how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Saigon]

Polarbear -

The Finnish language has two more vowels than English - ä and ö.

There is no u with umlauts in the Finnish language, nor on Finnish keyboards.

I don't speak German.

And yes, of course I have you on ignore mode - who doesn't?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD-

Yes, yes, but waffling aside - do you believe there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature?

The evidence shows that increased atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rises...therefore there is a corelation between temperature rises and increased CO2. There is pretty convincing proof that increased temperatures lead to increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of warmer oceans outgassing CO2. There is no observed, measured, empirical eidence that increased CO2 results in warmer temperatures.

If you have some hard evidence, lets see it. Otherwise, you have no point to make. All of the hard evidence we have says the opposite of your claims.

Ok, now we seem to be making a little progress, anyway, in that you agree that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2.

The thing you now need to accept - and I am sure you do, offline - is that CO2 causes an increase in temperatures, AND that an increase in temperatures causes a rise in CO2. It is not a one way street.

Let me explain:

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

The term to google is Milankovitch cycles, as in orbital cycles.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latitutdes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. 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 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.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

[SSDD]

Ok, now we seem to be making a little progress, anyway, in that you agree that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2.

There is a correlation between eating carrots and dying in automobile accidents as well. Do I need to accept that eating carrots leads to fatal automobile accidents?

The thing you now need to accept - and I am sure you do, offline - is that CO2 causes an increase in temperatures, AND that an increase in temperatures causes a rise in CO2. It is not a one way street.

Why would I need to accept that with not a single shred of evidence to support the belief? Do you think I am as stupid and gullible as you? NEWSFLASH!!!! I'm not.

The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

You say it as if you believe it...and you say it as if actual observed. measured evidence exists to support the claim but alas, it does not. It is an assumption, built into computer models and nothing more. There isn't the first bit of real world evidence to support the claim.

The term to google is Milankovitch cycles, as in orbital cycles.

Milankovitch cycles. Yes they exist..but do you believe they are the only cycles that influence climate on earth? Do you really believe that we have more than the most rudimentary grasp of what influences the climate on earth?

I won't bother with the rest because you clearly believe it to be fact without any actual evidence to prove it is fact.....more correlation mistaken with causation...

When you have hard fact.....observed, measured evidence to support your claims, let me know...till then you are just talking to hear yourself talk and demonstrating how gullible you actually are. And the fact that you constantly reference skeptical science is hard, observed, factual evidence that you are stupid and gullible. Only the most disgraced of the disgraced still associate themselves with that cesspool.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

So despite the fact that what I posted cited a half-dozen real-world studies, you claim that no such studies exist.

Interesting.

When you have hard fact.....observed, measured evidence to support your claims, let me know...

...and you will ignore it. Just as you did the Finnish temperatures, just as you did with the glaciers melting,and with the British Antarctic Survey. Be honest here, man, the last thing you want to observed, measured science.

 

[Saigon]

Here is an overview from the NOAA:

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent.

Taking these different influences into account, it is possible to determine how much the temperature decreased when carbon dioxide was reduced, and use this scaling (termed climate sensitivity) to determine how much temperature might increase as carbon dioxide increases. An estimate from the tropical ocean, far from the influence of ice sheets, indicates that the tropical ocean may warm 5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

 

[SSDD]

So despite the fact that what I posted cited a half-dozen real-world studies, you claim that no such studies exist.

Why do you lie about every single thing? Or can you really not read? I never claimed there were no studies, I said that there was no hard, measured empirical evidence and your studies proved that point. They all referenced computer models as opposed to actual evidence. Computer models produce whatever they are told to produce.

..and you will ignore it. Just as you did the Finnish temperatures, just as you did with the glaciers melting,and with the British Antarctic Survey. Be honest here, man, the last thing you want to observed, measured science.

I understand.....making the false claim that I will ignore the evidence that does not exist relieves you of the embarrassment of admitting that it doesn't and never did exist. F'ing pitiful.

 

[SSDD]

Here is an overview from the NOAA:

Damned sad that an organization like NOAA would misrepresent the known fact that CO2 follows temperature

 

[Foxfyre]

So despite the fact that what I posted cited a half-dozen real-world studies, you claim that no such studies exist.

Why do you lie about every single thing? Or can you really not read? I never claimed there were no studies, I said that there was no hard, measured empirical evidence and your studies proved that point. They all referenced computer models as opposed to actual evidence. Computer models produce whatever they are told to produce.

