Wow, so you're telling me a 400,000 year chart looks different from a 4500 year chart? That's amazing. Thanks for your insight.
Here's another one for you. I'm betting you'll be able to find one that looks different to this one too!
do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article
- Thread starter bob shovel
- Start date
Here's another one for you. I'm betting you'll be able to find one that looks different to this one too!
And the funny thing is, if you zoom in to the most recent 5000 years on your chart, it looks exactly the same as my chart, with temperatures moving up and down within a +-2% range. So not different looking at all!
Thanks for your contribution LibGS. It's a perfect example of not being able to read a chart.
There is a lot of talk about Cliff and Randy a simple google search of them would have shown what the real science community thinks of them. And here is what you should observe about that "graph".
If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).
Here are some real data from Nasa and other sources concerning the climate change. You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.
Thanks for your contribution Shadow. Its a perfect example of non-science.
Surely that chart provides you with enormous comfort?
False dilemma argument. Are you 12?
No. It shows that changes in CO2 concentration massively affects global temps. We are very very fast approaching 400ppm. The graph tops out at 300.
Sorry, I didn't explain that.
Laymans question here:
According to the chart, In the past when there were variations of 100ppm this was estimated to have caused temperature variations of approx 10 degrees. That hasn't happened this time around, and no credible scientists are predicting that. What am I missing?
The relationship between the 2 isn't linear.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth?s surface 30?Celsius (54?F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.
There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.
As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you?ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.
Nope, it's the other way around. Temperature drives CO2.
Temperature leads, CO2 lags by about 800 years...
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
You can test this yourself at home. Get a can of coke and warm it up. The CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.
The same thing happens with the oceans as they warm up.
Climate change is mostly driven by the sun - i.e. its cycles, our distance from it, our angle relative to it etc.
Think about it logically... what is most likely to affect heat on earth... a huge burning ball of gas that emits massive amounts of heat, or a trace gas that emits no heat and constitutes only 0.04% of the atmosphere (with humans producing only 3% of that 0.04%).
It's not that hard really.
Anyone ever see bubbles from coke NOT come out of it even when it is just out of the fridge?
She's wrong. Read the discussion further down on the page. If you read Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III it might enlighten you.
"The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age?ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +- 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
You postings show that you don?t bother to read the science beyond the small section you wish to promote.
The point is that more CO2 is released, and at a faster rate, when the temperature is increased. Coke will keep its fizz longer in the fridge than in the saucepan.
Your postings demonstrate that you don't bother to read the science beyond the small section you wish to promote. Caillon's 2003 paper has been superseded by more recent data and analysis showing that temperature leads CO2 by approximately 800 years.
In fact, Caillon's paper contains zero evidence to back up his claim that you quoted above. It is pure speculation on his part.
The actual data shows CO2 lagging temperatures by hundreds of years. Even the alarmist sites acknowledge this. It's not up for debate. You would be better off taking the approach of most alarmist sites by saying that although CO2 doesn't initiate the warming, it does exacerbate it once warming is underway, for example...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
'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.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.'
Or you could take the approach that temperatures only lead by a few hundred years, rather than 800...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...s-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-the-link-to-global-warming.html#.VP-hi0akpC0
But to totally deny the fact that temperatures lead CO2 is to go against all the science and data. A prime example of not bothering to read the science beyond the small section you wish to promote.
Last edited:
Ok, since the CO2 increase has not contributed to any increase in temp - why then are various experts and Gubbs around the world constantly referring to CO2 as a serious threat to mankind and the planet, and introducing taxes and so forth on these horrible industries which supposedly produce too much.
I mean; an Election here in Aus was won (in part) on the basis of a CO2 tax and the fall-out from that tax. I'm talking about Julia Gillard's famous lie...and she was one of the Leaders of the Country - folks are swayed by these folks and what they say - just look at the various Polls they conduct over an Election campaign, for example; and how people swing back and forth based on the rhetoric. It's insane.
It illustrates just how irrational everyone is getting about a subject which is proving to be a non-issue.
The bold areas areas serve to illustrate why I am so anti this whole circus.
It may well be that the world will heat up, it may well be true that climate is changing (in my opinion that's normal), but it's the whole focus and mania on a whole series of maybe's, and possibles, and projections based on models and so forth - there is no possible way that any of this scientific research and so forth can be proved going forward, it can only show increments of anything over time so far - a giant storm in a teacup based on scientific results up to date, with dire predictions from all and sundry in the science world, and the lesser educated have swallowed it all up.
