It took 12 million years for the temperature to finally respond to CO2

[Crick]

Ding's big fails here.

1. CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

2. Cherrypicking. He uses a single study from 2000, and ignores all other studies. For example, Royer (2006), which summarizes many proxies, shows no sign of the spike he raves about.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

]

3. Bad use of graphs, his hallmark. He's comparing two graphs that may not even be related.

4. Assuming CO2 drove temp, and not the reverse.

5. Failure to attribute sources. His graph on the right says it comes from Pearson and Palmer 2000, but that paper has nothing like it in it.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

That is, even his representation of his cherrypick might be fraudulent. After all, Ding just copied it from a blog, and did no independent checking of it. Ding, what denier blog did you copy the graph from?

(Ding, of course, will not address any of this. Instead, he'll evade by reposting the same nonsense over and over.)

Ding, where did that "Pearson & Palmer 2000" graph come from? You owe everyone here that information.

 

[ding]

Ding's big fails here.

1. CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

2. Cherrypicking. He uses a single study from 2000, and ignores all other studies. For example, Royer (2006), which summarizes many proxies, shows no sign of the spike he raves about.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

]

3. Bad use of graphs, his hallmark. He's comparing two graphs that may not even be related.

4. Assuming CO2 drove temp, and not the reverse.

5. Failure to attribute sources. His graph on the right says it comes from Pearson and Palmer 2000, but that paper has nothing like it in it.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

That is, even his representation of his cherrypick might be fraudulent. After all, Ding just copied it from a blog, and did no independent checking of it. Ding, what denier blog did you copy the graph from?

(Ding, of course, will not address any of this. Instead, he'll evade by reposting the same nonsense over and over.)

Ding, where did that "Pearson & Palmer 2000" graph come from? You owe everyone here that information.

From a PowerPoint presentation I have on why hydrocarbons are in the arctic. Why do you believe I owe anyone anything. You do realize that the oxygen isotope and historic co2 data is readily available, right? Do you think my presentation of the data is inaccurate? If so, couldn't you present data to show that? I'm not certain but the graphs I am showing may have been published in Nature.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The alarmist fantasy world... never mind the facts show them wrong.. they just continue to believe... No matter how much real evidence is shown or empirical evidence is shown that shows their models nothing but crap they believe....

 

[Crick]

Note the line in red (temp). Note the spike at approximately 125,000 years BP. I calculated the slope from it's onset to its peak (the left hand side). Note the behavior of the temperature data on the right side of that peak. Over a dozen slope reversals in the same time period. Explain that to me if you think I don't have enough resolution to get that slope.

 

[mamooth]

From a PowerPoint presentation I have on why hydrocarbons are in the arctic.

So where did that come from? Somebody created it. It didn't just spontaneously arise. And who made that specific graph?

Why do you believe I owe anyone anything.

Because that's how science works. You have to show where your data comes from. If you make it a point of pride to refuse to reveal your sources, everyone will assume those sources are faking data.

You do realize that the oxygen isotope and historic co2 data is readily available, right?

Yes, and it disagrees with your graph. That would be the point here.

Do you think my presentation of the data is inaccurate? If so, couldn't you present data to show that?

I already did that. I linked to the Pearson and Palmer (2000) article in _Nature_, and pointed out that the graphs in it don't match your graphs that say "modified from Pearson and Palmer 2000". It appears they "modified" the data by making up a bunch of new mystery data.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

 

[ding]

From a PowerPoint presentation I have on why hydrocarbons are in the arctic.

So where did that come from? Somebody created it. It didn't just spontaneously arise. And who made that specific graph?

Why do you believe I owe anyone anything.

Because that's how science works. You have to show where your data comes from. If you make it a point of pride to refuse to reveal your sources, everyone will assume those sources are faking data.

You do realize that the oxygen isotope and historic co2 data is readily available, right?

Yes, and it disagrees with your graph. That would be the point here.

Do you think my presentation of the data is inaccurate? If so, couldn't you present data to show that?

I already did that. I linked to the Pearson and Palmer (2000) article in _Nature_, and pointed out that the graphs in it don't match your graphs that say "modified from Pearson and Palmer 2000". It appears they "modified" the data by making up a bunch of new mystery data.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

The data is a matter of public record. What exactly are you disputing? The oxygen isotope curve data? The historic co2 level data? What?

 

[mamooth]

The data is a matter of public record.

Obviously untrue. Your data is clearly not a matter of public record, being that you can't show where it came from.

What exactly are you disputing? The oxygen isotope curve data? The historic co2 level data? What?

For the third time, I'm disputing your graph, because it doesn't match the paper it claims to have come from.

Seriously, are you incapable of reading basic English? What is it about these simple sentences that confounds you so?

What is the source of your graph?

And no "a powerpoint presentation" is not a source. That's just a type of computer file. It is not a "source".

 

[ding]

The data is a matter of public record.

