Answers wanted from "global warming" supporters

[Chris]

1. 280 ppm to 380 ppm is not double.

2. Is the measure of CO2 today done by the same method as the measure of CO2 100,000 years ago?

3. Since the solar activity decreased, the Artice Sea ice extent has expanded.

4. The perma frost is melting right now and releasing more CO2 than the combined industry of the USA.

Assumptions, half truths, implications and inuendo. Please, present some facts.

No, these are facts.

1. It's now over 385. Don't worry we will soon double it. ....

On what do you base this claim. That means don't just type something, provide a reference that supports what you type.

.... 2. Yes, the way they measure CO2 in the Antarctic ice cores is the same, and CO2 levels are higher now than at anytime in the last 600,000 years.

3. Yes, the Sun does effect the temperature of the earth. I have started several threads about the Sun being at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. I am glad you read them.

4. The permafrost methane is much more dangerous than the increase in CO2. I have warned about it many times.

I know that the facts disagree with your worldview. When this happens, people resort to personal attacks.

Christ, don't just type, provide references. Folks learn that in junior high school.

Oh for God's sake!

Don't you do ANY reading?

 

[Chris]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Close mass balance of long-term carbon fluxes from ice-core CO: 2: and ocean chemistry records : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

NASA - How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges into the Quietest Solar Minimum in a Century

Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’ by Susan Q. Stranahan: Yale Environment 360

 

[Si modo]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide ....

I asked you to support your claim that we will double CO2. This link does not support that projection.

Do so, or your projection of doubling will stand as bullshit.

.... Close mass balance of long-term carbon fluxes from ice-core CO: 2: and ocean chemistry records : Abstract : Nature Geoscience ....

Thank you.

.... NASA - How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges into the Quietest Solar Minimum in a Century ....

That's all well and fine, but there is much more to the sun's irradiance than sunspot activity. If you are trying to make some sort of claim about global temperatures based on this, you articulate that claim and thoroughly support it.

.... Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’ by Susan Q. Stranahan: Yale Environment 360

It sure would be nice to see some of the actual papers on this (you know, peer-review) as this piece tries to suggest that the methane is due to man's activities, but cannot do so directly (apparently because the actual science does not allow that). But strongly suggesting in a non-peer-reviewed work will sell to the non-thinking biased.

 

[Si modo]

No, these are facts.

1. It's now over 385. Don't worry we will soon double it. ....

On what do you base this claim. That means don't just type something, provide a reference that supports what you type.

.... 2. Yes, the way they measure CO2 in the Antarctic ice cores is the same, and CO2 levels are higher now than at anytime in the last 600,000 years.

3. Yes, the Sun does effect the temperature of the earth. I have started several threads about the Sun being at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. I am glad you read them.

4. The permafrost methane is much more dangerous than the increase in CO2. I have warned about it many times.

I know that the facts disagree with your worldview. When this happens, people resort to personal attacks.

Christ, don't just type, provide references. Folks learn that in junior high school.

Oh for God's sake!

Don't you do ANY reading?

No only is that a lame thing to say, it is quite childish.

The gap in intellectual quality between the peddlers and those who think couldn't be more astounding.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm not ignoring natural variations. I was just questioning the obvious lack of correlation (as claimed by "global warmers") between the increasing CO2 emissions and the cooling global temperatures during that time period.

It appears to me (and as Caligirl pointed out) a whole lot more is going on than just CO2 emissions that control the earth's climate.....so perhaps CO2 emissions are not quite the driving force that the "global warmers" are claiming....

In the U.S. 1997 began a hike upwards in temperatures....this is about when all the hoopla got started about "global warming"....but last year and this year show a significant drop and temps seem to be back more in the "normal" range....

With it snowing in Copenhagen do you think the "global warmers" might take notice of this temperature drop and explain how it happened before their expensive program even got started?

United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center)

Another dufuss who thinks the USA is the whole globe.

No, I put that graph there on purpose and it was labelled properly as being U.S. At least you were smart enough to realize that....most people are fooled by the Al Gores of the world when shown that graph....of course the U.S. is pointed out as being the big culprit of "global warming"....and so therefore the U.S. must pay big buck$ to other countries for our "sin" of "dangerously" heating up the climate....what a friggin' farce....this is nothing more than a world-wide rip-off....BIG hoaxes that rip-off BIG money (& power) need BIG scare tactics...

The chart you put up only goes back to the 1800s.....it also is a chart that is misleading and shows only a short approx 150 year span which is only a blip in the world's temperature history....showing a short cool period and then a short warming period....this kind of graph is also used to get people hyped up about global warming....charts can be very misleading....

