Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Hainey,
Here's one.
[img] 
[/img]
Don't know if it's any good or not, I just spent 10 seconds googling it (like you could have done) but it does show how temperature might rise in the future.
Of course, LIKE ALL THE MODELS WE ARE DISCUSSING, it is only a f[b]orecast[/b], so it doesn't [b]prove[/b] anything. But guess what, if the weather [b]forecast[/b] for tomorrow says it will rain, I'll probably just take my coat, not write to the f***'n met office to check whether any of them think that their computer models are likely to do a better job than inspecting some goat entrails.
BTW - source of that graph here: [url= http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/global-effects/data1.html ]A graph - not a correlation[/url]
it doesn't prove anything
Well said that man.
Yeah, that graph fits in with what we are seeing at the moment i guess!!!
[img] 
[/img]
The most disturbing thing about this thread is that zulu eleven posted a pair of graphs demonstrating that he clearly has no understanding of how to do basic statistics or even of how numerical measurement scales work and what units are, yet it is done in what looks disturbingly like some kind of professional statistics program, suggesting that he might possibly work in some kind of education or scientific establishment. Please tell us it isn't so?
I've got an idea then. Let's do a experiment, preferably on an earth like system as we can't trust these models, and see what happens if we release a few hundred gigatonnes of previously happily stored carbon into the atmosphere.
If the experiment shows that its not a good idea to do this in a few decades time then we'll not do it, or something ...
Everyone happy?
You do realise you've just put up a graph showing an upward trend?
Sarah Palin said it'll be reet!
No Joe - I linked to the source earlier, and it was, quite simply the least sympathetic, quickest way to express the [b]same[/b] data as Junkyards graph showing how well matched the data was (ie, to make it clear for junkyard: the different graphs are a way to visually express the correlation between the sets of the data, yours expresses it sympathetically, mine less so!)
z-11 you used the CORRELATION word again it is a GRAPH FFS... if you can learn only one thing please let it be the difference bettween two things plotted over time and a correlation BETWEEN those things. 🙄
Hainey you have a fantastic ability to keep posting graphs that do not support your own view it is very, very funny and indicates your absolute grasp of the subject you are discussing 😆
Junkyard, i will give you one last attempt to answer my questions, else I will have to assume like the rest of the garbage you spout on here that you really just don't know.
They are pretty fundamental so I would have thought you would be able to answer them quite easily?
So Junkyard, do the different graphs express the same data or not? and can you demonstrate to me that the two sets of data "bear any relation to each other"
oh, where were we regards the fact you wouldn't use the word" debunk"?
and where did we get to regards how you've "debunked" my belief that there is a bias in the surface record not shown in the satellite data?
can you demonstrate to me that the two sets of data "bear any relation to each other"
What an excellent grasp of correlations you have 🙄
yes I am confident that I can demonstrate that they bear some relation to each other and also I can do this for any two data sets of your choice including entirely random and unrelated things like say Tomaoto sauce sales and left handed Doctors, pirates and incidence of Aids in Africa, joggers and fish sales....you really dont get correlations or statistics do you?
Your question seems to be suggesting you think there is no link between C02 levels and temperature - do you really want to make that claim?
where were we regards the fact you wouldn't use the word" debunk"?
well you quoted me saying it I suspect that removed doubt from most people so , ready for this bit , clearly I was incorrect , wrong, in error, mistaken etc - see it is not that hard to admit you were wrong.
Have you thought about admitting that your repeated use of the term correlation is WRONG and that is far more significant to this debate?
did we get to regards how you've "debunked" my belief that there is a bias in the surface record not shown in the satellite data
I think we established that whatever the measure you accuse it of bias, unless of course you are using it to show a [s]graph[/s]correlation with a ridiculous scale to show that there is no link between C02 and planetary temperature.
Hainey you keep criticising my comprehension of the subject but you have posted up three graphs that do not support your own view as "proof"– almost every time you reference your opinion you pick something that refutes it and then you question my comprehension. Odd.
Anyway I have your deleted questions cached , do you want me to answer them or do you want to ask some other ones?
What was the cause of the Medieval Warm period?
What was the peak CO2 concentration at that time?
What was the peak temperature at that time?
I assume that we could perhaps do this whereby I ask you one question you ask me one – naturally you can go first with the asking.
I am not answering your questions whilst you refuse to answer any I put to you – I said that when I listed your four questions and answered them one by one. Did you answer my question I posed then or any other since?
So ask your questions I will answer it assuming you will do the same.
Your choice debate or just diatribe from both of us.
We both clearly have a low opinion of each other [finally we agree eh?] is there any point to just keep on doing sh1tty insults/digs to each other?
😆
So you actually can't answer any of the questions then?
