Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[westwall]

True, as aerosols tend to settle/condense out of the atmosphere over about a decade's worth of time, whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.

Bullshit. CO2 residence time is between 5 and 16 years...

Your references aren't examining what we are talking about. My words have specfic meanings and are chosen to reflect those precise meanings.

"CO2 and Climate"
A 1956 American Scientist paper
http://afil.tamu.edu/Readings 2012/CO2 and Climate.pdf

"...Although the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change was one of the most widely held fifty years ago, in recent years it has had relatively few adherents. However, recent research work suggests that the usual reasons for rejecting this theory are not valid. Thus it seems appropriate to reconsider the question of variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and whether it can satisfactorily account for many of the worldwide climatic changes...
...The carbon dioxide theory was first proposed in 1861 by Tyndall. The first extensive calculations were necessarily done by very approximate methods. There are thousands of spectral lines due to carbon dioxide which are responsible for the absorption and each of these lines occurs in a complicated pattern with variations in intensity and the width of the spectral lines. Further the pattern is not even the same at all heights in the atmosphere, since the width and intensity of the spectral lines varies with the temperature and pressure. Only recently has a reasonably accurate solution to the problem of the influence of carbon dioxide on surface temperature been possible, because of accurate infrared measurements, theoretical developments, and the availability of a highspeed electronic computer.
...Recently, however, man has added an important new factor to the carbon dioxide balance. As first pointed out by Callendar, the combustion of fossil fuels is adding 6.0 x 10^9 tons per year of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at the present time and the rate is increasing every year. Today this factor is larger than any contribution from the inorganic world. Thus today man by his own activities is increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the rate of 30 per cent a century. The possible influence of this on the climate will be discussed later.
...Kulp has recently shown from radiocarbon determination that the deep ocean waters at the latitude of Newfoundland were at the surface 1,700 years ago. This suggests that it may take tens of thousands of years for the waters of the deep ocean to make one complete circuit from the surface to the bottom and back. Only the surface waters of the oceans can absorb carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Since there is very little circulation between the surface waters and the ocean depths, the time for the atmosphere-ocean system to return to equilibrium following a disturbance of some sort is at least as long as the turnover time of the oceans. Thus, if the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount should suddenly increase, it may easily take a period of tens of thousands of years before the atmosphere-ocean system is again in equilibrium..."

"Atmospheric lifetime of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide"
ORBi: ORBi User License

"CO2 released from combustion of fossil fuels equilibrates between the various carbon reservoirs of the atmosphere, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere on time scales of a few centuries. However, a sizeable fraction of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, awaiting a return to the solid earth by much slower weathering processes and deposition of CaCO3. Common measures of atmospheric CO2 lifetime, including the e-folding time
scale, disregard the long tail. Its neglect in the calculation of global warming potentials leads many to underestimate the longevity of anthropogenic global warming. Here we review the past literature on the atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 and its impact on climate, and we present initial results from a model intercomparison project on this topic. The models agree that 20-35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration
with the ocean (2-20 centuries). Neutralization by CaCO3 draws the airborne fraction down further on time scales of 3-7 kyr."

"Is Shale Gas Good for Climate Change?"
http://cewc.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Is-Shale-Gas-Good-for-Climate-Change_Schrag.pdf

"...Another important timescale is the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Once carbon dioxide is emitted from the combustion of fossil fuel, it is transferred among atmospheric, terrestrial, oceanic, and sedimentary reservoirs by a wide variety of biogeochemical processes that convert carbon dioxide to organic carbon, dissolved bicarbonate ion, or calcium carbonate, and then back again. The rates of these processes determine how long carbon resides in each reservoir, and how long it will take to bring the elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back to pre-industrial levels. There are also longer timescales in the carbon cycle. Over the timescale of several thousand years, once ocean equilibration is complete and only 20 to 40 percent of cumulative emissions remain in the atmosphere, dissolution of carbonate rocks on land and on the ocean floor will further reduce the airborne fraction to 10 to 25 percent, over a range of several thousand years to ten thousand years. This remnant of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will stay in the atmosphere for more than one hundred thousand years, slowly drawn down by silicate weathering that converts the carbon dioxide to calcium carbonate, as well as by slow burial of organic carbon on the ocean floor.16 The size of this “tail” of anthropogenic carbon dioxide depends on the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide, with higher cumulative emissions resulting in a higher fraction remaining in the atmosphere..."