Here is a much bigger historical chart (timewise) which spans several thousand years for world temps....do you see any problem with "global warming" in this chart? I don't...the world's temperature seems to be within the normal parameters of history....i suspect Al Gore may have invented "global warming" instead of the internet.....

who knows what the next few years will bring.....could get colder or could get warmer....i don't see any threat from CO2.....actually i hope it will get warmer....that would actually be quite nice for mankind....cold periods can be quite hard on people...

I love it!!!!! You get caught trying to snooker people with a chart of the USA and Gore is at fault. even though he doesn't use your dishonest chart!

And the chart I posted begins in the 1800s because it is a chart of DIRECT INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENT. Your new chart is made from proxy data, which has been shown to be unreliable for the time period where it overlaps with direct measurement (which of course is why deniers use it over direct measurement), thus casting into doubt the entire proxy chart. A perfect example of an error in your proxy chart is it shows 2005 as considerably colder than 1998 when 2005 is the warmest year in direct measurements and 2007 is tied with 1998 as the second warmest year.

So you are caught yet again with a deliberately misleading chart. I can't wait to see your rationalization for how Gore made you do it.

 

[Si modo]

"There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature."

David Parker, Met Office, to Neil Plummer, National Climate Centre - Melbourne

 

[edthecynic]

"There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature."

David Parker, Met Office, to Neil Plummer, National Climate Centre - Melbourne

As always with deniers, taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" <[email protected]>, Neil Plummer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: "Thomas C Peterson" <[email protected]>

Neil,
Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much
water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
things properly for the surface temp and precip as we'd lose loads of
stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
an ad hoc way.
There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won't
help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn't 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
isn't that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
easier to compute.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David

 

[Si modo]

"There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature."

David Parker, Met Office, to Neil Plummer, National Climate Centre - Melbourne

As always with deniers, taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" <[email protected]>, Neil Plummer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: "Thomas C Peterson" <[email protected]>

Neil,
Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much
water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
things properly for the surface temp and precip as we'd lose loads of
stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
an ad hoc way.
There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won't
help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn't 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
isn't that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
easier to compute.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David

The context does nothing to mitigate the lack of integrity - openness and honesty in explanations for methodology.

Of course, political hacks know nothing of that or anything about scientific integrity.

 

[edthecynic]

"There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature."

David Parker, Met Office, to Neil Plummer, National Climate Centre - Melbourne

As always with deniers, taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" <[email protected]>, Neil Plummer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: "Thomas C Peterson" <[email protected]>

Neil,
Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much
water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
things properly for the surface temp and precip as we'd lose loads of
stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
an ad hoc way.
There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won't
help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn't 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
isn't that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
easier to compute.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David

The context does nothing...

BALONEY!

Of course, political hacks know nothing of that or anything about scientific integrity.

You're proof of that!

 

[Chris]

"There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature."

David Parker, Met Office, to Neil Plummer, National Climate Centre - Melbourne

As always with deniers, taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" <[email protected]>, Neil Plummer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: "Thomas C Peterson" <[email protected]>

Neil,
Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much
water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
things properly for the surface temp and precip as we'd lose loads of
stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
an ad hoc way.
There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won't
help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn't 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
isn't that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
easier to compute.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David

The context does nothing to mitigate the lack of integrity - openness and honesty in explanations for methodology.

Of course, political hacks know nothing of that or anything about scientific integrity.

You just described yourself.

 

[Si modo]

As always with deniers, taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" <[email protected]>, Neil Plummer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: "Thomas C Peterson" <[email protected]>

Neil,
Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much
water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
things properly for the surface temp and precip as we'd lose loads of
stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
an ad hoc way.
There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won't
help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn't 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
isn't that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
easier to compute.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David

The context does nothing to mitigate the lack of integrity - openness and honesty in explanations for methodology.

Of course, political hacks know nothing of that or anything about scientific integrity.

You just described yourself.

Articulate how that is so, if you can.

 

[Chris]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased CO2 by 40%. Soon we will have doubled it.

Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

That's the science in a nutshell. All the rest of it is just bullshit.

 

[Si modo]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased CO2 by 40%. Soon we will have doubled it. ....

Who says we will double it? I asked this before of you and all you were able to provide was past and present CO2 levels.

Where is the basis for this projection and the science to support it?

.... Therefore, we have warmed the earth. ....

If CO2 concentrations are the only variables, one might buy that.

.... That's the science in a nutshell. All the rest of it is just bullshit.

 

[Chris]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased CO2 by 40%. Soon we will have doubled it. ....

Who says we will double it? I asked this before of you and all you were able to provide was past and present CO2 levels.