You can't be taken seriously when you won't explore any other part of debate apart from your simplistic Man + CO2 = Climate change.
What was the cause of the Medieval Warm period?
What was the peak CO2 concentration at that time?
What was the peak temperature at that time?
Don't bother answering those. He's asked before and they've been answered before.
The real shame about this discussion, which did get interesting for a while, is that Hainey in particular and now Z-11, when given an answer to one question just go back and ask a previous question again - what a waste of time.
Hainey here is a simplified version of the above for you
do you want me to answer them or do you want to ask some other ones?.....So ask your questions I will answer it assuming you will do the same.....Your choice debate or just diatribe from both of us
It is rather hard to work out which one you picked given your reply above 🙄
Your ability to reach a conclusion that is the exact opposite of the actual data appears to have no limits.
Google is ace
What was the cause of the Medieval Warm period?
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) occurred from about AD 800–1300, during the European Middle Ages. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global.[3] However, this view has been questioned; the IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarises this research, saying "... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame,
and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[4] Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.[5] Crowley and Lowery (2000) [6] note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."
What was peak CO2 then?
CO2 concentration was more than a hundred parts per million less than it is currently. Says the first hit in google, they seem too sure to me though so I wouldnt trust them
Peak temp. well Rolland et al 2009 suggest autumn air temp in canada was about 9.5degrees C.
Now hainey your turn, what has caused this cycles in the past and how are those factors relevant to today? I've asked this at least 5 times but you havent answered yet
Your question seems to be suggesting you think there is no link between C02 levels and temperature - do you really want to make that claim?
No, I want you to show me that link - as you'll be able to show me is that historically CO2 has never [i]driven[/i] temperature change, in fact the opposite is true - you'll also be able to demonstrate that the recent [i]recorded[/i] rise in CO2 does not have a [i]proportionate[/i] matching rise in temperature
I think we established that whatever the measure you accuse it of bias,
No, I've only accused one set of data as being biased, unfortunately that set of data is the key set used to draw all comparisons, validations proxies and computer models!
unless of course you are using it to show a [s]graph[/s]correlation with a ridiculous scale to show that there is no link between C02 and planetary temperature.
Which makes it different from the graph you posted, which has been pushed with a ridiculous scale to show that there [b]is[/b] a link?
"there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."
Doesn't that translate as there would also be an absence of documentation as to its [b]non[/b]-existence in the southern hemisphere
Gents, there's no need to make this personal! Play nicely 🙂
Z11 said
No, I want you to show me that link - as you'll be able to show me is that historically CO2 has never driven temperature change, in fact the opposite is true
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine
From [url= http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ ]here[/url]
Do you see that this is a possible explanation to why CO2 has lagged temp in the past, but at the same time contributed to temp increase?
It does of course mean that you have to start thinking of the world as something more complicated than a pan of water with a flame under it (say)
It also makes me more worried about the fact that CO2 is now leading temperature change. Maybe we are now entering a period of rising temperatures without the previous "natural" event that kicked off previous "natural" warming?
that being a relationship between C02 and temperature.No, I want you to show me that
Starting at the begining with Svante Arrhenius who noted in [b]19 th century[/b] Here let me just copy and paste it as you never read links
My BOLD
Greenhouse effect
Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[3] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
This simplified expression is still used today:?F = ? ln(C/C0)
Arrhenius' high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906), German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 - 5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 - 6 °C[4]. In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C. [b]Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century[/b]
Will this do?
He is a Noble prize winner and founder of the Noble prizes as well - failry credible and no one is challenging this - except you with your erm science.
Do you want some more science to help you understand the link? Can you post up anyone credible who claims that C02 in the atmosphere does NOT warm the atmosphere?
Right...
I said this a few days ago regarding the stories about the CRU deleting raw climate data:
Tim - MemberZulu
I wasnt aware of the deletion of data - that is indeed, very poor. Raw data is the most important part of any scientific process.
You cant read anything from it (it may well have just been bad judgement on their behalf), but i do agree that it doesnt help their cause at all.
Turns out I should have researched a little bit because (of course) it all turns out to be hype and bad/devious reporting by the media (cherry picking of quotes again):
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030
No, I want you to show me that link - as you'll be able to show me is that historically CO2 has never driven temperature change, in fact the opposite is true
temperature change is a driver of the level of CO2 emissions.
No climate scientist would argue that - but its not relevant to the fact that man-made CO2 emissions will effect average global temperatures.
except of course, the big worry of a positive feedback loop commencing.
No, you showed me a theory, not an actual displayed link between the facts!
If Arrhenius's theory is right, why does the actual recorded temperature anomaly not match the figures predicted for the recorded change in CO2 levels.
