation.
warming_is_not_a_fact.
Point #1 According to James Hansen/NASA, from 1900 to 2000,
the globe has warmed by 1 degree. From 2001 to 2006, after he
corrected his errors, it has warmed by -2 degrees or a net of
-1.
* Point#2 While not insignificant, CO2 has a minor role in global
changing it has a major role in growth both plant and animals.
* Point #3 As for that dreaded greenhouse gas,
CO2, atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400
parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that
paleological records show that every time CO2
levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been
an ice age. Every time - without exception.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Glaciation is an acceleration of the normal process of
using evaporated water to carry heat energy from the
warm zones to cold zones. The effect of an increase in
atmospheric greenhouse gases such as water vapor - the
real greenhouse gas - is to increase cloud cover over polar
latitudes. The clouds have a cooling effect as well as
providing the snow for glaciation."
-- --
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil- Not in a million
years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
serial killers, pedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
> Signal amplification is below unity so the
>> feedback effect does not explode as it did on Venus.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> So you finally understand my argument that the supposed forcing
> effects of CO2 are overblown- A. McIntire
Amplification can be less than unity and still produce arbitrarily high
signal magnification. It just won't go to infinity. But then it never will
in a practical sense.
So your desire to differentiate between the options "arbitrarily high" and
"arbitrarily high", is nothing more than stupidity on your part.
Now your claim was that Co2 could not be a climate driver because in the
past it was a positive feedback mechanism. Your claim is false. I provide
a simple example that even a limited intellect like yours could easily
recognize puts CO2 both in the position of driver and delayed feedback.
How telling that you ignore it.
Are you afraid of being wrong? Or are you ignoring it because it violates
your Political Liedeology?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> You AGWers are that stupid. Temperatures fluctuated up through
> the 19th century, but in arguing that CO2 is the sole, or even
> principal cause of climate change in the 20th century, you assume that
> temperatrues would have remained static without CO2- A. McIntire
No such thing is assumed. In fact climate change attribution has been
complicated by the fact that the climate is known to naturally fluctuate
around some mean value. This fluctuation has it's limits though. No where
in history has the temperature fluctuated by 100'C. But has regularly
fluctuated by 1/100th 'C. Smaller fluctuations have higher probabilities of
occurring. Larger fluctuations less so.
Natural levels of climate variance has been studied extensively and is
about .5'C over periods of centuries for decadally smoothed time series.
Temperature fluctuations inside the .5'C threshold are considered normal,
with increasing improbability as one reaches the .5'C threshold. Above that
it becomes rapidly and increasingly unlikely that the temperatures
excursions are natural.
Currently the temperature excursion is .74'C above the natural median and
.24'C above the natural level of probable deviation.
So you are once again <DEAD WRONG> and <DEAD STUPID> with your <FALSE
CLAIM> that there is any assumption that temperatures are assumed static.
But then you are a scientifically and technically illiterate
KKKonservative Moron. Aren't you?
Professor1942
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> <alanmc95...@yahoo.com> wrote
When will you just slit your wrists and be done with it?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
>> Temperature goes up with the *log* of CO2 concentration, 3 degrees C
>> for each doubling of concentration. So, as the concentration goes up
>> it gets harder and harder for a given quanity of released CO2 to
>> increase the temperature.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Over the 20th century CO2 increased from 280 to 380 ppm.
>
> ln 380/280 = 0.305.
> ln 2 = 0.693
>
> If temperatures increased 0.7 K over the 20th century
> (a slight overestimate)
> they would increase 693/305* 0.7 = 1.59 K with a doubling, quite a
> bit less than your 3 K estimate- A. McIntire
Or if the 3'C value is correct then the current observed warming is quite
a bit larger than expected.
Bonzo
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:1191613296....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Huh? Where?
OK here's how you can make a quick $125,000 ...
Global warming stakes raised to $125,000; Junkman asks: Why won't
the Greens take our money? Ultimate Global Warming Challenge Ups
Prize Money to $125,000 for Proving Humans Cause Catastrophic
Climate Change - The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge announced
today that it raised to $125,000 the cash award to the first
person to prove in a scientific manner that human emissions of
greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic global climate change.
(http://www.UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com)
--
Regards
Bonzo
"Extending the past [global temperature] pattern into the future,
we should start cooling again beginning between sometime this
year and 2010." Don J. Easterbrook, Geologist, Western Washington
University
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!
Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.
You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.
Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.
"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.
Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54
No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?
alanm...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> >> Temperature goes up with the *log* of CO2 concentration, 3 degrees C
> >> for each doubling of concentration. So, as the concentration goes up
> >> it gets harder and harder for a given quanity of released CO2 to
> >> increase the temperature.
