Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That said, the start of every period of falling temperatures and increasing glaciation over the last half million or so years has always occurred when the CO2 was at the absolute maximum in the interglacial that preceded it.
CO2 always increased as the effect of the cause of rising temperature and always decreased as the effect of the cause of decreasing temperature. While the CO2 forcing may stop the onset of another period of glaciation, It has never been equal to this task in recent geologic history.
All forcings aside, though,I'm rooting for the Beach Boys' Endless Summer.
"Always" isn't correct, though when natural conditions are the primary forces at play, this is what one should usually expect. We've rarely had situations where formerly sequestered Carbon was added into the active carbon cycle at the current rates and volumes. And to be truthful, if all we were talking about was a couple of degrees warmer in every season, I wouldn't see much wrong with it myself.
When has always not worked over the last half million years or so?
"Always" isn't correct, though when natural conditions are the primary forces at play, this is what one should usually expect. We've rarely had situations where formerly sequestered Carbon was added into the active carbon cycle at the current rates and volumes. And to be truthful, if all we were talking about was a couple of degrees warmer in every season, I wouldn't see much wrong with it myself.
When has always not worked over the last half million years or so?
Take a look at how the red-line of CO2 concentration jumps, at the right side of the graph. You can get over to the right, can't you?
Temperature will be forced up, to follow the radical jump in CO2 and CH4, yet to manifest:
Up goes temperature, up goes sea level, down go O2-respirators, and then jellyfish, algae, and bacteria rule the seas. H2S respirators re-evolve, to live in seas 36 C or hotter.
Humans will devolve.
does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it? it would be pathetic, like the last days of Pauling and vitaminC, if it wasnt such an important subject that involves such huge sums of money.
Hansen's history suggests that he has always been first and foremost an activist. To my way of thinking, that in and of itself is contradictory with being a good scientist. He was abusing science to promote and further is activist goals long before there was big money in corrupting science for political purposes.
Link?
You still havn't addressed the Vostock ice core data that shows very clearly that the warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise. Interestingly enough the MWP was 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we are witnessing now can just as easily be attributed to that time lag.
Hansen's history suggests that he has always been first and foremost an activist. To my way of thinking, that in and of itself is contradictory with being a good scientist. He was abusing science to promote and further is activist goals long before there was big money in corrupting science for political purposes.
Link?
I have to say that you are one of the most pleasant warmists on the board to communicate with. At least you keep your bilge water down to a single syllable. On behalf of everyone who has grown quite tired of the endless flood of pseudoscience that the warmists post here, THANK YOU.
You still havn't addressed the Vostock ice core data that shows very clearly that the warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise. Interestingly enough the MWP was 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we are witnessing now can just as easily be attributed to that time lag.
One also must wonder which altered temperature data set his "blue line" represents.
That said, the start of every period of falling temperatures and increasing glaciation over the last half million or so years has always occurred when the CO2 was at the absolute maximum in the interglacial that preceded it.
CO2 always increased as the effect of the cause of rising temperature and always decreased as the effect of the cause of decreasing temperature. While the CO2 forcing may stop the onset of another period of glaciation, It has never been equal to this task in recent geologic history.
All forcings aside, though,I'm rooting for the Beach Boys' Endless Summer.
"Always" isn't correct, though when natural conditions are the primary forces at play, this is what one should usually expect. We've rarely had situations where formerly sequestered Carbon was added into the active carbon cycle at the current rates and volumes. And to be truthful, if all we were talking about was a couple of degrees warmer in every season, I wouldn't see much wrong with it myself.
When has always not worked over the last half million years or so?
Wonder how scientists handled this kind of bullshit before the internet.. Did they have to go to the library and check out the book for you??
Listen there's this book in the library that proves everything you've ever said is wrong. Go find it. If you refuse, you're just lazy.
Wouldn't help if I gave you an author and a title, (Author IanC, Title -- something to do with Hansen boogering the GISS data.) -- you COULDN'T FIND THE FREAKIN' LIBRARY.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4670825-post1.html
You just go to Ian's profile, pin a note on your shirt about the subject matter and use your brain to sort through about 6 postings by Ian to find it lard arse...
IanC:
to make a long story short,
They're still there you imbecile, you just don't know how to use a fucking computer.Not to be a skeptic or anything, but those data presentations IAN was questioning?? They are all gone from the web now.. Could it be a CONSPIRACY? Nawwwww...
Listen there's this book in the library that proves everything you've ever said is wrong. Go find it. If you refuse, you're just lazy.
Wouldn't help if I gave you an author and a title, (Author IanC, Title -- something to do with Hansen boogering the GISS data.) -- you COULDN'T FIND THE FREAKIN' LIBRARY.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4670825-post1.html
You just go to Ian's profile, pin a note on your shirt about the subject matter and use your brain to sort through about 6 postings by Ian to find it lard arse...
Oh right, because its my job to do his research for him. In fact, last time I published a paper, instead of using references, I just wrote things like "that paper by those guys in California about the white dwarfs"
Tell you what, go to the internet do a search and you'll find out you're a moron.