Obviously untrue. Your data is clearly not a matter of public record, being that you can't show where it came from.

What exactly are you disputing? The oxygen isotope curve data? The historic co2 level data? What?

For the third time, I'm disputing your graph, because it doesn't match the paper it claims to have come from.

Seriously, are you incapable of reading basic English? What is it about these simple sentences that confounds you so?

What is the source of your graph?

And no "a powerpoint presentation" is not a source. That's just a type of computer file. It is not a "source".

You are confusing presentation for data. Can you not find co2 proxy data for the last 55 million years? Can you not find temperature proxy data for the past 55 million years? Is there any difference in that data and what I presented? What data are you disputing? Co2? Temperature?

 

[Crick]

It really seems as if you're being intentionally dense here. He has already told you twice that he has found such data - found it in the paper to which your says it came from. But the data there does NOT match the data you presented. If you have processed it in some way and plotted it yourself, you need to tell us and explain the processing... Just like real scientists.

 

[ding]

It really seems as if you're being intentionally dense here. He has already told you twice that he has found such data - found it in the paper to which your says it came from. But the data there does NOT match the data you presented. If you have processed it in some way and plotted it yourself, you need to tell us and explain the processing... Just like real scientists.

Then it should not be that hard to show it, right? Just throw up the plots and prove me wrong. You can't because I'm not.

 

[mamooth]

Not how it works. According to your kook standard, linking to the actual paper isn't good enough. We're supposed to reproduce the entire paper here, just to prove none of the graphs in it match your graph. That's insanely stupid, and totally contrary to how science works.

Science says that the one presenting the evidence has to back it up. You are the one presenting your graph and declaring it to be true. Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on you to prove that's the case. We are not obligated to do a thing. If you can't back up your source, your source is crap, period.

And so far, you've failed miserably. Despite repeated prompting, you've refused to even try to back up your source.

Those who show real data will show the source of it. You won't. You actively refuse to do so. You act exactly like anyone would expect a fraudster to act, hence everyone concludes you are a fraudster.

 

[Old Rocks]

FIGURE 2. Evolution of atmospheric CO2 levels and global climate over the past 65 million years.
From the following article:
An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics

James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens & Richard E. Zeebe

Nature 451, 279-283(17 January 2008)

doi:10.1038/nature06588

back to article

a, Cenozoic pCO2 for the period 0 to 65 million years ago. Data are a compilation of marine (see ref. 5 for original sources) and lacustrine24 proxy records. The dashed horizontal line represents the maximum pCO2 for the Neogene (Miocene to present) and the minimum pCO2 for the early Eocene (1,125 p.p.m.v.), as constrained by calculations of equilibrium with Na–CO3 mineral phases (vertical bars, where the length of the bars indicates the range of pCO2 over which the mineral phases are stable) that are found in Neogene and early Eocene lacustrine deposits24. The vertical distance between the upper and lower coloured lines shows the range of uncertainty for the alkenone and boron proxies. b, The climate for the same period (0 to 65 million years ago). The climate curve is a stacked deep-sea benthic foraminiferal oxygen-isotope curve based on records from Deep Sea Drilling Project and Ocean Drilling Program sites6, updated with high-resolution records for the interval spanning the middle Eocene to the middle Miocene25, 26, 27. Because the temporal and spatial distribution of records used in the stack are uneven, resulting in some biasing, the raw data were smoothed by using a five-point running mean. The

18O temperature scale, on the right axis, was computed on the assumption of an ice-free ocean; it therefore applies only to the time preceding the onset of large-scale glaciation on Antarctica (about 35 million years ago). The figure clearly shows the 2-million-year-long Early Eocene Climatic Optimum and the more transient Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum, and the very short-lived early Eocene hyperthermals such as the PETM (also known as Eocene Thermal Maximum 1, ETM1) and Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 (ETM2; also known as ELMO).

, parts per thousand.

Figure 2 : An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics : Nature

From my perspective, very interesting graphs. You see, during the Miocene, the temperature was pretty stable. As was the CO2 levels. But, as the Isthmus of Panama closed, you see that plunge in temperatures, and the glaciation cycles of the Northern Hemisphere. So, the combination of the closing of the Isthmus and the low CO2 levels resulted in our present ice age cycles. Since we have never seen a spike of GHGs like that we are creating with the combination of the closed Isthmus and a north polar ice cap, kind of hard to predict exactly what is going to happen. By what we are already observing in the Arctic and Greenland, we will see some major changes there by 2030.

 

[rdean]

Few Republicans believe the earth is 12 million years old. They believe that figure is off by more than 11.99 million years.

 

[Crick]

It really seems as if you're being intentionally dense here. He has already told you twice that he has found such data - found it in the paper to which your says it came from. But the data there does NOT match the data you presented. If you have processed it in some way and plotted it yourself, you need to tell us and explain the processing... Just like real scientists.