"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2"
Climatic Change, Volume 90, Number 3 - SpringerLink

"The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle, which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere."

many, many more references available that actually support what I am saying rather than simply being unrelated copy and pastes out of the references section of paper that itself isn't suportive of the thesis it is offered for.

You claimed that CO2 has a residence time measured in centuries, that is absolute horse crap as these peer reviewed papers show.

 

[wirebender]

According to a reconstruction created by a partisan political advocacy blog, and even so, it is not inconsistent with my portrayal above.

Not inconsistent? Sorry guy, if you believe your graphic isn't inconsistent with the one I provided, then you are either simply unable to analyze visual data or so bias that you can effectively ignore that which doesn't agree with what you believe. For Example:

South Africa - Two level 1 studies, a level II study, and a level III study find that the MWP in that area was 2-5 degrees warmer than the present while your graphic claims the same area was half a degree cooler than present.

Western US and Western coast of Mexico - One level I study, Nine level II studies, and eleven level III studies indicate that during the MWP, that area was about 3 degrees warmer than the present while your graphic, at most, indicates 0.3 degrees warmer.

Europe (Spain, France, Portugal) Four level I studies, two level II studies, and eleven level III studies indicate that during the MWP the area was about 1 degree warmer than the present while your grapich idicates that the area was 0.1 degrees cooler than the present.

South China and Indo-Pacific area - Four level I studies, two level II studies, and eight level III studies indicate that during the MWP, the area experienced temperatures .5 to 2.0 degrees warmer than the present while your grapic indicates that area was between 0.3 and 0.1 degrees cooler than the present.

Antarctic Peninsula - Five level II studies find that it was at least as warm as the present during the MWP while your graphic has the area between 0.1 and 0.5 degrees cooler than the present.

Need I go on into more detail. In short trakkar, your graphic isn't at all consistent with what the published peer reviewed studies say the climate was like across the globe during that period. Upon what data was your graphic based?

This is what equivilant global maps look like that that compare the published science regarding average annual temps now, and average annual temps at the height of the MWP.
(Courtesy of NOAA)

Courtesy of NOAA? Interesting. Are you aware that NOAA has just been caught AGAIN fudging the historical record down in an effort to make the present appear warmer?

If the climate was behaving as your side claims, why is the downward alteration of past temperature records reaching such a frenetic state?

 

[wirebender]

True, as aerosols tend to settle/condense out of the atmosphere over about a decade's worth of time, whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.

You guys are precious and would be bordering on darling if your ideas weren't so dangerous to the rest of us. You gobble up any and all pap that envirowackos care to dish out and you just repeat it without, apparently, the slightest wonderings of whether or not it is true.

Here are the results of 36, count them THIRTY SIX published peer reviewed studies on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Twenty nine of them find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for less than a decade. Compare the rest to what the IPCC says. Exactly where did that claim of centuries come from and upon what is it based? Look at the studies compared to the IPCC and tell me that you actually believe their claims.

There is a reason that the public in general is beginning to laugh at the claims of warmists and lose interest. The facts simply don't support your claims and as the facts such as this graphic become known, who in their right mind would continue to believe? It is true that the more scientifically literate one is, the less likely one is to believe in AGW and claims like the IPCC's of CO2 residing in the atmosphere for centuries and your suggestion that your graphic of the MWP was consistent with the findings of literlly dozens of studies that say otherwise bears this out.

 

[wirebender]

My apologies, I did a quick look and assumed it was the usual Hansen BS graph. Upon closer looking I see the Arctic is removed. However, it is still using the Hansen falsified data and using the reduced number of weather stations and those that are used are almost wholly in urban areas thus benefitting from the UIA effect. So yes, the graph is still useless.

To date, there have been twenty five level I studies, eleven level II studies, and eight level III studies that state that the arctic region was, on average about a degree warmer than the present. And the roman warm period was even warmer than that not to mention the Holocene Maximum.

