CO2 rise occurred AFTER end of Ice Age

[westwall]

A new study has shown that it was most likely a global wind change that drove the end of the last ice age....I will wait till we have more evidence to prove that but it is yet another nail in the coffin of CO2 driving the climate. Once again the rise in CO2 occured AFTER the rise in temperature.

Global wind-shift caused Earth's last ice age to end - dnaindia.com

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

 

[daveman]

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that can save us.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.

 

[gslack]

This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

Trying the baffle em with bullshit route again?

So tell me oh enlightened one.. What does the article you just posted say....

 

[uscitizen]

I was there and that is not the way I remember it.

 

[daveman]

That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.

AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

I used to think that this topic was worth debating, until I realized that it was actually religion...i.e. the lay minister above.

But, for any that aren't acolytes,

a. “…new findings, suggest that changes in the output of the sun have caused most recent climate change. By comparison, variations in carbon dioxide, the gas most targeted by national climate change campaigns, have shown poor correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.” ICSC Chair Professor Tim Patterson, a leading paleoclimatolgist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada One Time Publication Rights

b. Global warming theorists believe that rising CO2 levels drive up the atmospheric temperature. But the rate and amount of warming at the beginning of the 20th century was greater than now, despite lower CO2 emissions, or why Greenland has cooled since the 1940’s, or why the Arctic was warmer in the 1920’s and 1930’s than now. (Ian Plimer, “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science,” p. 438

 

[uscitizen]

That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.

AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.

So it is no different from globalization?

 

[daveman]

That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.

AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.

So it is no different from globalization?

Pretty much.

 

[daveman]

This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

I used to think that this topic was worth debating, until I realized that it was actually religion...i.e. the lay minister above.

But, for any that aren't acolytes,

a. “…new findings, suggest that changes in the output of the sun have caused most recent climate change. By comparison, variations in carbon dioxide, the gas most targeted by national climate change campaigns, have shown poor correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.” ICSC Chair Professor Tim Patterson, a leading paleoclimatolgist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada One Time Publication Rights

b. Global warming theorists believe that rising CO2 levels drive up the atmospheric temperature. But the rate and amount of warming at the beginning of the 20th century was greater than now, despite lower CO2 emissions, or why Greenland has cooled since the 1940’s, or why the Arctic was warmer in the 1920’s and 1930’s than now. (Ian Plimer, “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science,” p. 438

You have displeased the Goracle!

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

I used to think that this topic was worth debating, until I realized that it was actually religion...i.e. the lay minister above.

But, for any that aren't acolytes,

a. “…new findings, suggest that changes in the output of the sun have caused most recent climate change. By comparison, variations in carbon dioxide, the gas most targeted by national climate change campaigns, have shown poor correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.” ICSC Chair Professor Tim Patterson, a leading paleoclimatolgist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada One Time Publication Rights

b. Global warming theorists believe that rising CO2 levels drive up the atmospheric temperature. But the rate and amount of warming at the beginning of the 20th century was greater than now, despite lower CO2 emissions, or why Greenland has cooled since the 1940’s, or why the Arctic was warmer in the 1920’s and 1930’s than now. (Ian Plimer, “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science,” p. 438

You have displeased the Goracle!

...or, as we refer to him, the "Sex Crazed Poodle."


Did you ever see the book he wrote, where the hurricanes were pictured in reverse?



"The cover of Nobel Laureate Al Gore's new book "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis" was intentionally doctored to exaggerate the appearance of hurricanes in the northern hemisphere as well as reduce the amount of ice present in the Arctic...
the truth was apparently inconvenient for the Global Warmingist-in-Chief"

Read more: Al Gore Photoshops Hurricanes Into New Book's Cover | NewsBusters.org


Read more: Al Gore Photoshops Hurricanes Into New Book's Cover | NewsBusters.org

 

[Old Rocks]

That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.

AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.

So, putting the US in a position to be energy independent by getting off of the oil tit is wealth redistribution?

Well, it may be at that. If most citizens of this nation were not only consumers, but also producers of energy, both for their homes and their vehicles, then a lot of very wealthy people would be seeing their income stream drying up.

So, let's all join Dave in preventing the average citizen from achieving any kind of independence from the oligarchs.

 

[konradv]

Just because CO2 wasn't the primary cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be the cause today. To suggest otherwise is to really try and "baffle with bullshit"!

 

[westwall]

Just because CO2 wasn't the primary cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be the cause today. To suggest otherwise is to really try and "baffle with bullshit"!

konrad, poor delusional konrad. You reeeeaalllyy need to take some science classes my friend. Look up Occams Razor again. Then re-read your above statement.

 

[westwall]

That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.

AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.

So, putting the US in a position to be energy independent by getting off of the oil tit is wealth redistribution?

Well, it may be at that. If most citizens of this nation were not only consumers, but also producers of energy, both for their homes and their vehicles, then a lot of very wealthy people would be seeing their income stream drying up.

So, let's all join Dave in preventing the average citizen from achieving any kind of independence from the oligarchs.

old fraud,

Energy independance would be wonderful if carbon trading was not the method the oligarchs had chosen to do it. The very people you rail about are the very ones running the biggest scam in the history of mankind. The only people benefitting from this is the wealthy. And they will become super wealthy if cap and trade et all get created.

As far as redistribution of wealth goes I will have Emma Brindel respond. She is the "climate justice campaigner" for the NGO Friends of the Earth and she said....

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

 

[boedicca]

Global Wind Change!

Quick - Tell Obama to quit giving so many Long, Boring, Arrogant Speeches!

 

[Old Rocks]

Just because CO2 wasn't the primary cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be the cause today. To suggest otherwise is to really try and "baffle with bullshit"!

konrad, poor delusional konrad. You reeeeaalllyy need to take some science classes my friend. Look up Occams Razor again. Then re-read your above statement.

More yap-yap from a delusional liar. GSA Today, July issue simply states that AGW is happening, and that the primary cause is the increase in GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

And a lecture pertinent to the issue from the fall AGU convention.

A23A

 

[westwall]

Just because CO2 wasn't the primary cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be the cause today. To suggest otherwise is to really try and "baffle with bullshit"!

konrad, poor delusional konrad. You reeeeaalllyy need to take some science classes my friend. Look up Occams Razor again. Then re-read your above statement.

More yap-yap from a delusional liar. GSA Today, July issue simply states that AGW is happening, and that the primary cause is the increase in GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.

And a lecture pertinent to the issue from the fall AGU convention.

A23A

See there you go calling me a liar and you have yet to back it up little boy. Between you and I, YOU are the only one who has been caught lying so I would suggest you respect your betters.

 

[Charles_Main]

That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.

AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.

So, putting the US in a position to be energy independent by getting off of the oil tit is wealth redistribution?

Well, it may be at that. If most citizens of this nation were not only consumers, but also producers of energy, both for their homes and their vehicles, then a lot of very wealthy people would be seeing their income stream drying up.

So, let's all join Dave in preventing the average citizen from achieving any kind of independence from the oligarchs.

No every co called global solution to the problem involves more developed Nations like us Paying massive amounts of money to developing nations.

That is redistribution of wealth.