Its worth also noting that Arrhenius also theorised that Venus was covered in plants, and that the sun was made of coal
Arrhenius’s model has been shown to be quantitatively wrong - I'm afraid Gut feelings are useless unless they're quantified.
Would you like to comment on my last posting Z11?
and that the sun was made of coal
No, its the moon is made of cheese..............
z-11 and again
Can you post up anyone credible who claims that C02 in the atmosphere does NOT warm the atmosphere?
Junkyard, again, can you answer these questions?
Correct me if i am wrong but you believe:1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate
2. CO2 rises lagging temperature rises has no relevance to this debate
[i]1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate[/i]
Because we are analysing the impact of the increased emissions since the industrial revolution - we know that CO2 has an increased radiative forcing effect, so we are assessing what effect this is having/will have. Natural cycles are important as they can provide us with some control/background data, but dont prove/disprove anything.
[i]CO2 rises lagging temperature rises has no relevance to this debate[/i]
CO2 can and does lag temperature - as I alluded to before. It isnt relevant to this debate because we also know that increased CO2 increases radiative forcing in the atmosphere, and as such can cause an increase in temperature.
It is relevant to a debate about natural cycles of CO2 and temperature, but not one about additional man-made CO2 as there is no temperature leader to compensate for that [i]over and above that of the natural cycle[/i]
It also makes me more worried about the fact that CO2 is now leading temperature change. Maybe we are now entering a period of rising temperatures without the previous "natural" event that kicked off previous "natural" warming?
This is a good point - additionally, what will happen when there IS a natural event on the scale that would have otherwise started a warming cycle (e.g. a large volcano).
Junkyard - Its irrelevant what the theory is or who's published a paper, unless its actually reflected in the real world data.
CO2 has increased by a significant percentage in the past decade - Temperature has not.
Tim, yes, thanks for your answers, i was really after Junkyards opinion as they really are fundamental stand points as to this debate and can really help assess where he is coming from. In previous posts he has stated that natural CO2 fluctuations have no relevance to this debate which i strongly disagree with. I really want to know why he thinks they don't have any relevance.
i was wondering if anyone could remember what is was they were arguing about?
[img] 
[/img]
Blimey Spongebob! You have started off the biggest argument in history!!! 😀
P.S. If it isn't the biggest argument in history, can we please not argue about the fact that it isn't the bigggest argument in history
Don't know whether the above made sense but there we go
Its obviously something very close to a lot of peoples hearts! 😉
Junkyard, some reading for you...
Interesting that the founding director of International Arctic Research center - Syun-Ichi Akasofu is one of those 700 scientists who are sceptical of the IPCCs claims.
Junkyard, I'll save you the trouble.
Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon) has misused the power of his chairmanship and, now, Ranking Minority status on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee to expend taxpayer resources on distorting, misleading, and outright deceiving when it comes to scientific issues, most notably in relation to questions of Global Warming. One of the most infamous examples of this are the various incarnations of a “report” cobbling together statements from scientists that supposedly dissent from the scientific consensus on humanity’s role in driving accelerating global warming. This is a quite favorite ‘denier’ citation, the supposed 400 or 600 or 700 (depending on which version) number of scientists who have, supposedly, gone on record against the Theory of Global Warming. And, they like to cite this as from the “Senate Environment and Public Works Committee”, without mentioning that this is a Minority Report from global-warming denier, fossil fool James Inhofe’s staff.
Full story [url= http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/07/17/scientific-inquiry-concludes-inhofe-list-not-credible/ ]here[/url]
I liked this bit from your excellent link
Unfortunately, many Americans fail to understand that science does not give us absolutely certain answers to questions about nature. Instead it gives us possibilities. This does not mean, however, that policymakers should feel free to ignore scientific findings. In many cases these probabilities approach certainty. Thus, when scientists say it is “highly likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cdominant cause of the recent global warming, they are asserting that the observational evdience and scientific theory together make a highly compelling case for this conclusion, such that it cannot be dismissed. Although it is always possible that some as yet undiscovered mechanism might also play a role, no one has shown convincing evidence for one. As such, unproven claims that other mechanisms explain global warming should be viewed skeptically
Junkyard, able to answer my questions yet?
Its quite simple.
Also, if you look at the graph i posted above, could you please explain to me at 325000, 225000, 125000 years we had large spikes in temperature, essentially climate change, when there wasn't any man made CO2? Or does this sort of thing not compute?
No?
Ok, well, my point is that you cannot determine the human effect if you do not know the cause and extent of natural climate change. You cannot determine the effect if you leave out major components of the climate system and make assumptions that contradict natural evidence.
