Rossby waves

[westwall]

Only 3 decades of study. How shallow.

How much study has gone into the nearly universal denier opinion that this winter refutes AGW?

I'm using 8 millennia of historical and paleo data that says what is happening now is not unusual. You're using computer generated fiction.

I know how a thinking, non propagandist will respond to that.

The last definitive article that I have read states that beyond 1600 years ago, we do not have the resolution to find determine that a warming or cooling took the time period we are seeing the present one taking place in.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

However, we know for sure that the CO2 levels have not been this high in the last few million years.

Correct. However we KNOW that the temps were higher and none of the catastrophic consequences you all bleat about ever occurred. Ever.

 

[westwall]

I'm using 8 millennia of historical and paleo data that says what is happening now is not unusual. You're using computer generated fiction.

Could we see your 8 millenia of historical and paleo data or is it personal?

Start here and then let your google magic flow. There are hundreds of studies for you to go through. I've been reading them for 40 years or so...you have a lot of catching up to do.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112002168

 

[orogenicman]

I'm using 8 millennia of historical and paleo data that says what is happening now is not unusual.

You 8 milennia of data show NO instance when CO2 was higher and show NO instance when temperatures or CO2 levels rose as fast as they are rising now.



An unsubstantiated assertion. And do you think your paleo data involved no calculations using arbitrary factors or numerous attempts to deal with significant uncertainties and error margins? Or do you think someone was just digging a hole and found god's log of Earthly temperatures for the last 8,000 years?

I know how a thinking, non propagandist will respond to that.

They would tell you you're full of shite? Spot on!

Untrue. There was a study that olfraud posted a couple of years ago that showed how CO2 levels rose higher after a period of warming...then the temperatures dropped and rose again, all the while the CO2 levels remained elevated. This occurring over a period of 1000 years.

No, it's you and your anti science deniers who have a lot of explaining to do.

So your opposing evidence is something that someone may or may not have posted 2 years ago? Really? That's your evidence?

 

[westwall]

You 8 milennia of data show NO instance when CO2 was higher and show NO instance when temperatures or CO2 levels rose as fast as they are rising now.



An unsubstantiated assertion. And do you think your paleo data involved no calculations using arbitrary factors or numerous attempts to deal with significant uncertainties and error margins? Or do you think someone was just digging a hole and found god's log of Earthly temperatures for the last 8,000 years?



They would tell you you're full of shite? Spot on!

Untrue. There was a study that olfraud posted a couple of years ago that showed how CO2 levels rose higher after a period of warming...then the temperatures dropped and rose again, all the while the CO2 levels remained elevated. This occurring over a period of 1000 years.

No, it's you and your anti science deniers who have a lot of explaining to do.

So your opposing evidence is something that someone may or may not have posted 2 years ago? Really? That's your evidence?

No, there's tons more peer reviewed evidence to support me, and I have posted a load of it. You and yours choose to ignore it so that's on you. I posted it, you ignored it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm using 8 millennia of historical and paleo data that says what is happening now is not unusual.

You 8 milennia of data show NO instance when CO2 was higher and show NO instance when temperatures or CO2 levels rose as fast as they are rising now.

You're using computer generated fiction.

An unsubstantiated assertion. And do you think your paleo data involved no calculations using arbitrary factors or numerous attempts to deal with significant uncertainties and error margins? Or do you think someone was just digging a hole and found god's log of Earthly temperatures for the last 8,000 years?

I know how a thinking, non propagandist will respond to that.

They would tell you you're full of shite? Spot on!

Repeating your fallacies are not gonna change the facts. The RECENT climate HAS beeen warmer as Westwall stated. And you just argued AGAINST yourself by noting that that happened WITHOUT a commitent increase in CO2 concentrations. Then you reassert the fallacy that the RATE of warming has never been higher. We have been through this before. There are no large global metastudies with the time resolution neccessary for you to make that assertion. You would require 100% (or a verifiably scaled and normalized) temperature accuracy with a time rez of better than a decade. DOESNT exist in mud, ice, or trees.

Next you confound the diff between normal data prep interpolation and filtering techniques with higher order estimation techniques like reanalysis. The former case has adequate real data to use standard math tools, the latter are methods to get around the problem of low quality and/or very sparse real data by modeling.

Go find us a couple independent thinking, non propagandist warmers, and see how the discussion changes... Ya know any?

