2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

LOLOLOL......oh, code4stupid, your silly logic is soooo retarded and you must pull your backward "facts(?)" out of your ass. I thought all of you denier cultists were obsessed with the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. You say warming started "in about 1575" but that is actually about the start of the Little Ice Age. You say it got going "by about 1650" but that is the coldest middle part of the Little Ice Age. Even the temperature chart you linked to shows that. Here's another one that might make it clearer to you.

275px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


The Little Ice Age (LIA) was caused by some combination of natural factors (discussed below) and affected some parts of the world more than others. After the mid 1800's the temperature patterns were returning to the normal range the world had mostly been in for the previous six thousand years. Some scientists think that mankind's activities, like deforestation, had already been affecting the climate for centuries but in the 1800's we began to really pump long sequestered fossil CO2 into the atmosphere at ever higher rates and began the abrupt and accelerating global warming trend that has been observed since.

Little Ice Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[6]

Causes

Solar activity

There is still a very poor understanding of the correlation between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures.[58][59] During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.[60] Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of the isotopes carbon-14 and beryllium-10.[61]


Volcanic activity

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity.[62] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Huaynaputina (1600).[15]


Ocean Conveyor slowdown

Another possibility is that there was a slowing of thermohaline circulation.[24][63][64] The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic, possibly caused by a period of warming before the Little Ice Age known as the Medieval Warm Period.[65][66][67] There is some concern that a shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming period.[68][69]


Decreased human populations

Some researchers have proposed that human influences on climate began earlier than is normally supposed and that major population declines in Eurasia and the Americas reduced this impact, leading to a cooling trend. William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early 16th century could have had a similar effect.[70][71] A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.[72] Faust, Gnecco, Mannstein and Stamm (2005) supported depopulation in the Americas as a factor, asserting that humans had cleared considerable amounts of forests to support agriculture in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans brought on a population collapse.[73] The authors link the subsequent depopulation to a drop in carbon dioxide levels observed at Law Dome, Antarctica.[73]



So explain why the warming pre dates the industrial revolution.





That's what the scriptures say. The High Priests are adamant that the future creates the past.
 
Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

LOLOLOL......oh, code4stupid, your silly logic is soooo retarded and you must pull your backward "facts(?)" out of your ass. I thought all of you denier cultists were obsessed with the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. You say warming started "in about 1575" but that is actually about the start of the Little Ice Age. You say it got going "by about 1650" but that is the coldest middle part of the Little Ice Age. Even the temperature chart you linked to shows that. Here's another one that might make it clearer to you.

275px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


The Little Ice Age (LIA) was caused by some combination of natural factors (discussed below) and affected some parts of the world more than others. After the mid 1800's the temperature patterns were returning to the normal range the world had mostly been in for the previous six thousand years. Some scientists think that mankind's activities, like deforestation, had already been affecting the climate for centuries but in the 1800's we began to really pump long sequestered fossil CO2 into the atmosphere at ever higher rates and began the abrupt and accelerating global warming trend that has been observed since.

Little Ice Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[6]

Causes

Solar activity

There is still a very poor understanding of the correlation between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures.[58][59] During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.[60] Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of the isotopes carbon-14 and beryllium-10.[61]


Volcanic activity

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity.[62] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Huaynaputina (1600).[15]


Ocean Conveyor slowdown

Another possibility is that there was a slowing of thermohaline circulation.[24][63][64] The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic, possibly caused by a period of warming before the Little Ice Age known as the Medieval Warm Period.[65][66][67] There is some concern that a shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming period.[68][69]


Decreased human populations

Some researchers have proposed that human influences on climate began earlier than is normally supposed and that major population declines in Eurasia and the Americas reduced this impact, leading to a cooling trend. William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early 16th century could have had a similar effect.[70][71] A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.[72] Faust, Gnecco, Mannstein and Stamm (2005) supported depopulation in the Americas as a factor, asserting that humans had cleared considerable amounts of forests to support agriculture in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans brought on a population collapse.[73] The authors link the subsequent depopulation to a drop in carbon dioxide levels observed at Law Dome, Antarctica.[73]

So explain why the warming pre dates the industrial revolution.

That's easy. It doesn't.

"NASA defines the term [Little Ice Age] as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming."

Industrial Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The First Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the 19th century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[8] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[9]
 
Last edited:
So explain why the warming pre dates the industrial revolution.
That's what the scriptures say. The High Priests are adamant that the future creates the past.
LOLOLOLOLOL.....oh walleyedretard, the myths of your cult are sooooo funny....and soooo completely insane.....


C0110_Bob_Rohrman.jpg


Forum newcomers interested in this topic..............