IanC:
to make a long story short,
Wow. So that's what counts as thorough analysis of the evidence in the denier community?
I've got proof you're a total idiot. Absolute proof! I really don't want to bore you with the details, so, to make a long story short - you're an idiot.
They're still there you imbecile, you just don't know how to use a fucking computer.Not to be a skeptic or anything, but those data presentations IAN was questioning?? They are all gone from the web now.. Could it be a CONSPIRACY? Nawwwww...
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/128_1.gif
Now shut the fuck up and go back to your cave.
I never made any pretense of thorough analysis, I pointed out that GISS is making wholesale changes to the data records with no notice and no explanations. I believe that I made my point in that thread. if you disagree then feel free to make a comment on that thread.
Emotion based matters of opiniontimes have been rough over at the CAGW compound. mother nature just hasnt been co-operating like she did back in the good ol' days.
It is an obvious fallacious argument to suggest something is true because people are told its true. Also emotion based, nothing of factual relevance here.the public has been hearing more and more conflicting results and disturbing reports of scientific impropriety in climate research.
The description of the data as "limp" is stated as fact while presenting no justification in evidence.what can CAGW luminary James Hansen do to bolster the rather limp data coming in?
You've shown no evidence that the method results in amplifying the positive trend, you've merely stated it as fact. That is your 'making a long story short' - just saying it is so.Muller's BEST project derived even higher temps than the other groups producing global temp data sets, and BEST was seen to be leaning towards the skeptical side. how did they do it? to make a long story short, the BEST algorithms chop up data histories and discard suspicious inputs. because there is a positive trend cooler data are much more likely to get discarded than warmer ones and the average goes up. just what Hansen needs!
Again - statement as fact with no justification.Greenland data are sparse, noisy and often incomplete. perfect to try out this new idea. but I guess it was too much work so he just took out the (suspicious) data from the early 80's and then subtracted 1C from all the pre-1980 numbers. voila! the Nuuk temperature chart looks much better now.
When has always not worked over the last half million years or so?
Take a look at how the red-line of CO2 concentration jumps, at the right side of the graph. You can get over to the right, can't you?
Temperature will be forced up, to follow the radical jump in CO2 and CH4, yet to manifest:
Up goes temperature, up goes sea level, down go O2-respirators, and then jellyfish, algae, and bacteria rule the seas. H2S respirators re-evolve, to live in seas 36 C or hotter.
Humans will devolve.
You still havn't addressed the Vostock ice core data that shows very clearly that the warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise. Interestingly enough the MWP was 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we are witnessing now can just as easily be attributed to that time lag.
You are still a punkass, who types shit, about Vostok, without reference.
You are still a punkass, who types shit, about Vostok, without reference.
I guess you have never actually looked at the vostok ice core data. Not that it would matter much since you can't read even the simplest of graphs, but here is the entire span and as you can (or maybe you can't as you would actually need to be able to read a graph) temperature preceeds a rise in atmospheric CO2.
Note that temperature preceeds CO2 at 440,000, 320,000, 275,000, 250,000, 225,000, 210,000, 140,000, 115,000, 85,000, 65,000, 48,000, and 23,000 years. The only place where one might construe that CO2 leads warming is at about 320,000 years. Clearly you are the victim of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.
It's Wienerbitch, with a real graph! The CO2 leads the temperatures, at every peak and trough, queen with a wiener. The graph doesn't go to 440K, the CO2 always tends to start a major slope trend, before the temperature, and this is also true, for the composite graph, with the red line going way up, on the right side:
Note that temperature preceeds CO2 at 440,000, 320,000, 275,000, 250,000, 225,000, 210,000, 140,000, 115,000, 85,000, 65,000, 48,000, and 23,000 years. The only place where one might construe that CO2 leads warming is at about 320,000 years. Clearly you are the victim of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.
I never made any pretense of thorough analysis, I pointed out that GISS is making wholesale changes to the data records with no notice and no explanations. I believe that I made my point in that thread. if you disagree then feel free to make a comment on that thread.
Right, by "pointed out" you mean "stated as fact with no evidence, in order to make a long story short", then I agree.
Let's analyze your post which you seem to claim has some sort of value:
Emotion based matters of opiniontimes have been rough over at the CAGW compound. mother nature just hasnt been co-operating like she did back in the good ol' days.
It is an obvious fallacious argument to suggest something is true because people are told its true. Also emotion based, nothing of factual relevance here.
The description of the data as "limp" is stated as fact while presenting no justification in evidence.
You've shown no evidence that the method results in amplifying the positive trend, you've merely stated it as fact. That is your 'making a long story short' - just saying it is so.Muller's BEST project derived even higher temps than the other groups producing global temp data sets, and BEST was seen to be leaning towards the skeptical side. how did they do it? to make a long story short, the BEST algorithms chop up data histories and discard suspicious inputs. because there is a positive trend cooler data are much more likely to get discarded than warmer ones and the average goes up. just what Hansen needs!