 

[Kosh]

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained in Lesson 3, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

 

[flacaltenn]

The last definitive article that I have read states that beyond 1600 years ago, we do not have the resolution to find determine that a warming or cooling took the time period we are seeing the present one taking place in.

I'm sure you saw all the discussion on this point here and elsewhere in response to Shakun's and Marcott's pieces. One of the frequent comments was that although there certainly was not sufficient resolution to see what we've experienced in the last 150 years, there is NO known physical mechanism - particularly given the equilibrium response time for CO2 changes - that could reverse the last 150 years of climatic warming in the next 150. What we WILL experience in the next two centuries, given current CO2 levels and growth rates, WOULD have been visible had it happened at any point during the Holocene, as revealed by their two studies.

I really dont know what all that means, but the conclusion that our past 150 yrs would be visible in older proxy studies IS STILL WRONG if youre referring to GLOBAL metastudies like Shakunn, Mann, or Marcott. Thats your problem dude. Youre hung on this graph of a globaltemperature which is a construct that is largely irreproducible on a GLOBAL scale for ancient history. If you back off from trying to get GLOBAL comparisions to isolated LOCAL proxy studies, the resolutions and accuracies and confidences get better. Kudos to OldRocks for apparently getting this.. His continuuing education may be paying off.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey.. WTF happened to blaming GW for th ice sculptures that ate some of my evergreens last week. Ill send Abe some trunk wood and let him find the clues.. Are we done with the winter is cold because of warming???

 

[orogenicman]

Untrue. There was a study that olfraud posted a couple of years ago that showed how CO2 levels rose higher after a period of warming...then the temperatures dropped and rose again, all the while the CO2 levels remained elevated. This occurring over a period of 1000 years.

No, it's you and your anti science deniers who have a lot of explaining to do.

So your opposing evidence is something that someone may or may not have posted 2 years ago? Really? That's your evidence?

No, there's tons more peer reviewed evidence to support me, and I have posted a load of it. You and yours choose to ignore it so that's on you. I posted it, you ignored it.

Well, that's sound all lovey dovey, but you wouldn't have made mention of something someone posted 2 years ago if you didn't think it had relevance. And yet, you tried to use it as a response to a post by someone who wasn't here 2 years ago. So why the should he, or anyone else, including me, believe your claim has any relevance when you have provided no reason for anyone to suspect that it does? If you want your responses to be relevant, try providing a better answer.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm using 8 millennia of historical and paleo data that says what is happening now is not unusual.

You 8 milennia of data show NO instance when CO2 was higher and show NO instance when temperatures or CO2 levels rose as fast as they are rising now.

You're using computer generated fiction.

An unsubstantiated assertion. And do you think your paleo data involved no calculations using arbitrary factors or numerous attempts to deal with significant uncertainties and error margins? Or do you think someone was just digging a hole and found god's log of Earthly temperatures for the last 8,000 years?

I know how a thinking, non propagandist will respond to that.

They would tell you you're full of shite? Spot on!

Untrue. There was a study that olfraud posted a couple of years ago that showed how CO2 levels rose higher after a period of warming...then the temperatures dropped and rose again, all the while the CO2 levels remained elevated. This occurring over a period of 1000 years.

No, it's you and your anti science deniers who have a lot of explaining to do.

Unless I've missed it somewhere, you've still not identified what 8 milennia of data to which you refer. I'd say the most comprehensive data on this point is Marcott's and Shakun's work. Shakun's in particular http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html clearly shows that CO2 warms the planet.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard

Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received 16 September 2011
Accepted 01 February 2012
Published online 04 April 2012


Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Now, Westwall, where is your data?

 

[Kosh]

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained in Lesson 3, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

 

[skookerasbil]

But all the bogus data is a problem >>>

Articles: IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming



Kosh......should shut down this stoopid thread after your last post. Kosh embarrassing the AGW nutters.

 

[Abraham3]

WOW! Kosh putting up the DATA. Mark the DAY!

You should do this more often. Really. A LOT more often.

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained in Lesson 3, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

Okay, let's start from the top. The Earth's SURFACE temperature has not risen significantly since 1998. That is true and we have not denied it or attempted to hide it. However, it would be best to look at a slightly larger copy of the BIG PICTURE.