CO2 Science Medieval Warm Period Project Map

 

[wirebender]

No problem, the chart you seek, is I believe fig. 3 in the Hansen paper and worst case senario is Senario A. it seems to indicate that 1986 was the last observation data included in his '88 paper. This indicates a 0.4º C above the 1951-1980 mean in 1986 and senario A projects out to 2010 at about 1º C above the 1951-1980 mean, which looks like about 0.6º C rise

I guess you are unaware of what GISS has been doing to the temperature record of the past. Here are just a few examples:

It looks like I was mistaken,

You were mistaken alright. Your fist mistake was assuming that the record was honest. Tell me, considering that GISS has been caught blatantly altering the record of the past in an effort to create the appearance of warming in the present, do you still trust them?

 

[wirebender]

None of the data is falsified, if you believe it to be then you must supply cmpelling evidence in support of that contenion.

Of course it has been falsified and the compelling evidence is in the post directily above this one.

I don't know where you stand on sea level rise but just for fun, here is a short animation that is priceless for those wackos out there who believe the sea is going to swamp us all. It is a 140 year photographic record of dangerous sea level rise at a point of rock in La jolla, California:

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels. Remember? Scenario's A, B, and of course C. Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there. Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

What happened to the 50 or 200 year lag in the EFFECTs of altering GHGs? You want to ignore that now when it's convienient? If we've been successful in reducing NOx and SOx for instance, their effect on Ocean Acidification might not be measureable for another 50 years... So -- is the current slowing of temp rise due to our reduction of "the other" GHGs?

Most of the answer to your question is in the paper referred to by the OP (Hansen 2000). I'm not at all surprised that you didn't even bother to read the paper before you opened you big fat mouth to criticise it.

The most important of these “other” forcings are methane, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon aerosols.

The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is moderate, only 8-10, years, so if its sources were reduced, the atmospheric amount would decline rather quickly.

Ozone in the free troposphere can have a lifetime of weeks, and thus tropospheric ozone is at least a hemispheric if not a global problem.

The atmospheric lifetime of black carbon aerosols is not mentioned in the paper. But that's easy enough to find out. I'll leave it as a homework problem for you. Hint: no long

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A point here. Were India and China to suddenly lower their emissions, we would get an immediate, decade, spike in temperatures. This is the Faustian Bargain Dr. Hansen described so well.

True, as aerosols tend to settle/condense out of the atmosphere over about a decade's worth of time, whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.

Bullshit. CO2 residence time is between 5 and 16 years.



Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a "rough estimate"]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: "This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean".

Some 99% of the atmospheric CO2 molecules are 12CO2 molecules containing the stable isotope 12C (Segalstad, 1982). To calculate the RT of the bulk atmospheric CO2 molecule 12CO2, Essenhigh (2009) uses the IPCC data of 1990 with a total mass of carbon of 750 gigatons in the atmospheric CO2 and a natural input/output exchange rate of 150 gigatons of carbon per year (Houghton et al., 1990). The characteristic decay time (denoted by the Greek letter tau) is simply the former value divided by the latter value: 750 / 150 = 5 years. This is a similar value to the ~5 years found from 13C/12C carbon isotope mass balance calculations of measured atmospheric CO2 13C/12C carbon isotope data by Segalstad (1992); the ~5 years obtained from CO2 solubility data by Murray (1992); and the ~5 years derived from CO2 chemical kinetic data by Stumm & Morgan (1970).

Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated from data for the trace atmospheric molecule 14CO2, containing the radioactive isotope14C, that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion" would be only 1.2% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years, and 1.73% for a CO2 lifetime of 7 years (Segalstad, 1998). Essenhigh (2009) reviews measurements of 14C from 1963 up to 1995, and finds that the RT of atmospheric 14CO2 is ~16 (16.3) years. He also uses the 14C data to find that the time value (exchange time) for variation of the concentration difference between the northern and southern hemispheres is ~2 (2.2) years for atmospheric 14CO2. This result compares well with the observed hemispheric transport of volcanic debris leading to "the year without a summer" in 1816 in the northern hemisphere after the 1815 Tambora volcano cataclysmic eruption in Indonesia in 1815.