It has mushroomed into a massive hysteria and mania, perpetuated by millions of people who should know better, and by those who don't.
I refuse to be in that mob.
All I'm saying is you can all go take a Panadol and have a lie down, and look at this whole mentality with some objectivity and some healthy skepticism.
The only dangers we face currently are; running out of food to feed the world, and/or killing ourselves into distinction as a result of religious mania.
By the way; your apology for attacking me in a PM is accepted.
Last edited:
You're on a property investing forum and don't understand compounding growth?
I find the opposite.. it is the lesser educated who tend to distrust science and prefer to follow crackpot internet pseudo scientists and ignore the vast body of evidence from the reputable sources. Not worth trying to argue it with these people though. They don?t want to listen, read or understand, it?s too complex. Of course there are other reasons to deny global warming as well (politics, self interests...) but ignorance of the facts seems to be the big one, and misinformation, of which there is a lot out there (eg Shadows graphs and links).
Meanwhile the earth continues to warm at a rate never seen before (when you don?t cherry pick bits of data).
A simple way the view the trend is to look at aggregated decades, flattening the noise of natural variations of individual years.
Most of the heating is occurring in the oceans which are the biggest drivers of climate change
And BOM carefully cherry picks it's data too to show warming is happening. I pointed this out on this thread,
http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93439&page=19
which for some strange reason got locked. At least all these posts could have gone on a warming thread instead of blocking up some thread about greens?
I'd reckon Tim Flannery probably looked at this when he concluded it would never rain again?
BOM uses Sandford to show how dry it's getting in it's official data sets. Sandford even has lots of missing info but they still use it. Yet just 15 ks away is Hobart with 135 years of complete info, and they chose Sandford in the data sets!
http://somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1112098&postcount=390
See ya's.
Yes, and NASA did the same recently. Last month the media was full of reports claiming 2014 was the 'warmest year ever', based on NASA's data. But when people actually investigated the NASA data it showed that there was a 62% probability that 2014 was NOT the warmest year ever...
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/noaa-nasa-2014-was-probably-not-warmest.html
All the other temperature indices (there are about ten major ones) show 1998 or 2010 as being the warmest, and the latest NASA data also says 2014 was probably not the warmest.
The truth is there has been no statistically significant change in global temperatures for almost two decades, despite an acceleration of CO2 emissions over that time.
Now the IPCC are scrambling to explain the unexpected 'hiatus' which their supposedly 'settled' science failed to predict.
Apparently two decades ago all the heat decided to bypass the atmosphere, bypass the sea surface, and hide deep down in the oceans.
Your question doesn't make sense. The current 0.04% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere already includes the cumulative effect of all human CO2 emissions ever.
So now the oceans are the biggest driver? I thought it was supposed to be human CO2 emissions?
What changes to the climate have actually been driven so far? Has there been more rain, less rain, more storms, less storms, more humidity, cloudier days? Precisely how has the global climate changed? I haven't noticed any changes at all. Can you list a few of the major climate changes that you have noticed in your lifetime, and which you believe were driven by the oceans?
There are enough media folk who are educated well enough - and have to research that their anti-CC/GW claims are valid before going to air with them.
They are presented with both sides of the argument and then make their presentations on air.
They have no agenda - there is no money in nay-saying CC/GW - other than maybe some ratings for a sensationalistic claim.
But that would be journalistic suicide.
Have I mentioned Tim Flannery?
You still haven't commented on how he came about, and made his stupid and completely incorrect prediction - based on science.
Last edited:
CO2 and other gases cause the heating. Heated oceans induce climate change through altered current and wind patterns (weakening gulf stream, jet stream in different position, etc), storm generation, reduced sea ice (arctic ice minimum coverage now down over 50%).So now the oceans are the biggest driver? I thought it was supposed to be human CO2 emissions?
This is not correct, the oceans have warmed quite a lot. You can?t ignore them, or all the years before the abnormally warm year 1998 (which skeptics like to use as the start of a small time frame of data)
Actually you can ignore oceans, you can even ignore all the evidence if you don't want to see it or if you have some sort of defect that prevents you from seeing it.
I don't know if the deniers will ever be persuaded. The only question is, in time will they ever acknowledge their mistake and apologise?
Similar threads