HAINEY -
I dont really disagree with anything Tim has said but I will elaborate a little for you - hopefully to prevent you accusing me of copying 😆
1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate
I have questioned their relevance as an explanation of what is occurring presently because the natural cycle does not account for what we are currently experiencing. A significant variable [ deforestation and fossil fuel burning= C02 increasing] has been added and the cycle is broken/changed/altered. The distant past cannot account for this as it has only occurred in the near present [last 150 years or so] – I am not sure what you find particularly contentious about this tbh. The evidence to support this can be seen in the current levels of C02 ppm which are above any part of the cycle for example.
My question to you
Why do you think that a cycle that does not include any aspect of man made C02 release and had C02 levels lower than currently observed can account for what we are experiencing now ?
2. CO2 rises lagging temperature rises has no relevance to this debate
you asked me this before
It is not relevant in the sense that whatever happened in the past it wont change C02 being a greenhouse gas or it having a forcing effect. It wont prevent more C02 having a greater forcing effect. We have more C02 now than then it will get warmer unless something negates this forcing effect.
Your question
As C02 levels have increased in terms of ppm what will negate the forcing effect of this and prevent temperature rising ?
3.could you please explain to me at 325000, 225000, 125000 years we had large spikes in temperature, essentially climate change, when there wasn't any man made CO2?
[sarcasm ] F@ck me we had climate change before man you are kidding me aren't you, Really have we what like natural - as in not affeted by man or the burning of fossil fuels and the use of cars- actual natural climate change blown me away with that utter revelation GEEEEEE THANKKS [/sarcasm]
FFS no one is denying that we have had non man made climate change in the past are they that would be hard to back up. The point is has something changed now to affect climate change? Has a new factor been added. Is it still natural or is it caused by man - why can you not grasp this? A new variable has been added. I am fairly confident we both agree that no man made climate change has ocurred before the present - that hardly proves it is NOT occuring now though does it? - rhetorical do not answer
Ok I have answered three and asked two over to you.
I noticed you nicely ignored the replies to yourposting of another of your cr@p sceptic half truths
You posted this whilst I was answering
Ok, well, my point is that you cannot determine the human effect if you do not know the cause and extent of natural climate change. You cannot determine the effect if you leave out major components of the climate system and make assumptions that contradict natural evidence.
And you cannot ignore the fact that a new variable has been added and that it has a forcing effect. You think the scientist have ignored all you mention. You are the only person ignoring data ,that of man which you think will leave the sytem uncganged, despite C02 being higher than during your natural account for some ill defined/unexplained reason.
Crap sceptic half truths? Really? According to that propoganda? But you were so quick to dismiss the lies and betrayal stemming directly from the IPCC and UEA. And no matter which way you look at it, there is no defending it and calls into question the whole organisation. An organisation which lets be honest makes all the data up themselves, declares themselves as the world experts, then tells the world that they are correct. I mean anyone could do that right?
Unfortunately you haven't really answered my questions, well ok, you have but again with the blinkers on still. My last comment stands, that you cannot determine the human effect if you do not know the cause and extent of natural climate change. You cannot determine the effect if you leave out major components of the climate system and make assumptions that contradict natural evidence. And that is why you are unable to really enter the debate because you are not willing to look at the larger picture which is why we keep going round in circles. Your sarcastic comment really highlights this, you are saying it in jest, yet you have no idea of how wrong you really are. I guess really thats where the debate ends.
I mean anyone could do that right?
Yeah of course, anyone could.
You could.
You could declare yourself the world authority and everyone would stop and listen. I expect that is just what they did. Probably they don't have a science A level between them. I expect they were just down the pub one evening and they said "lets make all the data up and declare ourselves as the world experts"
Do you realise how stupid you sound hainey?
I guess really thats where the debate ends.
Please tell me this isn't just an idle threat.
Hainey - Your vague comments of timescales simply don't cut it when talking about some of the smartest mind's on Earth life's work. It appears to me you have not grasped the fundamental drivers in climate science and indeed techniques used in climate research. You are persistanly ignoring good responses in favour of some minor vague point.
I am getting sick of having to constantly address layman who make vague and unsubtantiated claims about the validity of research. Quite simply you need to read one of the many climate textbooks available produced by [b]professional climate researchers[/b] and then read some [b]peer-reviewed papers[/b] on the current state of the art. Your ignorance is perhaps best demonstrated a couple of pages back with this nugget:
Yes or No answers please.
Your persistant comments that we cannot explain aspects of paleoclimate is a valid one but more highlights that you do not understand the probabilistic nature of climatolgy. This has also caused you to discredit yourself on several occassions by highlighting the variable and complex nature of the climate system in response to greenhouse gas forcing, whether those gases are natural of anthopogenic is essentially irrelevant. Please do not take this concession as a victory - there are plenty of aspects in the climate system of which confidence in knowledge is high.