1) Satellites STILL show that the Earth is accumulating energy from the sun. Tell me you understand what I'm saying there, cause the deniers here just seem to fly past that one. That says that BY DIRECT MEASUREMENT, the Earth is still getting warmer. That thermal energy is just going somewhere besides the surface. As I'm sure you've read here on many occasions, it appears to be going into the deep ocean. And keep in mind that the ocean has always been the recipient of over 90% of the thermal energy the Earth has been accumulating all along. This selfsame process is replacing that warm surface water with colder water from the deep and is thus a major factor in the hiatus in surface warming. An analogy: when the electric fan on your car's radiator kicks on, the temperature of your radiator and the water in your radiator drops. Does that mean your engine is producing less heat? No. It just means that, like on Earth, the heat energy is being relocated.

2) Fifteen years of no warming does not refute 150 years of very distinct warming. And a far more significant hiatus has taken place before. You're probably tired of hearing me mention this, but in 1941, Earth's temperature plummeted and it stayed down for over 35 years. But, as I've said many times now, that was NOT the end of anthropogenic global warming. Now no one knows the precise cause of that dip but I can tell you what it was not. It was NOT caused by a drop in TSI (total solar irradiance) because there was none. It was NOT caused by a dip or a spike in CO2 levels because, again, there was none. It was NOT caused by a dramatic increase in aerosols from all the explosives of World War II because the sum total of them had less than one hundredth the explosive power of Mt Pinatubo's eruption and its climate effects only lasted three years, tops.

So, what caused that dip? My personal opinion is that it was caused by the precise same effect that's causing the current dip. It was preceded by several decades of rapid temperature increase, just like the Earth's climate experienced between 1978 and 1998. I believe it is that extended rise that tripped off whatever ENSO variation has taken place that is causing warm surface waters to get subducted into the deep ocean. If I am correct, warming will resume and it when it does, the warming rate will be high - likely higher than the '78-'98 rate. Again, that is my personal, unqualified opinion so take it for what it's worth, which is a great deal more than your opinion as I can provide a reasonable rationale for holding it.

3) The Greenhouse warming resulting from the GHG emissions humans are adding to the atmosphere is like the tortoise in his race against the hare. The amount of increase is not enormous - after all it's only raised the temperature 0.9C in 150 years. Even ignoring the '41-'79 hiatus, the Earth's temperature has constantly bounced up and down on a climatically short scale. But that radiative push is constant. It never gives up. It is constantly catching a little more sunlight than it is letting go. Now the hare, in the form of volcanic eruptions, short term solar cycles, the normal ENSO oscillations, can rather easily overwhelm the radiative forcing from our increasing CO2. But they are all transient. Like the Hare, they give up and not only stop, but move in the opposite direction. The CO2 never stops and never turns around. In the end, it wins.

In the end, the CO2 will win. Which means we will lose. Let's do something about that.

 

[Kosh]

WOW! Kosh putting up the DATA. Mark the DAY!

You should do this more often. Really. A LOT more often.

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained in Lesson 3, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

Okay, let's start from the top. The Earth's SURFACE temperature has not risen significantly since 1998. That is true and we have not denied it or attempted to hide it. However, it would be best to look at a slightly larger copy of the BIG PICTURE.

1) Satellites STILL show that the Earth is accumulating energy from the sun. Tell me you understand what I'm saying there, cause the deniers here just seem to fly past that one. That says that BY DIRECT MEASUREMENT, the Earth is still getting warmer. That thermal energy is just going somewhere besides the surface. As I'm sure you've read here on many occasions, it appears to be going into the deep ocean. And keep in mind that the ocean has always been the recipient of over 90% of the thermal energy the Earth has been accumulating all along. This selfsame process is replacing that warm surface water with colder water from the deep and is thus a major factor in the hiatus in surface warming. An analogy: when the electric fan on your car's radiator kicks on, the temperature of your radiator and the water in your radiator drops. Does that mean your engine is producing less heat? No. It just means that, like on Earth, the heat energy is being relocated.

2) Fifteen years of no warming does not refute 150 years of very distinct warming. And a far more significant hiatus has taken place before. You're probably tired of hearing me mention this, but in 1941, Earth's temperature plummeted and it stayed down for over 35 years. But, as I've said many times now, that was NOT the end of anthropogenic global warming. Now no one knows the precise cause of that dip but I can tell you what it was not. It was NOT caused by a drop in TSI (total solar irradiance) because there was none. It was NOT caused by a dip or a spike in CO2 levels because, again, there was none. It was NOT caused by a dramatic increase in aerosols from all the explosives of World War II because the sum total of them had less than one hundredth the explosive power of Mt Pinatubo's eruption and its climate effects only lasted three years, tops.

