CDZ Is the Climate changing?

[otto105]

If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.

Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?

And try to use science.

What "rapid change"?

A pace that allows plant life and animal life time to adapt.

 

[jc456]

Sunsettommy CO2 always lags temperature! Always!

Anyone thinking differently merely needs to post what is the temperature of 120 ppm of CO2?

Without that no other option exists

 

[justoffal]

JO writes:

Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal and they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view.

You never read the published papers and you are lying about their research conclusions.

Your attempt to whitewash them is pathetic.

CO2 lags temperature change every year, how come you didn't know that long known phenomenon?

Science Direct

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature​

January 2013

Abstract​

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.

======

Going to ignore this published paper too?

Bulllshit....
There is no hard evidence to indicate which happens first. Here ya go right from your own quote:

JO writes:

Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal and they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view.

You never read the published papers and you are lying about their research conclusions.

Your attempt to whitewash them is pathetic.

CO2 lags temperature change every year, how come you didn't know that long known phenomenon?

Science Direct

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature​

January 2013

Abstract​

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

======

Going to ignore this published paper too?

I know all about that paper and yes I disagree with it.....haven't you been reading my posts or are you just reflexively vomiting left wing talking points. Here ya go right from your own quote:

The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

This sentence is an attempt to side step the fact that the oceans have more control over co2 ppm than any other single input....it is tucked neatly into the end of a highly opinionated article that is not a question in search of an answer but instead an answer in search of a question. They are totally wrong... Fact is the changes in ocean temperature do more than account for the changes in co2 ppm globally. They are just not interested in those particular facts. Hell anyone can quote articles....published...non published..... who gives a shit?
Our system of scientific reveal is highly affected by our own modern version of Lysenkoism. I would be more inclined to seek out less well attributed sources simply for that reason alone . So please stop with the
" My scientist is smarter than your scientist " third grade shaming...blaming. The oceans are still highly mysterious to our modern science and the real mechanics of the heat sink apparatus is far from settled.

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

JO

 

[jc456]

If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.

Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?

And try to use science.

What "rapid change"?

A pace that allows plant life and animal life time to adapt.

We aren’t?

 

[jc456]

JO writes:

Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal and they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view.

You never read the published papers and you are lying about their research conclusions.

Your attempt to whitewash them is pathetic.

CO2 lags temperature change every year, how come you didn't know that long known phenomenon?

Science Direct

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature​

January 2013

Abstract​

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.

======

Going to ignore this published paper too?

Bulllshit....
There is no hard evidence to indicate which happens first. Here ya go right from your own quote:

JO writes:

Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal and they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view.

You never read the published papers and you are lying about their research conclusions.

Your attempt to whitewash them is pathetic.

CO2 lags temperature change every year, how come you didn't know that long known phenomenon?

Science Direct

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature​

January 2013

Abstract​

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

======

Going to ignore this published paper too?

I know all about that paper and yes I disagree with it.....haven't you been reading my posts or are you just reflexively vomiting left wing talking points. Here ya go right from your own quote:

The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

This sentence is an attempt to side step the fact that the oceans have more control over co2 ppm than any other single input....it is tucked neatly into the end of a highly opinionated article that is not a question in search of an answer but instead an answer in search of a question. They are totally wrong... Fact is the changes in ocean temperature do more than account for the changes in co2 ppm globally. They are just not interested in those particular facts. Hell anyone can quote articles....published...non published..... who gives a shit?
Our system of scientific reveal is highly affected by our own modern version of Lysenkoism. I would be more inclined to seek out less well attributed sources simply for that reason alone . So please stop with the
" My scientist is smarter than your scientist " third grade shaming...blaming. The oceans are still highly mysterious to our modern science and the real mechanics of the heat sink apparatus is far from settled.

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

JO

So how warm is 120 ppm of CO2?

 

[Sunsettommy]

If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.

Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?

And try to use science.

What "rapid change"?

A pace that allows plant life and animal life time to adapt.

Ha ha, you didn't answer the question.

 

[justoffal]

JO writes:

Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal and they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view.

You never read the published papers and you are lying about their research conclusions.

Your attempt to whitewash them is pathetic.

CO2 lags temperature change every year, how come you didn't know that long known phenomenon?

Science Direct

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature​

January 2013

Abstract​

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.

======

Going to ignore this published paper too?

Bulllshit....
There is no hard evidence to indicate which happens first. Here ya go right from your own quote:

JO writes:

Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal and they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view.

You never read the published papers and you are lying about their research conclusions.

Your attempt to whitewash them is pathetic.

CO2 lags temperature change every year, how come you didn't know that long known phenomenon?

Science Direct

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature​

January 2013

Abstract​

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

======

Going to ignore this published paper too?