>
>
> > Over the 20th century CO2 increased from 280 to 380 ppm.
>
> > ln 380/280 = 0.305.
> > ln 2 = 0.693
>
> > If temperatures increased 0.7 K over the 20th century
> > (a slight overestimate)
> > they would increase 693/305* 0.7 = 1.59 K with a doubling, quite a
> > bit less than your 3 K estimate- A. McIntire
>
> Or if the 3'C value is correct then the current observed warming is quite
> a bit larger than expected.
If the 3 K is correct, current warming should be about
305/693 * 3= 1.32 K- A. McIntire
Professor1942
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
Kid, give it up. Isn't there a teen chat forum?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Professor1942" <zwes...@gmail.com> wrote
> When will you just slit your wrists and be done with it?
Financial Times FT.comSearch FT.comThursday Sep 27 2007
Washington changes its tune on climate
Published: September 27 2007 21:28 | Last updated: September 27 2007 21:28
The world must cut emissions or sacrifice the planet, Condoleezza Rice, US
secretary of state, told a meeting of governments on Thursday, in the most
strongly worded statement on global warming yet made by the US
administration.
She told representatives of 16 governments gathered for talks on climate
change
in Washington: "It is our responsibility as global leaders to forge a new
international consensus on how to solve climate change?.?.?.?If we stay on
our
present path, we face an unacceptable choice: either we sacrifice global
economic growth to secure the health of our planet or we sacrifice the
health of
our planet to continue with fossil-fuelled growth."
She asked the governments present, which account for more than 80 per cent
of
the world's greenhouse gas emissions, to agree a long-term goal on emissions
reduction, establish mid-term targets for the same and to help develop
markets
for low-carbon technologies.
Her words reflected how far US rhetoric on climate change has moved in the
past
six months.
President George W. Bush, who rejected the Kyoto protocol, had previously
called
into question the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, and the
US
has been seen by other governments as holding up progress on international
talks.
His decision to host a meeting of big emitters took the world by
surprise.The
two-day meeting, which finishes on Friday, is intended to be the first in a
series whose conclusions will next year be included in the United Nations
process on finding a successor to the Kyoto protocol when its main
provisions
expire in 2012.
Despite the newly warm rhetoric on the climate, however, stark differences
remain between the US and other countries which are unlikely to be resolved
in
this meeting. For instance, the US did not table a proposal for what the
long-term goal on emissions cuts should be, suggesting that it sees the
issue of
emissions targets as contentious.
Yvo de Boer, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, told the Financial Times: "It's difficult to organise a meeting to
ask
others to come up with proposals but not make one yourself."
Mr de Boer said that despite differences, the US decision to hold a meeting
was
"a very useful, positive contribution" to international progress on tackling
climate change.
He told the meeting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
UN-convened body of the world's leading climate scientists, had concluded
that
emissions needed to peak in 10-15 years and be halved by 2050, compared with
1990 levels.
Another point of contention is whether reduction goals should be set by
international treaty, such as a successor to the Kyoto protocol, or at a
national level.
Ms Rice indicated that goals on emissions cuts should be set at a national
level
rather than being international in scope.
She said: "Every country will make its own decisions, reflecting its own
needs
and its own interests [and] tackle climate change in the ways that they deem
best".
The US also favours voluntary targets for cuts rather than legally binding
commitments.
But the UN argues that the best way to cut emissions is through a market in
carbon dioxide, which would put a price on emissions and enable poor
countries
to gain access to finance for clean technology, and which, for its proper
working, would require medium- and long-term legally binding commitments to
cut
emissions.
"Voluntary targets are a waste of time," Phil Clapp, president of the
National
Environmental Trust, a US lobby group, said.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Professor1942" <zwes...@gmail.com> wrote
> Kid, give it up. Isn't there a teen chat forum?
Why do you ask? Are you looking to chat with a 13 year old fat girl?
alanm...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > Signal amplification is below unity so the
> >> feedback effect does not explode as it did on Venus.
>
>
> > So you finally understand my argument that the supposed forcing
> > effects of CO2 are overblown- A. McIntire
>
> Amplification can be less than unity and still produce arbitrarily high
> signal magnification. It just won't go to infinity. But then it never will
> in a practical sense.
>
> So your desire to differentiate between the options "arbitrarily high" and
> "arbitrarily high", is nothing more than stupidity on your part.
>
> Now your claim was that Co2 could not be a climate driver because in the
> past it was a positive feedback mechanism. Your claim is false. I provide
> a simple example that even a limited intellect like yours could easily
> recognize puts CO2 both in the position of driver and delayed feedback.