So, what caused that dip? My personal opinion is that it was caused by the precise same effect that's causing the current dip. It was preceded by several decades of rapid temperature increase, just like the Earth's climate experienced between 1978 and 1998. I believe it is that extended rise that tripped off whatever ENSO variation has taken place that is causing warm surface waters to get subducted into the deep ocean. If I am correct, warming will resume and it when it does, the warming rate will be high - likely higher than the '78-'98 rate. Again, that is my personal, unqualified opinion so take it for what it's worth, which is a great deal more than your opinion as I can provide a reasonable rationale for holding it.

3) The Greenhouse warming resulting from the GHG emissions humans are adding to the atmosphere is like the tortoise in his race against the hare. The amount of increase is not enormous - after all it's only raised the temperature 0.9C in 150 years. Even ignoring the '41-'79 hiatus, the Earth's temperature has constantly bounced up and down on a climatically short scale. But that radiative push is constant. It never gives up. It is constantly catching a little more sunlight than it is letting go. Now the hare, in the form of volcanic eruptions, short term solar cycles, the normal ENSO oscillations, can rather easily overwhelm the radiative forcing from our increasing CO2. But they are all transient. Like the Hare, they give up and not only stop, but move in the opposite direction. The CO2 never stops and never turns around. In the end, it wins.

In the end, the CO2 will win. Which means we will lose. Let's do something about that.

And once again you a pushing the AGW cult agenda.

CO2 does not drive climate nor has it even been proven scientifically that it does, thus the entire premise of AGW is a farce not based on any science. You keep showing that.

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth. More on this in Lesson 3.

More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

If you continue posting the AGW cult data you will be called on it. Hence you will be called a far left/AGW cult propaganda drone. It is what you are anyway.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm using 8 millennia of historical and paleo data that says what is happening now is not unusual. You're using computer generated fiction.

Could we see your 8 millenia of historical and paleo data or is it personal?

Start here and then let your google magic flow. There are hundreds of studies for you to go through. I've been reading them for 40 years or so...you have a lot of catching up to do.


Global characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum

I have been reading such articles for over 40 years as well;

The spatial and temporal complexity of the Holocene thermal maximum : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

The spatial and temporal complexity of the Holocene thermal maximum
H. Renssen1, H. Seppä2, O. Heiri3, D. M. Roche4, H. Goosse5 & T. Fichefet5

top of page
The Holocene thermal maximum, a period of relatively warm climate between 11,000 and 5,000 years ago1, 2, is most clearly recorded in the middle and high latitudes2, 3 of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is generally associated with the local orbitally forced summer insolation maximum. However, proxy-based reconstructions have shown that both the timing and magnitude of the warming vary substantially between different regions2, 3, 4, suggesting the involvement of extra feedbacks and forcings. Here, we simulate the Holocene thermal maximum in a coupled global ocean–atmosphere–vegetation model. We find that before 7,000 years ago, summers were substantially cooler over regions directly influenced by the presence of the Laurentide ice sheet, whereas other regions of the Northern Hemisphere were dominated by orbital forcing. Our simulations suggest that the cool conditions arose from a combination of the inhibition of Labrador Sea deep convection by the flux of meltwater from the ice sheet, which weakened northward heat transport by the ocean, and the high surface albedo of the ice sheet. We thus conclude that interglacial climate is highly sensitive to relatively small changes in ice-sheet configuration.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.medeltid.su.se/Nedladdningar/Poster_Holocene.pdf