Where is the basis for this projection and the science to support it?

.... Therefore, we have warmed the earth. ....

If CO2 concentrations are the only variables, one might buy that.

.... That's the science in a nutshell. All the rest of it is just bullshit.

We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We are going to double CO2 levels, no question.

And yes, we are warming the earth, but this warming is always within the context of the Sun's activity.

The guys at MIT estimate that this warming will be 4-7 degrees in the next century.

 

[Si modo]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased CO2 by 40%. Soon we will have doubled it. ....

Who says we will double it? I asked this before of you and all you were able to provide was past and present CO2 levels.

Where is the basis for this projection and the science to support it?

If CO2 concentrations are the only variables, one might buy that.

.... That's the science in a nutshell. All the rest of it is just bullshit.

We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We are going to double CO2 levels, no question. ....

Seriously. Are you retarded? Back it up. That means don't just type it; provide supporting information for it.

Otherwise, you just typed bullshit.

.... And yes, we are warming the earth, but this warming is always within the context of the Sun's activity.

The guys at MIT estimate that this warming will be 4-7 degrees in the next century.

And, those guys at MIT have used a non-scientific model (if you're still talking about the same guys' work that you keep trying to pitch). We've already been through this, Chris, yet you still post this bullshit. One must conclude that there are two highly probable reasons for that: You are stupid or you are dishonest. Perhaps it's both.

 

[Sinatra]

We account for a small percentage of overall CO2.

The climate variables are such that this percentage could be even more minimal than many skeptics even believe.

The earth has been warmer than it is now.

The earth will warm and the earth will cool.


Scientists manipulated data, attempted to squash opposing views, and perhaps utilized selective temp. samples.


Global warming is proving itself the farce so many have felt it to be for some time now...

 

[Chris]

Who says we will double it? I asked this before of you and all you were able to provide was past and present CO2 levels.

Where is the basis for this projection and the science to support it?

If CO2 concentrations are the only variables, one might buy that.

We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We are going to double CO2 levels, no question. ....

Seriously. Are you retarded? Back it up. That means don't just type it; provide supporting information for it.

Otherwise, you just typed bullshit.

.... And yes, we are warming the earth, but this warming is always within the context of the Sun's activity.

The guys at MIT estimate that this warming will be 4-7 degrees in the next century.

And, those guys at MIT have used a non-scientific model (if you're still talking about the same thing you keep trying to pitch). We've already been through this, Chris, yet you still post this bullshit. One must conclude that there are two highly probably reasons for that: You are stupid or you are dishonest. Perhaps it's both.

Yes, you know more than the people at MIT.

 

[Si modo]

We account for a small percentage of overall CO2.

The climate variables are such that this percentage could be even more minimal than many skeptics even believe.

The earth has been warmer than it is now.

The earth will warm and the earth will cool.


Scientists manipulated data, attempted to squash opposing views, and perhaps utilized selective temp. samples.


Global warming is proving itself the farce so many have felt it to be for some time now...

Same to you, Sinatra. Show supporting information. Please show the breakdown of the total concentration of atmospheric CO2 and the source. What do you mean when you say skeptics? Please clarify. What do you mean the Earth has been warmer before (please post the science to support this)?

I think all should demand a higher quality of discourse in this topic.

 

[Chris]

We account for a small percentage of overall CO2.

The climate variables are such that this percentage could be even more minimal than many skeptics even believe.

The earth has been warmer than it is now.

The earth will warm and the earth will cool.


Scientists manipulated data, attempted to squash opposing views, and perhaps utilized selective temp. samples.


Global warming is proving itself the farce so many have felt it to be for some time now...

No one has disproven that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat or that CO2 levels have increased by 40% in the last 200 years.

Those are the only facts that count.

Nice try at a diversion. You guys are really good at that. It's all you have unfortunately for you.

 

[Si modo]

We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We are going to double CO2 levels, no question. ....

Seriously. Are you retarded? Back it up. That means don't just type it; provide supporting information for it.

Otherwise, you just typed bullshit.

.... And yes, we are warming the earth, but this warming is always within the context of the Sun's activity.

The guys at MIT estimate that this warming will be 4-7 degrees in the next century.

And, those guys at MIT have used a non-scientific model (if you're still talking about the same thing you keep trying to pitch). We've already been through this, Chris, yet you still post this bullshit. One must conclude that there are two highly probably reasons for that: You are stupid or you are dishonest. Perhaps it's both.

Yes, you know more than the people at MIT.

Strawman. I suppose I'll not see any relevant supporting information from you. Dodging and strawmen do nothing for your position except to make the fallacy of it stand out like a sore thumb.