You didn't provide ANY example.
In my scenario, an outside factor, like the sun, forced temperatures
up. CO2 followed temperatures, and temperatures were minutely higher
than they would have been without CO2. An outside factor forced
temperatures down. CO2 followed the temperatures down, and again the
temperatures were minutely lower than they would have been without
CO2.
In your scenario, again an outside factor, like the sun, forced
temperatures up to T plus delta T. That delta T caused the release
of CO2 from the oceans, resulting in an additonal increase in
temperature to (1 + k) delta T, where k is less than 1. Again we have
a minute increase in temperatures over the outside forcing from the
sun. How is your scenarion any different than mine, other than being
full of ad hominems?- A. McIntire
tada...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 3 K is the asymptote, takes a few decades to get (mostly) there
after a doubling.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote
> The last ice age didn't end 12000 years ago, there was
> still a lot of ice in places, and there still is quite a bit, to hear some
> tell it, it is as if it has all melted.
Ahahahahaha.. tell that to the Geologists. Shit Sucker.
So in your view an ice age ends the moment the last piece of ice melts.
Ahahahahahaha..... You Fucking KKKonservatives get dumber and dumber by the
minute.
But that is the nature of desparation isn't it?
Hay Fool, have you heard the news? 2007 is the warmest year on record
according to the NOAA. I though you Shick Licking Denialists were saying
the earth was in a "cooling phase"?
Ahahahahahahahahahaha..... Death is too good for you.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote
> * No, you've amassed a lot of bullshit -- Lloyd you destroy the
> rep of Emory, with every post. While we had a hot summer, you have
> already forgotten the cold of last winter. These extremes are
> part and parcel signaling the onset to glaciation.
Last winter cold? Nope. Not here. And not most places around the world.
But it was fun watching AmeriKKKa get pounded.
Gawd Hates AmeriKKKa.
And fags apparently.
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote
> warming_is_not_a_fact.
Actually it's a measured fact.
Measured by surface thermometers, ocean thermometers, satellites, baloons,
bore hole readings, sonar, and dozens of proxies.
I'm sorry to inform you Leonard, but you are a pathetic Loser.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>> Now your claim was that Co2 could not be a climate driver because in
>> the
>> past it was a positive feedback mechanism. Your claim is false. I
>> provide
>> a simple example that even a limited intellect like yours could easily
>> recognize puts CO2 both in the position of driver and delayed feedback.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> You didn't provide ANY example.
I provided several, including a discription of how sufficient CO2 enhanced
greenhouse produces a delayed warming of the oceans thus releasing more CO2
from ocean water and producing yet more warming.
Another example was a discription of how sufficient CO2 enhanced
greenhouse warming melts the northern permafrost and it releases additional
CO2 into the atmosphere thus producing yet more warming.
Another example was a discription of how sufficient CO2 enhaned greenhouse
warming raises the temperature of the sea floor, releasing large quantities
of stored methane that upon reaching the surface of the ocean (sometimes
explosively), produces yet more warming - since methane is itself a
greenhouse gas - and over the long term continues to produce warming as the
CH4 (methane) is oxidized to water and CO2.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> In my scenario, an outside factor, like the sun, forced temperatures
> up. CO2 followed temperatures, and temperatures were minutely higher
> than they would have been without CO2.
Solar output would have to be more than minutely higher. A 2 percent
increase in solar output during the solar cycle is easily detectable, is
part of the observational record, has been known for a good century, and it
produces no decernable change in the earth's weather. Although there is one
recent study that claims to have found an almost imperceptable signature of
that brightening.
A 2% increase is readily detectable and produces no detectable results.
It is estimated on a thermodynamic basis alone that a 6% increase would be
required. No such increase is seen in the recorded history of solar output,
none in the satellite record or the record of ground based observations.
So by direct measurement via bolometer, it's solar brightening just isn't
occurring in any meaningful sense.
<alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> In your scenario, again an outside factor, like the sun, forced
> temperatures up to T plus delta T. That delta T caused the release
> of CO2 from the oceans, resulting in an additonal increase in
> temperature to (1 + k) delta T, where k is less than 1. Again we have
> a minute increase in temperatures over the outside forcing from the
> sun. How is your scenarion any different than mine, other than being
> full of ad hominems?- A. McIntire
There is no outside influence in mine. The variance in insolation comes
from resonance in the earth's orbital parameters. It is a well understood
process and it produces the ice ages.
The difference between your speculation and the scientific consensus view,
is that there is <ZERO> evidence for your speculation, while the evidence
for the consensus view is abundant.