It has long been well known that the earth experienced rather high temperatures during the mid-
Holocene period (c. 8 to 5 ka), especially during the summer on high latitudes in the Northern
Hemisphere. In some regions, during certain seasons, the temperatures were several °C higher than
now. This warm period is usually referred to as the Mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum or the Mid-
Holocene Climate Optimum. This warming, and the subsequent cooling (the Neoglaciation), were
primarily caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (Wanner et al., 2008). The direct results of these orbital
changes during the mid-Holocene, according to state-of-art General Circulation Models and
Energy Balance Models, should have been a substantial warming during the summer in the Northern
Hemisphere and perhaps a slight cooling during the winter, whereas the Southern Hemisphere would
have experienced somewhat cooler summers and warmer winters. However, several strong positive
feedbacks in the climate system and a large-scale reorganization of the latitudinal heat transport seem
to have caused a more global warming. Moreover, the orbital changes alone would have resulted in
maximum Northern Hemisphere summer heating already c. 11 ka. This was, however, not the case.
The cooling effect of the remaining melting ice-sheets from the last glacial period delayed the mid-
Holocene Thermal Maximum with several thousand years (Wanner et al., 2008).
The IPCC (2007) report was inconclusive whether at least parts of the mid-Holocene Thermal
Maximum resulted in globally higher temperatures than those of the present. According to IPCC
(2007) the “spatial coverage, temporal resolution and age control of available Holocene proxy data
limit the ability to determine if there were multi-decadal periods of global warmth comparable to the
last half of 20th century”. A major problem for our understanding of the mid-Holocene Thermal
Maximum is the dominance of proxy records sensitive to specific seasons (e.g. summer) and the limited
number of records from lower latitudes. This lack of appropriate quantitative palaeotemperature
data, especially for the Southern Hemisphere, together with the inability of state-of-art General
Circulation Models and Energy Balance Models to simulate global mean annual temperatures higher
than those of today, have thus led to the conclusion that the mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum very
likely was not a globally synchronous event. Increasingly more data to better address this question
are, however, becoming available but a more comprehensive assessment of the global spatio-temporal
pattern of the mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum has not yet been done. Here, we assess 40 available
quantitative palaeotemperature reconstructions of annual mean temperatures in order to give tentative
answers to the following two questions: 1) What do we know of the spatio-temporal pattern of
the mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum from available palaeotemperature reconstructions? 2) Did any
multi-centennial period of the mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum likely experience substantially (i.e.
more than 1°C) higher annual global mean temperature than the pre-industrial (~1750 AD) period
according to available palaeotemperature reconstructions?

 

[Kosh]

Could we see your 8 millenia of historical and paleo data or is it personal?

Start here and then let your google magic flow. There are hundreds of studies for you to go through. I've been reading them for 40 years or so...you have a lot of catching up to do.


Global characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum

I have been reading such articles for over 40 years as well;

The spatial and temporal complexity of the Holocene thermal maximum : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

The spatial and temporal complexity of the Holocene thermal maximum
H. Renssen1, H. Seppä2, O. Heiri3, D. M. Roche4, H. Goosse5 & T. Fichefet5

top of page
The Holocene thermal maximum, a period of relatively warm climate between 11,000 and 5,000 years ago1, 2, is most clearly recorded in the middle and high latitudes2, 3 of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is generally associated with the local orbitally forced summer insolation maximum. However, proxy-based reconstructions have shown that both the timing and magnitude of the warming vary substantially between different regions2, 3, 4, suggesting the involvement of extra feedbacks and forcings. Here, we simulate the Holocene thermal maximum in a coupled global ocean–atmosphere–vegetation model. We find that before 7,000 years ago, summers were substantially cooler over regions directly influenced by the presence of the Laurentide ice sheet, whereas other regions of the Northern Hemisphere were dominated by orbital forcing. Our simulations suggest that the cool conditions arose from a combination of the inhibition of Labrador Sea deep convection by the flux of meltwater from the ice sheet, which weakened northward heat transport by the ocean, and the high surface albedo of the ice sheet. We thus conclude that interglacial climate is highly sensitive to relatively small changes in ice-sheet configuration.

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

 

[Old Rocks]

WOW! Kosh putting up the DATA. Mark the DAY!

You should do this more often. Really. A LOT more often.

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained in Lesson 3, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

Okay, let's start from the top. The Earth's SURFACE temperature has not risen significantly since 1998. That is true and we have not denied it or attempted to hide it. However, it would be best to look at a slightly larger copy of the BIG PICTURE.