Sundquist (1985) compiled a large number of measured RTs of CO2 found by different methods. The list, containing RTs for both 12CO2 and 14CO2, was expanded by Segalstad (1998), showing a total range for all reported RTs from 1 to 15 years, with most RT values ranging from 5 to 15 years. Essenhigh (2009) emphasizes that this list of measured values of RT compares well with his calculated RT of 5 years (atmospheric bulk 12CO2) and ~16 years (atmospheric trace 14CO2). Furthermore he points out that the annual oscillations in the measured atmospheric CO2 levels would be impossible without a short atmospheric residence time for the CO2 molecules.

Essenhigh (2009) suggests that the difference in atmospheric CO2 residence times between the gaseous molecules 12CO2 and 14CO2 may be due to differences in the kinetic absorption and/or dissolution rates of the two different gas molecules.

With such short residence times for atmospheric CO2, Essenhigh (2009) correctly points out that it is impossible for the anthropogenic combustion supply of CO2 to cause the given rise in atmospheric CO2. Consequently, a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration must be natural. This conclusion accords with measurements of 13C/12C carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2, which show a maximum of 4% anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (including any biogenic CO2), with 96% of the atmospheric CO2 being isotopically indistinguishable from "natural" inorganic CO2 exchanged with and degassed from the ocean, and degassed from volcanoes and the Earth's interior (Segalstad, 1992).

Essenhigh, R.E. 2009: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide. Energy & Fuels 23: 2773-2784.

Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. & Ephraums, J.J. (Eds.) 1990: Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 365 pp.

Murray, J.W. 1992: The oceans. In: Butcher, S.S., Charlson, R.J., Orians, G.H. & Wolfe, G.V. (Eds.): Global biogeochemical cycles. Academic Press: 175-211.

Revelle, R. & Suess, H. 1957: Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

Segalstad, T. V. 1982: Stable Isotope Analysis. In: Stable Isotopes in Hydrocarbon Exploration, Norwegian Petroleum Society 6904, Stavanger: 21 pp. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/STABIS-ANAL.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1992: The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. AGU Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. March 23-27, 1992. Hilo, Hawaii. Abstracts: 25; and poster: 10 pp. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/hawaii.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1996: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global "Greenhouse Effect". In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. [ISBN 0952773406]: 41-50. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. [ISBN 0952773422]: 184-219. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R. & Friedlingstein, P. 2009: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the USA [PNAS] 106, 6: 1704-1709.

Stumm, W. & Morgan, J.J. 1970: Aquatic chemistry: an introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural waters. Wiley-Interscience: 583 pp.

Sundquist, E.T. 1985: Geological perspectives on carbon dioxide and the carbon cycle. In: Sundquist, E.T. & Broecker, W.S. (Eds.): The carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2: natural variations Archean to present. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 32: 5-59.

W know you didn't compile this list on your own.

 

[Trakar]

...You were mistaken alright. Your fist mistake was assuming that the record was honest. Tell me, considering that GISS has been caught blatantly altering the record of the past in an effort to create the appearance of warming in the present, do you still trust them?

The only thing I see are apparently a set of coloring book scribbles from multiple extremist political advocacy sites with no scientific or ethical credibility, none of which offer any compelling (or otherwise) evidence in support of their, or your, assertions. Show me some good (preferably journal published) science which supports your assertions and we mght have something to talk about. If you want to believe in secret, black helicopter, one-world government conspiracies, that is your perogative, but don't expect anyone else to accept your rants and start making tinfoil hats without some extremely compelling and verifiable evidentiary support.

 

[Trakar]

Here are the results of 36, count them THIRTY SIX published peer reviewed studies on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Competely irrelevent to what was being discussed,...again. Try actually reading the references and information presented. I'm sorry, I don't know of any papers filled with big brightly colored pictures that explain this in a way you can easily grasp.

 

[wirebender]

The only thing I see are apparently a set of coloring book scribbles from multiple extremist political advocacy sites with no scientific or ethical credibility, none of which offer any compelling (or otherwise) evidence in support of their, or your, assertions.