I know all about that paper and yes I disagree with it.....haven't you been reading my posts or are you just reflexively vomiting left wing talking points. Here ya go right from your own quote:

The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

This sentence is an attempt to side step the fact that the oceans have more control over co2 ppm than any other single input....it is tucked neatly into the end of a highly opinionated article that is not a question in search of an answer but instead an answer in search of a question. They are totally wrong... Fact is the changes in ocean temperature do more than account for the changes in co2 ppm globally. They are just not interested in those particular facts. Hell anyone can quote articles....published...non published..... who gives a shit?
Our system of scientific reveal is highly affected by our own modern version of Lysenkoism. I would be more inclined to seek out less well attributed sources simply for that reason alone . So please stop with the
" My scientist is smarter than your scientist " third grade shaming...blaming. The oceans are still highly mysterious to our modern science and the real mechanics of the heat sink apparatus is far from settled.

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

JO

So how warm is 120 ppm of CO2?

if there is a hard and fast correlation between them I am unaware of it

 

[jc456]

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate

They would need to show us how CO2 changes pressure and dee points!

 

[jc456]

if there is a hard and fast correlation between them I am unaware of it

If CO2 had a temperature, it would need to be the same everywhere. Also changing dew points and barometric pressure . Are you saying it does that?

 

[justoffal]

if there is a hard and fast correlation between them I am unaware of it

If CO2 had a temperature, it would need to be the same everywhere. Also changing dew points and barometric pressure . Are you saying it does that?

My point is that we are not able to establish a direct leading causal effect....and never have been despite all the screaming of the AGW devotees. I work in the power generation field and have long been aware of the co2 dissolution tolerance of water and the direct link to the water temp....so I have questioned the idea of Co2 leading the way for a long time. It was the first thing that occurred to me when I started hearing about the CO2 bullshit twenty years ago.... So you're telling me that atmospheric Temp and co2 ppm are looking more and more disconnected all the time??? I would not be qualified to comment on that but I can tell you it would not surprise me at all.

JO

 

[jc456]

if there is a hard and fast correlation between them I am unaware of it

If CO2 had a temperature, it would need to be the same everywhere. Also changing dew points and barometric pressure . Are you saying it does that?

My point is that we are not able to establish a direct leading causal effect....and never have been despite all the screaming of the AGW devotees. I work in the power generation field and have long been aware of the co2 dissolution tolerance of water and the direct link to the water temp....so I have questioned the idea of Co2 leading the way for a long time. It was the first thing that occurred to me when I started hearing about the CO2 bullshit twenty years ago.... So you're telling me that atmospheric Temp and co2 ppm are looking more and more disconnected all the time??? I would not be qualified to comment on that but I can tell you it would not surprise me at all.

JO

If CO2 lead temperature, it would need to have a temperature. As far as anyone knows, no one has what temperature 120 ppm is! Been asked and asked to crickets. So, no way CO2 can lead temperature. It lags temperature always!

 

[ReinyDays]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

Nope ... don't see it ... looks to me the peaks and valleys of the saw-tooth wave are coincidence ... just like running an audio signal on a sine wave through a capacitor ... and most likely for the same reasons ...

Let's focus on 129,000 years BP ... why do you say CO2 lags temperature here? ... I have a 21" monitor and an Alvin brand architect's scale ...

I did read one of those papers ... it didn't even try to address the causation ... which is what my question was ... maybe you should read them yourself and pick the one you think explains physics, also helpful would be for you to explain your theoretical framework that you base your claims on ... phaw ... who am I kidding ... if Miss Joanne doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, then why should we ...

Quite frankly, I see no correlation at all from 130,000 to 100,000 ... cheanges in temperature and carbon dioxide appear completely independent of each other ... go ahead, call me old ...

 

[jc456]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

Nope ... don't see it ... looks to me the peaks and valleys of the saw-tooth wave are coincidence ... just like running an audio signal on a sine wave through a capacitor ... and most likely for the same reasons ...

Let's focus on 129,000 years BP ... why do you say CO2 lags temperature here? ... I have a 21" monitor and an Alvin brand architect's scale ...

I did read one of those papers ... it didn't even try to address the causation ... which is what my question was ... maybe you should read them yourself and pick the one you think explains physics, also helpful would be for you to explain your theoretical framework that you base your claims on ... phaw ... who am I kidding ... if Miss Joanne doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, then why should we ...

Quite frankly, I see no correlation at all from 130,000 to 100,000 ... cheanges in temperature and carbon dioxide appear completely independent of each other ... go ahead, call me old ...

So, if CO2 leads temperature, it has to have a temperature. What is that? 120 PPM?

 

[justoffal]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

Nope ... don't see it ... looks to me the peaks and valleys of the saw-tooth wave are coincidence ... just like running an audio signal on a sine wave through a capacitor ... and most likely for the same reasons ...