1) Satellites STILL show that the Earth is accumulating energy from the sun. Tell me you understand what I'm saying there, cause the deniers here just seem to fly past that one. That says that BY DIRECT MEASUREMENT, the Earth is still getting warmer. That thermal energy is just going somewhere besides the surface. As I'm sure you've read here on many occasions, it appears to be going into the deep ocean. And keep in mind that the ocean has always been the recipient of over 90% of the thermal energy the Earth has been accumulating all along. This selfsame process is replacing that warm surface water with colder water from the deep and is thus a major factor in the hiatus in surface warming. An analogy: when the electric fan on your car's radiator kicks on, the temperature of your radiator and the water in your radiator drops. Does that mean your engine is producing less heat? No. It just means that, like on Earth, the heat energy is being relocated.

2) Fifteen years of no warming does not refute 150 years of very distinct warming. And a far more significant hiatus has taken place before. You're probably tired of hearing me mention this, but in 1941, Earth's temperature plummeted and it stayed down for over 35 years. But, as I've said many times now, that was NOT the end of anthropogenic global warming. Now no one knows the precise cause of that dip but I can tell you what it was not. It was NOT caused by a drop in TSI (total solar irradiance) because there was none. It was NOT caused by a dip or a spike in CO2 levels because, again, there was none. It was NOT caused by a dramatic increase in aerosols from all the explosives of World War II because the sum total of them had less than one hundredth the explosive power of Mt Pinatubo's eruption and its climate effects only lasted three years, tops.

So, what caused that dip? My personal opinion is that it was caused by the precise same effect that's causing the current dip. It was preceded by several decades of rapid temperature increase, just like the Earth's climate experienced between 1978 and 1998. I believe it is that extended rise that tripped off whatever ENSO variation has taken place that is causing warm surface waters to get subducted into the deep ocean. If I am correct, warming will resume and it when it does, the warming rate will be high - likely higher than the '78-'98 rate. Again, that is my personal, unqualified opinion so take it for what it's worth, which is a great deal more than your opinion as I can provide a reasonable rationale for holding it.

3) The Greenhouse warming resulting from the GHG emissions humans are adding to the atmosphere is like the tortoise in his race against the hare. The amount of increase is not enormous - after all it's only raised the temperature 0.9C in 150 years. Even ignoring the '41-'79 hiatus, the Earth's temperature has constantly bounced up and down on a climatically short scale. But that radiative push is constant. It never gives up. It is constantly catching a little more sunlight than it is letting go. Now the hare, in the form of volcanic eruptions, short term solar cycles, the normal ENSO oscillations, can rather easily overwhelm the radiative forcing from our increasing CO2. But they are all transient. Like the Hare, they give up and not only stop, but move in the opposite direction. The CO2 never stops and never turns around. In the end, it wins.

In the end, the CO2 will win. Which means we will lose. Let's do something about that.

And once again you a pushing the AGW cult agenda.

CO2 does not drive climate nor has it even been proven scientifically that it does, thus the entire premise of AGW is a farce not based on any science. You keep showing that.

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth. More on this in Lesson 3.

More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

If you continue posting the AGW cult data you will be called on it. Hence you will be called a far left/AGW cult propaganda drone. It is what you are anyway.

What a lying bastard you are.

Because of the Milankovic Cycles, our glaciations are driven by the CO2 feedbacks to changes in insolation created by those cylcles. The changes is insolation, by themselves, are far too weak to create the interglacials, however, with the added CO2, that does a fine job. When there have been substancial increases in CO2 and CH4 from trapp volcanics, there has been very rapid increases in temperature, rapid enough to create extinction events.

Nature has a carbon cycle. The oceans both emit and absorb CO2. The fact that you use only one half of that cycle shows your deciet. Mankind has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 150 years, increased the amount of CH4 by 250%.

 

[editec]

What is the point of these climate debates?

The Climate is NOT subject to the vote...the climate is what it is.

The only debate is whether time will time or time is ALREADY telling.

And one cannot convince those whose minds are made up.

 

[Kosh]

WOW! Kosh putting up the DATA. Mark the DAY!

You should do this more often. Really. A LOT more often.



Okay, let's start from the top. The Earth's SURFACE temperature has not risen significantly since 1998. That is true and we have not denied it or attempted to hide it. However, it would be best to look at a slightly larger copy of the BIG PICTURE.

