Hainey,

Here's one.

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 forecast, so it doesn't prove anything. But guess what, if the weather forecast 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: A graph – not a correlation

it doesn't prove anything

Well said that man.

Yeah, that graph fits in with what we are seeing at the moment i guess!!!

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 same 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 graphcorrelation 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 driven temperature change, in fact the opposite is true – you'll also be able to demonstrate that the recent recorded rise in CO2 does not have a proportionate 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 graphcorrelation 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 is 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 non-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 here

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?

No, I want you to show me that

that being a relationship between C02 and temperature.
Starting at the begining with Svante Arrhenius who noted in 19 th century 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. 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

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 – Member

Zulu

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

1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate

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.

CO2 rises lagging temperature rises has no relevance to this debate

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 over and above that of the natural cycle

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?

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…

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=97184&CFTOKEN=48248935

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 here

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