Again - statement as fact with no justification.Greenland data are sparse, noisy and often incomplete. perfect to try out this new idea. but I guess it was too much work so he just took out the (suspicious) data from the early 80's and then subtracted 1C from all the pre-1980 numbers. voila! the Nuuk temperature chart looks much better now.
Take a look at how the red-line of CO2 concentration jumps, at the right side of the graph. You can get over to the right, can't you?
Temperature will be forced up, to follow the radical jump in CO2 and CH4, yet to manifest:
Up goes temperature, up goes sea level, down go O2-respirators, and then jellyfish, algae, and bacteria rule the seas. H2S respirators re-evolve, to live in seas 36 C or hotter.
Humans will devolve.
You still havn't addressed the Vostock ice core data that shows very clearly that the warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise. Interestingly enough the MWP was 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we are witnessing now can just as easily be attributed to that time lag.
You are still a right-wing, punkass moron, who can't start typing, until you wait ten lines, to find the keys, instead of 'Enter.' You are still a punkass, who types shit, about Vostok, without reference. None of the proxies deviate much, asshole. The only lag by CO2 is during the usual forcing cycle, when temperatures are already rocketing up or sliding down, AFTER being forced, by a usual CO2 280 ppm peak maximum and turnaround or 180 ppm trough minimum turnaround.
You piece of shit, the planet was trying to cool off, after the MWP. You are too queer, to read a graph, even one that is at whatsupwiththat, so you don't get it. Humans kept up the pressure, deforesting, then burning fossil fuels, and now, we will get a hot planet. No other outcome is possible, no matter how simultaneously stupid and queer you are.
You visit queer porn sites, so you don't link. Humans already devolved, since look how you turned out. What I should have wrote, human population will decline, maybe out of control.
440K: The graph starts, at 415K-420K, queer. CO2 forces down, ~ 410K.
320K: You ignored the major trough at 355K, mo. CO2 forces up, there. At 320K, CO2 drops like a rock in a well, while temps are wavering, hermie.
275K: This is a mid-decline, mini-upswing, clearly initiated, by CO2 rise.
250K: The temps are trying to rise, at 260K, bitch. CO2 keeps them down. Here is where you could say CO2 lags, if you are smart, for a retard. But CO2 won't go up, for the usual rise, and temperatures hang down, for thousands.
210K: CO2 levels off, at 215K, and you are suggesting what, punk?
140K: This is where CO2 starts up, and temperature follows, punkhole.
115K: Temps drop faster than CO2, during a downswing, then pull up.
85K: Look at the mini-upswing, during a lot of fluctuation. So what? The CO2 trend still pulled temps all the way back down, after this, hermaphrodite.
65K: The gradual upswing of CO2 forces fluctuating temperatures up, during a temporary upswing. Then CO2 forces the trend back down, until it hits 180 ppm.
48K: Temps are following CO2 down, CO2 swings up, first, temps go up.
23K: Temps want to rise, but they don't, until CO2 reaches 180 ppm and then swings up, you complete retard, who is totally queer and in a closet, in a cabin.
440K: The graph starts, at 415K-420K, queer. CO2 forces down, ~ 410K.
320K: You ignored the major trough at 355K, mo. CO2 forces up, there. At 320K, CO2 drops like a rock in a well, while temps are wavering, hermie.
275K: This is a mid-decline, mini-upswing, clearly initiated, by CO2 rise.
250K: The temps are trying to rise, at 260K, bitch. CO2 keeps them down. Here is where you could say CO2 lags, if you are smart, for a retard. But CO2 won't go up, for the usual rise, and temperatures hang down, for thousands.
210K: CO2 levels off, at 215K, and you are suggesting what, punk?
140K: This is where CO2 starts up, and temperature follows, punkhole.
115K: Temps drop faster than CO2, during a downswing, then pull up.
85K: Look at the mini-upswing, during a lot of fluctuation. So what? The CO2 trend still pulled temps all the way back down, after this, hermaphrodite.
65K: The gradual upswing of CO2 forces fluctuating temperatures up, during a temporary upswing. Then CO2 forces the trend back down, until it hits 180 ppm.
48K: Temps are following CO2 down, CO2 swings up, first, temps go up.
23K: Temps want to rise, but they don't, until CO2 reaches 180 ppm and then swings up, you complete retard, who is totally queer and in a closet, in a cabin.
Sad that you can't read a graph bob. Maybe you are color blind and can't differentiate between the blue and the yellow lines. Here is a hint, the yellow line is the one that only goes up after the blue one goes up.
"Always" isn't correct, though when natural conditions are the primary forces at play, this is what one should usually expect. We've rarely had situations where formerly sequestered Carbon was added into the active carbon cycle at the current rates and volumes. And to be truthful, if all we were talking about was a couple of degrees warmer in every season, I wouldn't see much wrong with it myself.
When has always not worked over the last half million years or so?
The last half million years is current geologic history, the mere blink of a geologically referenced eye. Given the age of Geo, a half a million years is about one ten thousandth of geological existence. That barely takes us back over the last few interglacials. In recent geological history would probably stretch back at least fifty million years (roughly one percent of Geo's existence). Which puts us within approximation to the PETM.