1) Satellites STILL show that the Earth is accumulating energy from the sun. Tell me you understand what I'm saying there, cause the deniers here just seem to fly past that one. That says that BY DIRECT MEASUREMENT, the Earth is still getting warmer. That thermal energy is just going somewhere besides the surface. As I'm sure you've read here on many occasions, it appears to be going into the deep ocean. And keep in mind that the ocean has always been the recipient of over 90% of the thermal energy the Earth has been accumulating all along. This selfsame process is replacing that warm surface water with colder water from the deep and is thus a major factor in the hiatus in surface warming. An analogy: when the electric fan on your car's radiator kicks on, the temperature of your radiator and the water in your radiator drops. Does that mean your engine is producing less heat? No. It just means that, like on Earth, the heat energy is being relocated.

2) Fifteen years of no warming does not refute 150 years of very distinct warming. And a far more significant hiatus has taken place before. You're probably tired of hearing me mention this, but in 1941, Earth's temperature plummeted and it stayed down for over 35 years. But, as I've said many times now, that was NOT the end of anthropogenic global warming. Now no one knows the precise cause of that dip but I can tell you what it was not. It was NOT caused by a drop in TSI (total solar irradiance) because there was none. It was NOT caused by a dip or a spike in CO2 levels because, again, there was none. It was NOT caused by a dramatic increase in aerosols from all the explosives of World War II because the sum total of them had less than one hundredth the explosive power of Mt Pinatubo's eruption and its climate effects only lasted three years, tops.

So, what caused that dip? My personal opinion is that it was caused by the precise same effect that's causing the current dip. It was preceded by several decades of rapid temperature increase, just like the Earth's climate experienced between 1978 and 1998. I believe it is that extended rise that tripped off whatever ENSO variation has taken place that is causing warm surface waters to get subducted into the deep ocean. If I am correct, warming will resume and it when it does, the warming rate will be high - likely higher than the '78-'98 rate. Again, that is my personal, unqualified opinion so take it for what it's worth, which is a great deal more than your opinion as I can provide a reasonable rationale for holding it.

3) The Greenhouse warming resulting from the GHG emissions humans are adding to the atmosphere is like the tortoise in his race against the hare. The amount of increase is not enormous - after all it's only raised the temperature 0.9C in 150 years. Even ignoring the '41-'79 hiatus, the Earth's temperature has constantly bounced up and down on a climatically short scale. But that radiative push is constant. It never gives up. It is constantly catching a little more sunlight than it is letting go. Now the hare, in the form of volcanic eruptions, short term solar cycles, the normal ENSO oscillations, can rather easily overwhelm the radiative forcing from our increasing CO2. But they are all transient. Like the Hare, they give up and not only stop, but move in the opposite direction. The CO2 never stops and never turns around. In the end, it wins.

In the end, the CO2 will win. Which means we will lose. Let's do something about that.

And once again you a pushing the AGW cult agenda.

CO2 does not drive climate nor has it even been proven scientifically that it does, thus the entire premise of AGW is a farce not based on any science. You keep showing that.

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth. More on this in Lesson 3.

More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

If you continue posting the AGW cult data you will be called on it. Hence you will be called a far left/AGW cult propaganda drone. It is what you are anyway.

What a lying bastard you are.

Because of the Milankovic Cycles, our glaciations are driven by the CO2 feedbacks to changes in insolation created by those cylcles. The changes is insolation, by themselves, are far too weak to create the interglacials, however, with the added CO2, that does a fine job. When there have been substancial increases in CO2 and CH4 from trapp volcanics, there has been very rapid increases in temperature, rapid enough to create extinction events.

Nature has a carbon cycle. The oceans both emit and absorb CO2. The fact that you use only one half of that cycle shows your deciet. Mankind has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 150 years, increased the amount of CH4 by 250%.

Where is the datasets with source code that prove CO2 drives climate? Not one of you AGW cultists have posted any link to such a thing, yet you all claim it exists.

The physics of CO2 greenhouse gas warming are well known. Most warming will occur in the mid troposphere at about 8 to 14 kilometers, and in the tropical zone between about 30o north and 30o south of the equator. Another area of warming closer to the earth's surface would occur towards the two poles. All of the climate models have this built into their equations. That is what the left graph clearly shows. Reality, however, paints a completely different picture. Temperature data derived from radiosonde balloons since the 1950s show no warming where climate models and pure physics says it should warm. This is one of the greatest pieces of evidence that CO2 has not been the cause of the twentieth century warming. In spite of this, man-caused warming proponents insist that the modeled forecasts (left) and the radiosonde reality (right) do agree with each other.

More at: Graphs n' Charts