Being [b]pragmatic[/b] and using the [b]peer-reviewed[/b] evidence available - what would you suggest is a course of action? The limp response of "on-going research" just doesn't cut it current evidence suggests a system rife with threshold responses and positive feedbacks.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that [b]several professional climate researchers[/b] in my department (I am but a lowly post-grad) have commented that the IPCC is conservative. Do you believe them caught up in global research funding conspiracy or some other Daily Mail pseudo-intellectual vague nonsense?
I suspect unfortunatly that you are either a troll or utterly un-convincable, please remember that a good scientist is one who holds nothing sacred. I was going to say that this thread is depressing but won't - there are clearly of people appreciate evidence and understand the scientific process. You are frankly in the dark ages.
ashmo, not really sure what you are bringing to this however i will extract some great debating skills from your statement:
layman, ignorance, limp, nonsense, troll, dark ages
Its a pretty low level of debating technique but whatever works for you.
What the church of climatology fails to see past in this debate is that I have always stated that neither of us are categorically right or wrong.
What i like to look at is the bigger picture, rather than the blinkered CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore we are all doomed, and if you do some poking around you will also find that it is not as clear cut as you would like to believe.
I have serious concerns with anyone who thinks that past cyclic nature and interactions of CO2 and temperature have no relevance to today. In my mind that is just rediculous. Not once has anyone been able to explain to me how the planet has coped with this in the past, why we had the downward trends.
I think we need to spend a lot more time studying this rather than predicting wild theories that in 30 years time we will all be underwater. Global warming / climate change has been around for a good number of years now and the level of understanding from i see hasn't moved on at all.
So unless you have any more great nuggets to add to divert away from the questions like the moon is made of cheese, gravity doesn't exist, conspiracies or laurel and hardy (which are all great diversionary debating skills) i think we will agree to disagree on this one and we can get together in 25000 years time when we are entering an ice age and i can say i told you so 😉
Guys, thanks for sticking up for science for me. I would never have had the energy to spend 20 pages trying to convince this thick idiot that he's being unscientific 🙂
In my mind that is just rediculous. Not once has anyone been able to explain to me how the planet has coped with this in the past
Ok, read this very carefully. In the ancient past, climate changed, and it caused mass extinctions or severe upheaval in ecosystems and lots of animals, birds, plants and other small furry things died. They probably weren't happy about it but they couldn't write or talk about it so we never knew. However now, if climate changes, it will cause major problems because a) people are sentient and don't like dying and b) we are based on farming and that means we depend on crops being planted and harvested in order to survive. If the climate changes this will all change. If the climate changes now, we would all have to either move or starve, and that woudl be a problem don't you think?
I think we need to spend a lot more time studying this rather than predicting wild theories that in 30 years time we will all be underwater
Umm, a lot of research has already been done mate... Are you seriously rubbishing the science by saying we need science? That doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Why do you think the current science isn't good enough? Specifically, please.
the level of understanding from i see hasn't moved on at all
Can you back that up? Seriously I want to know what you mean. And why, if you develop better models and they say the same thing, is that wrong?
Hainey said
Not once has anyone been able to explain to me how the planet has coped with this in the past, why we had the downward trends.
OK, here's the answer. You have to read all of it though, and also the page that it comes from. It is complicated, and however much you would like a yes/no answer there isn't one.
But I promise you that if you spend 10 minutes reading this (surely a small fraction of the time you've spent telling us that there is no explanation?) then you will have a possible answer to your question.
What you do with that answer is of course up to you.
Dear Jeff,I read your article “What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?” You mention that CO2 does not initiate warmings, but may amplify warmings that are already underway. The obvious question comes up as to whether or not CO2 levels also lag periods when cooling begins after a warming cycle…even one of 5,000 years?
If CO2 levels on planet Earth also lag the cooling periods, then how can it be that CO2 levels are causally related to terrestrial heating periods at all? I am not sure what the ice core records are related the time response of CO2 to the cooling trends. If there is also a lag in CO2 levels behind a cooling period, then it appears that CO2 levels not only do not initiate warming periods but are also unrelated to the onset of cooling periods. It would appear that the actual CO2 levels are rather impotent as an amplifier either way…warming or cooling. We are talking about planet Earth after all and not Venus whose atmospheric pressure is many times larger than Earth’s.
If there is also a time lag upon the onset of cooling, then it appears that some other mechanism actually drives the temperature changes. So what is the time difference between CO2 levels during the onset of a cooling period at the end of a warming period and the time history of the temperature changes in the ice cores?
Dear John,
The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.
But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.
Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.
Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.
Think of heart disease – one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient’s condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?
There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.
The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.
So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.
The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.
The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.