In true warmist form, you only see what you want to see. Those graphs are taken directly from GISS databases. Here are the links to the sources of the graphs not that I believe that you are actually capable of enough intellectual honesty to alter your position after having been given proof of the fraud that you are a victim of, but it would be unfortunate if someone who does't have a faith based position actually believed you.

NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder | Watts Up With That?

ICECAP

C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?

ICECAP

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

 

[Trakar]

According to a reconstruction created by a partisan political advocacy blog, and even so, it is not inconsistent with my portrayal above.

Not inconsistent?

You got it, "not inconsistent."

If you feel that the study data is inconsistent with what I stated, then you either don't understand what I have said, or you don't understand what they studies are saying.
...I suspect, a combination of both.

 

[wirebender]

[
Competely irrelevent to what was being discussed,...again. Try actually reading the references and information presented. I'm sorry, I don't know of any papers filled with big brightly colored pictures that explain this in a way you can easily grasp.

You said:

.....whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.

Perhaps you tell so many lies when discussing climate change that you are unable to remember exactly what you said. As you can clearly see, you claimed that the residence time of atmospheric CO2 is measured in centuries.

As you can see from the multiple peer reviewed studies, you are clearly wrong and unsuprisingly, you aren't mature enough to even admit that you were wrong. Instead, you simply add another dishonest statement on top of your eroneous claim.

 

[wirebender]

You got it, "not inconsistent."

If you feel that the study data is inconsistent with what I stated, then you either don't understand what I have said, or you don't understand what they studies are saying.
...I suspect, a combination of both.

Your graph disagrees with the peer reviewed studies by orders of magnitude. That, is inconsistent.

We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.

 

[Trakar]

You claimed that CO2 has a residence time measured in centuries, that is absolute horse crap as these peer reviewed papers show.

BZZZT! Try again.

I stated:

...the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.

And then I provided references and support for my term usage and understandings.

 

[wirebender]

And then I provided references and support for my term usage and understandings.

I know what you said and I looked at your source and then provided more and more credible information than you and in effect, proved you wrong. Now you begin your typical dance rather than be a grown up and simply admit that CO2 doesn't hang around the atmosphere for anything like centuries.

 

[bobgnote]

Wiener-fucking-bitch can't fuck off, when he should, so he puts up another wingpunk-prayer-shot, from fool-court:

You guys are precious and would be bordering on darling if your ideas weren't so dangerous to the rest of us. You gobble up any and all pap that envirowackos care to dish out and you just repeat it without, apparently, the slightest wonderings of whether or not it is true.

Here are the results of 36, count them THIRTY SIX published peer reviewed studies on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Twenty nine of them find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for less than a decade. Compare the rest to what the IPCC says. Exactly where did that claim of centuries come from and upon what is it based? Look at the studies compared to the IPCC and tell me that you actually believe their claims.

There is a reason that the public in general is beginning to laugh at the claims of warmists and lose interest. The facts simply don't support your claims and as the facts such as this graphic become known, who in their right mind would continue to believe? It is true that the more scientifically literate one is, the less likely one is to believe in AGW and claims like the IPCC's of CO2 residing in the atmosphere for centuries and your suggestion that your graphic of the MWP was consistent with the findings of literlly dozens of studies that say otherwise bears this out.

Earth to Wienerbitch! Your shit about how CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a limited time is completely irrelevant, which is usual for yours and other bitch-media. CO2 exchanges, from the atmosphere, to water, where it participates in the carbonic acid exchange and kills organisms and habitat. You wouldn't forget that, would you? Yes, you would forget that, since you have CRS and HUB, which are "Can't Remember Shit" and "Head Up Butt" syndromes.

Let's go back to the swell graph Fatass loaded, since it shows CO2 concentrations, back about 430,000 years or so, conveniently plotted against temperature rises and falls, so anybody with brain 1 instead of half a demented mind can see, how the CO2 levels out, to force both peaks and troughs, in temperature, to fall or rise, to shift equilibrium, at limits.