Go and google "Global Warming" AND "Failing" and you will find SCORES
of links illustrating how the conventional wisdom on warming is hainvg ZERO impact on public policy, thus proving my assertion that.............

THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER IN 2012.

MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY LINKS..............LIKE THIS..............Media campaign to silence global warming skeptics failing







Oh.......and for the curious..........also google "Global Warming" AND "Winning"...............see what you come up with!!



Yuk.......yuk..........!:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface:
 
Last edited:
Yeah so? Where is the evidence that man is the proximal cause?

absorbspec.gif


CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif



Uhhh, I dunno,. what do most people say? Can I read abiout this on someone's blog?



A lot of people say there is abundant evidence of this, yes, you are right. Lots of folks say there is zero evidence of AGW. That feels right to me, lets go with it. Fuck al hockey stick gore and his SUV and methane farts, fucking hypocrite.




THAT graph does. I've never seen it. But I'm sure you're right. I"ve heard lots of other people - some of whom have their own blogs - talk about graphs a lot, like you do, and they've come to basically the same conclusions.

You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better then that dude. I mean really, if you are truly a PhD physicist I expect far better then this poor attempt.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to disagree with you. It was really all a joke. You've clearly got all the evidence on your side. So many people - some of who have blogs - agree with you and they talk about evidence a lot, as well, so we know they must have lots of it - why talk about it so much otherwise !!!



Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.
 
absorbspec.gif


CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif



Uhhh, I dunno,. what do most people say? Can I read abiout this on someone's blog?



A lot of people say there is abundant evidence of this, yes, you are right. Lots of folks say there is zero evidence of AGW. That feels right to me, lets go with it. Fuck al hockey stick gore and his SUV and methane farts, fucking hypocrite.




THAT graph does. I've never seen it. But I'm sure you're right. I"ve heard lots of other people - some of whom have their own blogs - talk about graphs a lot, like you do, and they've come to basically the same conclusions.




I'm sorry, I didn't mean to disagree with you. It was really all a joke. You've clearly got all the evidence on your side. So many people - some of who have blogs - agree with you and they talk about evidence a lot, as well, so we know they must have lots of it - why talk about it so much otherwise !!!



Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.





No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.
 
Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.





No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.

I never made that argument, sorry.

We already know that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes more Co2 to be in the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.





No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.

I never made that argument, sorry.

We already know that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes more Co2 to be in the atmosphere.





A physicist huh. You claim that the rise in CO2 is the proximal cause of the increase in temperature. You show cute graphs to support that contention. Your cute graphs don't bother to explain if the CO2 is derived from man or not. Ice core data (real data, not computer models like you love) shows multi hundred year lags from warming onset to CO2 increases.

We are currently living within one of those windows. It has been 800 years since the last major warming period. We are solidly at the upper time limit for CO2 increases based on that cause.

There you go. Correlation that doesn't involve man at all. See how science is done? Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.
 
Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.





No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.

Look, you senile old man, he most certainly is not. What he is showing is the causation.
 
No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.

I never made that argument, sorry.

We already know that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes more Co2 to be in the atmosphere.





A physicist huh. You claim that the rise in CO2 is the proximal cause of the increase in temperature. You show cute graphs to support that contention. Your cute graphs don't bother to explain if the CO2 is derived from man or not. Ice core data (real data, not computer models like you love) shows multi hundred year lags from warming onset to CO2 increases.

We are currently living within one of those windows. It has been 800 years since the last major warming period. We are solidly at the upper time limit for CO2 increases based on that cause.

There you go. Correlation that doesn't involve man at all. See how science is done? Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.

There you go again. Flap yapping an obvious lie with a straight face.

Walleyes, in the last interglacial, it was warmer, with the sea level at least 20 feet higher than today. At only 300 ppm of CO2 and under 800 ppb of CH4. With far less NxOs and no industrial gases that have no natural analog. We have not been at 390 ppb of CO2 for over 15 million years. Same for over 1800 ppb of CH3.

We also know how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. And, were it not for the oceans obsorbing a large proportion of that anthropogenic CO2, the percentage that we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere, 40%, would be far higher.

Why the CO2 increase is man made (part 1) | Watts Up With That?

The net result of all these exchanges is some 4 GtC sink rate of the natural flows, which is variable: the variability of the natural sink capacity is mostly related to (ocean) temperature changes, but that has little influence on the trend itself, as most of the variability averages out over the years. Only a more permanent temperature increase/decrease should show a more permanent change in CO2 level. The Vostok ice core record shows that a temperature change of about 1°C gives a change in CO2 level of about 8 ppmv over very long term. That indicates an about 8 ppmv increase for the warming since the LIA, less than 10% of the observed increase.