The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2’s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.
Hope this is illuminating.
Jeff
The answer came from [url= http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Contacts/Jeff/jeffhome.html ]this bloke[/url]
and was quoted in [url= http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ ]this article[/url]
This explains why global warming has been followed by global cooling HOWEVER, it does not show how "the planet has coped with this in the past" because we have NEVER been in the situation we are in now. CO2 has NEVER been at current levels (except 50 million years ago, long before the cyclical data we are discussing started)
don't expect Hainey to take a blind bit of notice, he's happy as a pig in poo demanding answers on climatology from a bunch of IT/Engineering geeks.
and even happier when we have to confess that we don't know X about Y. If he was asking questions about high-speed-machining, or metrology, i might be able to help him.
People dont fall in to the trap of answering Hainey's questions ANSWER MINE PLEASE HAINEY I ANSWERED YOURS- he just asks you some more - just repeat questions and await the answers. You dont need to explain the cyclical account either it is Hainey's view that this explains climate change - if Hainey requires this view explaining it is laughable. Here is my explantion I think this explains everything but er could you just explain it to me please 😯
Quick points for you
1.
ashmo,not really sure what you are bringing to this
it was this
I'd like to point out that several professional climate researchers in my department (I am but a lowly post-grad)
This is substantially more than you are bringing to the debate. Out of interest do you ask your doctor what they are bringing to the debate when they diagnose you?
2. The diatribe against the IPCC pretty much sums up your entirely distorted view of this area
I doubt anyone anywhere other than you thinks this but as you do it is clear that you will just keep making unevidenced, un substantiated claims - I am being polite that claim is utter BS. EVIDENCE - break down each claim point by point and discredit it with some data and your phenomenal grasp of science.An organisation which lets be honest makes all the data up themselves
3. Thanks for repeating your view agian about no-one being able to see the "bigger picture" without actually answering the questions I put to you about your view . As I have said as simply as I can put
A significant variable [ deforestation and fossil fuel burning= C02 increasing] has been added and the cycle is broken/changed/altered
Therefore repeating the questions again-
Why do you think that a cycle that does not include any aspect of man made C02 release and had C02 levels lower than currently observed can account for what we are experiencing now ?
As C02 levels have increased in terms of ppm what will negate the forcing effect of this and prevent temperature rising ?
In the ancient past, climate changed, and it caused mass extinctions or severe upheaval in ecosystems and lots of animals, birds, plants and other small furry things died. They probably weren't happy about it but they couldn't write or talk about it so we never knew. However now, if climate changes, it will cause major problems because a) people are sentient and don't like dying and b) we are based on farming and that means we depend on crops being planted and harvested in order to survive. If the climate changes this will all change. If the climate changes now, we would all have to either move or starve, and that woudl be a problem don't you think?
Couldn't agree more, but what makes you think we can stop this if its primarily natural?
Are you seriously rubbishing the science by saying we need science? That doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Why do you think the current science isn't good enough? Specifically, please.
I'm not rubbishing it, what i am saying is that all the government funding at the moment is aimed at future predictions with very little (primarily private grants) going towards further understanding of the past conditions. The IPCC has only just started including natural cycle data into their models because they believe it could be significant.
Love the insult - great sign of intelligence!
If he was asking questions about high-speed-machining, or metrology, i might be able to help him.
I have a team of experts who work for me on that already thanks.
I'm not rubbishing it,
well if this is you endorsing something I wonder how you would criticise it
so quick to dismiss the lies and betrayal stemming directly from the IPCC and UEA. And no matter which way you look at it, there is no defending it and calls into question the whole organisation. An organisation which lets be honest makes all the data up themselves, declares themselves as the world experts, then tells the world that they are correct
Couldn't agree more, but what makes you think we can stop this if its primarily natural?
Instead of asking more questions CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS?
and asking for an exlanation of your own account and asking a Post grad working in the area what they were bringing to the debate is a sign of intelligence then?great sign of intelligence!
Junkyard, i read your post a couple of times but i can't make sense of it. I think we need to agree to disagree on this one!
Unless you want to explain to me why global temperatures have been decreasing for the last 10 years?
and asking for an exlanation of your own account and asking a Post grad working in the area what they were bringing to the debate is a sign of intelligence then?
I think someone whos vocabulary stops at
shows a severe lack of intelligence yes. Correct me if I am wrong.thick idiot
You do realise you that ashmo is the post grad working in this area and Midgebait is the one who called you thick. 🙄 Your ability to shoot yourself in the foot and mis quote things clearly knows no limits. Even if your quote was accurate it would make them rude not unitelligent.
see look I answered another of your questions want to reciprocate?
hainey if you cannot understand this
A significant variable [ deforestation and fossil fuel burning= C02 increasing] has been added and the cycle is broken/changed/altered
Why do you think that a cycle that does not include any aspect of man made C02 release and had C02 levels lower than currently observed can account for what we are experiencing now ?