Then it should not be that hard to show it, right? Just throw up the plots and prove me wrong. You can't because I'm not.

The link to Pearson and Palmer indicates you're lying. If you'd like to fix that, show us who and how it was "modified"

 

[ding]

It really seems as if you're being intentionally dense here. He has already told you twice that he has found such data - found it in the paper to which your says it came from. But the data there does NOT match the data you presented. If you have processed it in some way and plotted it yourself, you need to tell us and explain the processing... Just like real scientists.

Then it should not be that hard to show it, right? Just throw up the plots and prove me wrong. You can't because I'm not.

The link to Pearson and Palmer indicates you're lying. If you'd like to fix that, show us who and how it was "modified"

No it doesn't. It indicates that you are an idiot for questioning data that is widely accepted and readily available from multiple sources. Clearly you are concerned with what the data proves that you would try to discredit it.

 

[mamooth]

No it doesn't. It indicates that you are an idiot for questioning data that is widely accepted and readily available from multiple sources. Clearly you are concerned with what the data proves that you would try to discredit it.

Stop lying. You do not have data from multiple sources. You have data from one single source, which appears to be faked (being you won't show the source, and that the paper it claims to be from doesn't show such data), and you actively refuse to look at any other data.

In contrast, I posted what the data from multiple sources says, in Royer (2006), which summarizes all the other studies. The data from multiple sources flatly contradict your claims, being that no CO2 spike is shown. By your own standards, you are totally wrong because multiple sources say so.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

Do you have the courage to address this, Ding? After all, over in the religion folder, you just bragged about how your religion gives you courage. Funny, how there's no sign of any courage from you over here. Instead, we just see you running away, over and over.

 

[ding]

From a PowerPoint presentation I have on why hydrocarbons are in the arctic.

So where did that come from? Somebody created it. It didn't just spontaneously arise. And who made that specific graph?

Why do you believe I owe anyone anything.

Because that's how science works. You have to show where your data comes from. If you make it a point of pride to refuse to reveal your sources, everyone will assume those sources are faking data.

You do realize that the oxygen isotope and historic co2 data is readily available, right?

Yes, and it disagrees with your graph. That would be the point here.

Do you think my presentation of the data is inaccurate? If so, couldn't you present data to show that?

I already did that. I linked to the Pearson and Palmer (2000) article in _Nature_, and pointed out that the graphs in it don't match your graphs that say "modified from Pearson and Palmer 2000". It appears they "modified" the data by making up a bunch of new mystery data.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

It shows the same thing that I have been showing, lol.

 

[ding]

No it doesn't. It indicates that you are an idiot for questioning data that is widely accepted and readily available from multiple sources. Clearly you are concerned with what the data proves that you would try to discredit it.

Stop lying. You do not have data from multiple sources. You have data from one single source, which appears to be faked (being you won't show the source, and that the paper it claims to be from doesn't show such data), and you actively refuse to look at any other data.

In contrast, I posted what the data from multiple sources says, in Royer (2006), which summarizes all the other studies. The data from multiple sources flatly contradict your claims, being that no CO2 spike is shown. By your own standards, you are totally wrong because multiple sources say so.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

Do you have the courage to address this, Ding? After all, over in the religion folder, you just bragged about how your religion gives you courage. Funny, how there's no sign of any courage from you over here. Instead, we just see you running away, over and over.

Everyone recognizes the massive CO2 drawdown 55 million years ago. Even your link. It's the same data.

 

[ding]

It really seems as if you're being intentionally dense here. He has already told you twice that he has found such data - found it in the paper to which your says it came from. But the data there does NOT match the data you presented. If you have processed it in some way and plotted it yourself, you need to tell us and explain the processing... Just like real scientists.

Then it should not be that hard to show it, right? Just throw up the plots and prove me wrong. You can't because I'm not.

The link to Pearson and Palmer indicates you're lying. If you'd like to fix that, show us who and how it was "modified"

http://theazollafoundation.org/azolla/the-arctic-azolla-event-2/

Check out the last graphic on this link, lol.

 

[ding]

No it doesn't. It indicates that you are an idiot for questioning data that is widely accepted and readily available from multiple sources. Clearly you are concerned with what the data proves that you would try to discredit it.

Stop lying. You do not have data from multiple sources. You have data from one single source, which appears to be faked (being you won't show the source, and that the paper it claims to be from doesn't show such data), and you actively refuse to look at any other data.

In contrast, I posted what the data from multiple sources says, in Royer (2006), which summarizes all the other studies. The data from multiple sources flatly contradict your claims, being that no CO2 spike is shown. By your own standards, you are totally wrong because multiple sources say so.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

Do you have the courage to address this, Ding? After all, over in the religion folder, you just bragged about how your religion gives you courage. Funny, how there's no sign of any courage from you over here. Instead, we just see you running away, over and over.

The presentation of the data came from Jonathan Bujak .

The Geological Society of London - The Arctic Azolla event