Let's focus on 129,000 years BP ... why do you say CO2 lags temperature here? ... I have a 21" monitor and an Alvin brand architect's scale ...

I did read one of those papers ... it didn't even try to address the causation ... which is what my question was ... maybe you should read them yourself and pick the one you think explains physics, also helpful would be for you to explain your theoretical framework that you base your claims on ... phaw ... who am I kidding ... if Miss Joanne doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, then why should we ...

Quite frankly, I see no correlation at all from 130,000 to 100,000 ... cheanges in temperature and carbon dioxide appear completely independent of each other ... go ahead, call me old ...

BA-DA-BING

 

[justoffal]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

Not sure about the atmosphere in general....however if the ocean temperatures change...even by a fraction of a degree the result will be an increase in the co2 ppm directly above the oceans....this is why I question the AGW nutcases in their pursuit of demonizing co2 at any cost. Water is very sensitive to temp changes as far as its chemistry is concerned. If we had say....a section of the ocean floor that even for a month was treated to a deep tectonic heat burst that caused an emissivity increase as small as 1 watt per square unit of area measure...it would drive out millions of tons of co2. Furthermore it might be completely undetectable with normal instrumentation. However let me say that I am open to hearing more about your viewpoint that the temp and co2 ppm are demonstrably inert from each other as far as the General Global Temperature mean is concerned.

JO

 

[justoffal]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

. I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...
heh heh heh....

JO

 

[jc456]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

Not sure about the atmosphere in general....however if the ocean temperatures change...even by a fraction of a degree the result will be an increase in the co2 ppm directly above the oceans....this is why I question the AGW nutcases in their pursuit of demonizing co2 at any cost. Water is very sensitive to temp changes as far as its chemistry is concerned. If we had say....a section of the ocean floor that even for a month was treated to a deep tectonic heat burst that caused an emissivity increase as small as 1 watt per square unit of area measure...it would drive out millions of tons of co2. Furthermore it might be completely undetectable with normal instrumentation. However let me say that I am open to hearing more about your viewpoint that the temp and co2 ppm are demonstrably inert from each other as far as the General Global Temperature mean is concerned.

JO

Exactly

 

[Sunsettommy]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

Nope ... don't see it ... looks to me the peaks and valleys of the saw-tooth wave are coincidence ... just like running an audio signal on a sine wave through a capacitor ... and most likely for the same reasons ...

Let's focus on 129,000 years BP ... why do you say CO2 lags temperature here? ... I have a 21" monitor and an Alvin brand architect's scale ...

I did read one of those papers ... it didn't even try to address the causation ... which is what my question was ... maybe you should read them yourself and pick the one you think explains physics, also helpful would be for you to explain your theoretical framework that you base your claims on ... phaw ... who am I kidding ... if Miss Joanne doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, then why should we ...

Quite frankly, I see no correlation at all from 130,000 to 100,000 ... cheanges in temperature and carbon dioxide appear completely independent of each other ... go ahead, call me old ...

You just made it clear that you will ignore the published papers, while you didn't actually address their potential errors either.

You haven't countered anything.

 

[ChemEngineer]

People confuse weather with climate, I cant understand half of it. Do believe that we should do what ever is possible to keep our air water & land clean.

You make absolutely no mention of cost/benefit analysis. "What ever" (sic) would mean:
1. You will never urinate or defecate into the toilet again. It fouls the water.
2. No more passing gas. It fouls the air.
3. Never ride in a gasoline or even electric powered vehicle again. Fossil fuels are used to produce electricity and they get the air "dirty" to hear Environmental Pretenders talk.
4. No more enjoying July 4 fireworks. They dirty the air with smoke and chemicals.
5 - 1,000. On and on, ending life as you know it.

 

[justoffal]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

Nope ... don't see it ... looks to me the peaks and valleys of the saw-tooth wave are coincidence ... just like running an audio signal on a sine wave through a capacitor ... and most likely for the same reasons ...

Let's focus on 129,000 years BP ... why do you say CO2 lags temperature here? ... I have a 21" monitor and an Alvin brand architect's scale ...

I did read one of those papers ... it didn't even try to address the causation ... which is what my question was ... maybe you should read them yourself and pick the one you think explains physics, also helpful would be for you to explain your theoretical framework that you base your claims on ... phaw ... who am I kidding ... if Miss Joanne doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, then why should we ...

Quite frankly, I see no correlation at all from 130,000 to 100,000 ... cheanges in temperature and carbon dioxide appear completely independent of each other ... go ahead, call me old ...

You just made it clear that you will ignore the published papers, while you didn't actually address their potential errors either.

You haven't countered anything.

The Chronicles of Narnia are also "Published".....