As C02 levels have increased in terms of ppm what will negate the forcing effect of this and prevent temperature rising ?
I suggest you either get a child to explain it to you or accept that the issue is beyond your comprehension?
Unless you want to explain to me why global temperatures have been decreasing for the last 10 years?
Did you not post up a graph that showed an upward trend on this very issue are you arguing with your own data again? How many more times will you do this?
If you wish to claim that temperature is not rising EVIDENCE the claim FFS
[img]
[/img]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8400905.stm ]here even has it in a little visual scene for you[/url]
I am starting to feel like I am just picking on the stupid kid at school Can we stop this please - clearly nothing scientific like data is going to alter you opinion. Can we please just stop?
Junkyard said,
People dont fall in to the trap of answering Hainey's questions ANSWER MINE PLEASE HAINEY I ANSWERED YOURS- he just asks you some more
Actually, he just asks [i]you[/i] more.
I'm still waiting for him to comment on any of several answers that I put up for him.
I suspect that he is more interseted in arguing with [i]you[/i] than finding anything out, but I can't [b]prove[/b] it.
a) thick idiot was an observation on how you seem to be arguing, not an insult
b) just because I use certain words why would you assume that those are the ONLY words I can use? 🙂 I am actually very intelligent indeed 🙂
Anyway, away from the tit-for-tat, you aren't arguing along coherent systematic lines. I pointed out the problems that climate change would cause in response to your post implying that it didn't matter. I didn't say anything about being able to stop it or whether or not it was man-made. Those are seperate topics really.
Unless you want to explain to me why global temperatures have been decreasing for the last 10 years?
What does that tell you? Are you inferring from that that temperatures will continue to fall? What would be the basis for that? There can be ups and downs in the short term, but still an upward trend. Do you agree?
Please answer each question above...
You do realise you that ashmo is the post grad working in this area and Midgebait is the one who called you thick. Your ability to shoot yourself in the foot and mis quote things clearly knows no limits
Junkyard, what are you twittering on about, you're wrong once again, it was Molgrips hence why i was quoting him! 😯
Even if your quote was accurate it would make them rude not unitelligent.
yes resulting to those sorts of words is a huge sign of intelligence! 😯
So you think that in the last 10 years temperature has risen?
[img] 
[/img]
I pointed out the problems that climate change would cause in response to your post implying that it didn't matter. I didn't say anything about being able to stop it or whether or not it was man-made. Those are seperate topics really.
So your point is what?
What does that tell you? Are you inferring from that that temperatures will continue to fall? What would be the basis for that? There can be ups and downs in the short term, but still an upward trend. Do you agree?
That tells me that the predictions made in 1998 were wrong.
It also tells me that the temperature fluctuations are unpredictable
There can be ups and downs yes
Not necessarily an upward trend though.
Historical data shows us that CO2 levels remained very high for long periods of time after temperatures had decreased.
Can you answer my questions - is ther eno child about to help you understand them?
Historical data shows us that CO2 levels remained very high for long periods of time after temperatures had decreased.
Does it?
[img]
[/img]
yes resulting to those sorts of words is a huge sign of intelligence!A significant variable [ deforestation and fossil fuel burning= C02 increasing] has been added and the cycle is broken/changed/alteredgiven you annot understand this - the evidence would seem to suggest they have reached a conclusion supported by the data
Can you understand this enough to answer it yet?
Why do you think that a cycle that does not include any aspect of man made C02 release and had C02 levels lower than currently observed can account for what we are experiencing now ?
As C02 levels have increased in terms of ppm what will negate the forcing effect of this and prevent temperature rising ?
Hainey,
I can see that the graph you posted shows global cooling in the last few years, but sadly your information is a bit out of date.
Here's the latest research from the world expert. I think you'll agree it's conclusive?
[img] [/img]
So your point is what?
Like I said, you seemed to be implying that climate change didn't matter. I was saying that it did.. that was my point.
1. Why would you assume temperatures will continue to fall because they fell for the last ten years?
2. Temperature fluctuations specifically are unpredictable, but scientists are trying to predict overall trends. And mostly they are predicting a rise overall (but not every single year). Why do you dispute this?
3. "Not necessarily an upward trend though." But the evidence says that it will be. Again, why do you dispute it?
RPRT - save that image as a jpg not a tiff.. funny tho 🙂
as he said funny andI have some great news I have repliated the data at another site so we have even more proof now.
Given the years on your scale Hainey that graph is not of the last 10 years is it? 🙄
Like I said, you seemed to be implying that climate change didn't matter. I was saying that it did.. that was my point.