As one can see in Fig. 3 below, there is a variability of +/- 1 ppmv (2 GtC) around the trend over the past 50 years, while the trend itself is about 55% of the emissions, currently around 2 ppmv (4 GtC) per year (land use changes not included, as these are far more uncertain, in that case the trend is about 45% of the emissions + land use changes).
 
Frank,

Let's see how much Global Warming there'll be in the year 2047, Vanna
...........................................................................................................

Well, since at that time I will be 104 years old, I will be glad to check it out for you.
 
No, but you're arguing correlation equals causation.

I never made that argument, sorry.

We already know that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes more Co2 to be in the atmosphere.





A physicist huh. You claim that the rise in CO2 is the proximal cause of the increase in temperature. You show cute graphs to support that contention.

The "cute" graph, as you call it, at issue is this one:

CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif


I never claimed this data lone supports the conclusion that Co2 is the cause of the recent temperature increase. I have claimed that this graph represents conclusive evidence that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 levels is caused mostly by man. Do you disagree?
Your cute graphs don't bother to explain if the CO2 is derived from man or not. Ice core data (real data, not computer models like you love) shows multi hundred year lags from warming onset to CO2 increases.
That's because in the past Co2 increases have been caused by warmer temperatures brought about because of Milankovitch cycles and possibly other factors,

I fail to see your point.

We are currently living within one of those windows. It has been 800 years since the last major warming period. We are solidly at the upper time limit for CO2 increases based on that cause.
Yes, but we have data which conclusively indicates the current rapid rise in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man. Its in the graph above. Its very simple. All of a sudden, in less than 200 years, man put about 1200 gigatons into the atmosphere. In the same period, atmospheric Co2 has risen 800 gigatons.

The conclusion that that 800 gigaton increase would still be there even if man had not added 1200 gigatons - which appears to be what you are saying - is not supported by logic or common sense. Your contention that a warming peak several hundred years ago could somehow cause the sudden, rapid rise of Co2 levels as seen in the above graph - instead of the sudden, rapid rise of man producing more than enough Co2 to account for the increase - is frankly, absurd, and it tells us just how much of a mental retard you are.

There you go. Correlation that doesn't involve man at all. See how science is done? Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.
I see how you do science, yes. Which is horrible. It involves completely ignoring data which does not lead to the conclusion you want. You say that correlation does not equal causation yet you haven't even speculated at the causal link between a warming episode hundreds of years ago and the rapid rise of Co2 now - you ASSUME one exists because of correlation.
 
Last edited:
I never made that argument, sorry.

We already know that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes more Co2 to be in the atmosphere.





A physicist huh. You claim that the rise in CO2 is the proximal cause of the increase in temperature. You show cute graphs to support that contention. Your cute graphs don't bother to explain if the CO2 is derived from man or not. Ice core data (real data, not computer models like you love) shows multi hundred year lags from warming onset to CO2 increases.

We are currently living within one of those windows. It has been 800 years since the last major warming period. We are solidly at the upper time limit for CO2 increases based on that cause.

There you go. Correlation that doesn't involve man at all. See how science is done? Now go test both hypotheses and become famous.

There you go again. Flap yapping an obvious lie with a straight face.

Walleyes, in the last interglacial, it was warmer, with the sea level at least 20 feet higher than today. At only 300 ppm of CO2 and under 800 ppb of CH4. With far less NxOs and no industrial gases that have no natural analog. We have not been at 390 ppb of CO2 for over 15 million years. Same for over 1800 ppb of CH3.
We also know how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. And, were it not for the oceans obsorbing a large proportion of that anthropogenic CO2, the percentage that we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere, 40%, would be far higher.

Why the CO2 increase is man made (part 1) | Watts Up With That?

The net result of all these exchanges is some 4 GtC sink rate of the natural flows, which is variable: the variability of the natural sink capacity is mostly related to (ocean) temperature changes, but that has little influence on the trend itself, as most of the variability averages out over the years. Only a more permanent temperature increase/decrease should show a more permanent change in CO2 level. The Vostok ice core record shows that a temperature change of about 1°C gives a change in CO2 level of about 8 ppmv over very long term. That indicates an about 8 ppmv increase for the warming since the LIA, less than 10% of the observed increase.

As one can see in Fig. 3 below, there is a variability of +/- 1 ppmv (2 GtC) around the trend over the past 50 years, while the trend itself is about 55% of the emissions, currently around 2 ppmv (4 GtC) per year (land use changes not included, as these are far more uncertain, in that case the trend is about 45% of the emissions + land use changes).






Sooooo what you're telling us is, it was warmer back then, even though there was no corresponding high level of CO2 OR methane. Additionally there were no people around to blame for the warming. So riddle me this batman...what caused the warming back then?

I'll bet you large amounts of cash that the same thing that caused the warming then is the same thing causing the warming now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top