The CO2 usually peaks out around 280 ppm, then recedes, forcing temperatures, to reduce, and the whole process tumbles down, until CO2 hits 180 ppm, levels out, temperatures hit whatever low they are going to, and the CO2 levels rise, forcing temperature to swing, upward.

But in recent years, human activity from emissions and defoliation spurred CO2-levels, all the way to 400 ppm, which is a departure from previous trends, which clearly coincides, with egregious human intervention, in all earthly processes. Only a completely punk ass could possibly imagine another causal organism or process, since the process of leveling of CO2, spiking of temperature, and rebound of both levels is so universal and compelling, from this graph:

Hansen's paper mentions a lot of other forcers, which accompany the recent CO2 spike. The temperatures are starting, to climb, and acid is killing organisms and habitat, in what will surely enter a runaway phase, of AGW, which is the only possible outcome.

For any faults, so what, since this version of Hansen is interesting. But it's a 2000 version, or not? Only an asshole could discredit Hansen's warming input, hang on his 2000 paper like a bulldog, then rant against both warming and AGW implications.

 

[Trakar]

Goddard does the best job of showing the data corruption. I know you won't bother to read them as unethical behavior is A-OK to you if it helps your goals, but the rest of the folks will care.

You really need to cover up the mirrors while you are posting, you seem to see your self in everyone you respond to.

I find it hilarious that you would attempt to chide me about ethics in the same breath that you reference someone like Goddard! That's like being dressed up like Raggedy Ann, cranking down the window of your little car and scowling at me while telling me I need to take life more seriously!

Truely priceless!

 

[Trakar]

We know you didn't compile this list on your own.

LOL, he doesn't even look at the papers before he references them, I have yet to fnd any of his lists containng papers that are actually relevent to the subjects being discussed or even supportive of his assertions. I can't say for certain but it looks like he's copying and pasting blocks of references from papers that he really doesn't comprehend in the first place. But, that may be too harsh, and giving him too much credit, several of the pseudoscience political blogs have taken to that practice themselves (for the same reason and as they know that the vast majority of their readerhip either don't have the skills to figure it out, or don't really care one way or another about references and support), and he may have pulled them from those blog sources.

When I cite references, I run searches of my personal publication database based on the subject I am supporting. I then select from the papers that search returns that deal with the actual subject I am seeking to support, and read through them to confirm that they indeed support my thesis, and then I list them as references (generally wih specific excerpts that quote the most relevent support). Likewise, if I run across contradictory information in my search then I either revise my thesis, or include the contra-support link with an explanation of why I don't feel the reference is applicable to my thesis. But that is just the result of habits that have been developed over the last 40+ years.

 

[wirebender]

Earth to Wienerbitch! Your shit about how CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a limited time is completely irrelevant, which is usual for yours and other bitch-media. CO2 exchanges, from the atmosphere, to water, where it participates in the carbonic acid exchange and kills organisms and habitat.

Sorry guy, but there isn't a shred of evidence of either flora or fauna dying as a result of CO2 exchanging from the air to the water. I am sure that you believe it is so, but alas, not a shred of hard evidence exists to support your claim.

Let's go back to the swell graph Fatass loaded, since it shows CO2 concentrations, back about 430,000 years or so, conveniently plotted against temperature rises and falls, so anybody with brain 1 instead of half a demented mind can see, how the CO2 levels out, to force both peaks and troughs, in temperature, to fall or rise, to shift equilibrium, at limits.

Interesting how you guys like to go deeper back into the ice age and claim that CO2 levels were low. Try going back to where the last ice age began and try explaining how the earth went into an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels at or above 1000ppm.

CO2 increases as it warms and guess what, we are in the process of exiting an ice age. Look at paleohistory. Time and time again the earth has entered ice ages and then warmed till such time as no ice exists at one, or both poles. What we are experiencing is the norm, not some catastrophy called upon us by the internal combustion engine.

420,000 years. That isn't even an eyeblink in geological time.

This is what the earth's climate history looks like. Take a good long look and tell me what you believe is out of the ordinary here. Obviously, the earth is going to continue to warm until such time as the temperature reaches a mean of about 25C at which time once more, there will be no ice, anywhere. It is how the cycles go and like it or not, we are just along for the ride.