Not once have i said that, if I have implyed it then i am sorry.
1. Why would you assume temperatures will continue to fall because they fell for the last ten years?
Assume is probably not the right word, but at the moment i think we are at a peak and so there is a probability that it will go down. Would you assume that it will go back up again?
2. Temperature fluctuations specifically are unpredictable, but scientists are trying to predict overall trends. And mostly they are predicting a rise overall (but not every single year). Why do you dispute this?
I personally think that we will see over the next few hundred years a decline in temperatures as has been seen before, this isn't a good thing in itself, but I don't think that the human impact is enough to upset the balance of this planet. I am not saying i am right or that you are wrong.
3. "Not necessarily an upward trend though." But the evidence says that it will be. Again, why do you dispute it?
Sorry on this on i do dispute, what evidence?
Given the years on your scale Hainey that graph is not of the last 10 years is it?
1998 - 2008? You will have explain your "special" maths on that one.
Here's the latest research from the world expert. I think you'll agree it's conclusive?
Sorry all i see is a red cross in a white box.
Hainey said:
I personally think that we will see over the next few hundred years a decline in temperatures as has been seen before
But it hasn't been seen before. When temperatures fell after global warming and CO2 rises before the circumstances WERE DIFFERENT.
Did you read the long post I put up a page or two back? It explains this very point as well as I have ever seen it explained.
a true classic for the modern world T-shirts will be on classified for all your fans!
Given the years on your scale Hainey that graph is not of the last 10 years is it?
1998 - 2008? You will have explain your "special" maths on that one.
Ok let me try what year is it ? is it 2008? ok now then is 1998 more than 10 years BP[before present? hard innit. 98 -08 is also 11 YEARS YOU IDIOT
You really need to go find that child and ask their help quickly yu seem to have failed to count to ten now. Anyway my questions any progress yet?
A significant variable [ deforestation and fossil fuel burning= C02 increasing] has been added and the cycle is broken/changed/altered
Why do you think that a cycle that does not include any aspect of man made C02 release and had C02 levels lower than currently observed can account for what we are experiencing now ?
As C02 levels have increased in terms of ppm what will negate the forcing effect of this and prevent temperature rising ?
especuially as you are now claiming we are at a peak in temperature and C02 levels have not peaked[b] can you explain WHY you think what you think rather than just tell us what you think?[/b]
Are you still claiming this after I postd that graph for you
want to dispute the graph?Historical data shows us that CO2 levels remained very high for long periods of time after temperatures had decreased.
I didn't call anyone thick! Perish the thought 😉
Gaia is crying 😥
Can you please start your own forum for this?
Gaia is crying
Don't feel sorry for Gaia. She's a ruthless killing machine.
i think we are at a peak
Why? Anything besides gut feeling/optimism?
Sorry on this on i do dispute, what evidence?
I don't have citations, I am going by the press reports of the last 5 years or so.
The thing is, scientists actually do work on this and analyse the data their whole lives. So you have to value what they say. You can't just say 'well I think it'll all be fine' based a gut feeling. Scientists don't only sit around in pubs or on formus chinwagging.
Actually, on another forum somewhere a load of climate scientists are arguing about whether 29ers really are a step forward.
junkyard midgebait you are both insane!(1) I agree with your position but this is really going in circles. hainey fudamentaly believes/hopes that T+H=G is the same as T+H+D+C=G(T,Time.H,Historic Cycles.G, global temperature rise.D,Unprecedented Deforestation.C, Unprecedented release of stored Carbon). Nothing will change that view .
"the lies and betrayal stemming directly from the IPCC and UEA." is this the, 10 years ago a local expert on Glaciers got misquoted in a magazine article and the misquote got included in the narative of a IPCC report, point? because if so I think the climate sceptics contiuous misrepresentation of experts work is far more worrying for example that of Mojib Latif, from Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany whose had to complain on a number of occasions.
(1) Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Ok let me try what year is it ? is it 2008? ok now then is 1998 more than 10 years BP[before present? hard innit. 98 -08 is also 11 YEARS YOU IDIOT
sorry, 11 years, and your point is.
Junkyard, i am done talking to you, if you can't be civilized and adult about it then whats the point? You spend your entire post avoiding the actual point and avoiding the evidence.
I'm trying to be civilised mate 🙂
In all honesty though hainey, he has provided loads of evidence and he is trying to explain why he disagrees. I don't think you are quite getting his point though.
I understand Junykards view point. He is saying that there is more CO2 now than there ever has been, ergo temperatures will keep rising and we will break the natural cycle.
Edit: In comparison to his BBC article, this was published just a few weeks before hand.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
gets a bit foggy really
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years