..and you will ignore it. Just as you did the Finnish temperatures, just as you did with the glaciers melting,and with the British Antarctic Survey. Be honest here, man, the last thing you want to observed, measured science.

I understand.....making the false claim that I will ignore the evidence that does not exist relieves you of the embarrassment of admitting that it doesn't and never did exist. F'ing pitiful.

He doesn't read and comprephend well. I don't know if his seeming dishonesty re what he posts is deliberate or due to a reading dysfunction. But the misquoting or twisting intent of what others of us post does seem to be sufficiently consistent to allow us to believe it is intentional.

 

[gslack]

Personally, I will be pleased when his proxy fails him and he's busted socking.. Frankly it's getting tiresome and completely obvious now, that something strange is going on with Saigon, mamooth, and their endless brigade of boot lickers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here is an overview from the NOAA:

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent.

Taking these different influences into account, it is possible to determine how much the temperature decreased when carbon dioxide was reduced, and use this scaling (termed climate sensitivity) to determine how much temperature might increase as carbon dioxide increases. An estimate from the tropical ocean, far from the influence of ice sheets, indicates that the tropical ocean may warm 5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

And the NOAA put that information out five years ago and there has been considerable rebuttal of their statements by various scientists since. Most especially the certainty of the statements when the paleoclimate record shows no clear correlation between CO2 temperatures and warming/cooling and a strong case can just as easily be made from the same record that CO2 levels followi climate change rather than cause it.

Certainty and absolutes are words very foreign to true scientists who are studying paleoclimate phenomena. But the NOAA receive all its funding from a government that is determined to keep the 'certainty' of AGW alive. It would follow that NOAA 'scientists' are not eager to offend or go against the motives of those who write their paychecks.

As rebuttal:

One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson, described as follows:

The first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”.

Then consider her statement:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly… As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

No, we don’t all know the frailty of the models! Certainly most of the media and thereby the public and politicians don’t know otherwise the latter would not be planning completely unnecessary, incredibly expensive and society-altering policies. But the opening comment is actually frightening and speaks to why the scam has progressed so far: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” . . .

. . . .Some are being more cautious and looking for ways out. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden notes,


Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.

Decades ago Tolstoi provided another explanation for failing to acknowledge the growing evidence:

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. . . .
How the World Was Bullied Into Silence

Another opinion:

During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Figures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 show, however, that human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases in temperature.

The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Dr. Christy speaks my mind in this short video clip:
CO2 Science

It is so much easier to buy into the scary scenarios the Agenda 21 and other AGW proponents want us to believe than it is to do the really hard work of researching the truth - a truth they aren't telling us.

And for the life of me, I still don't understand a mentality that WANTS us to willingly hand over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities without first knowing that this is necessary for the survival or comfort of the human race.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Here is an overview from the NOAA:

Damned sad that an organization like NOAA would misrepresent the known fact that CO2 follows temperature

Always?

 

[RollingThunder]

As rebuttal:

Dr. Joanne Simpson, her statement:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly… As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

LOLOLOLOL...here's the whole quote from Dr. Simpson, including the parts you left out (wonder why):
"There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

 

[gslack]

As rebuttal:

Dr. Joanne Simpson, her statement:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly… As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

LOLOLOLOL...here's the whole quote from Dr. Simpson, including the parts you left out (wonder why):
"There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

Yes thank you for clarifying... And I disagree with her claim about following gore and the IPCC. They have been shown dishonest and inaccurate to a fault..

Next excuse please..

 

[polarbear]

@gslack:
Check this out:

The report was delayed because the Hot-Cat they tested back in November MELTED from the heat it produced.

I thought rossi said that was impossible?

Well, glad to see that real data is proving that it does create heat. One step closer to becoming reality for civilization!

Like they say there is a sucker born every minute.
We could make a shitload of money from the "erudite numans", and assorted idiots that make "ink molecules", using "water chemistry", "Sai-goners", poophead "scientists who call themselves "phyisists", and rolling what`s his name etc...
I`ll make the Raney Nickel + aREALLY spectacular demonstration and you go ahead and sell shares for an

"anomalous heat energy production reactor device"
They`ll buy into it just for the reason that it`s got got all their favorite buzzwords in it :
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
[1305.3913] Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device

 

[Saigon]

Here is an overview from the NOAA:

Damned sad that an organization like NOAA would misrepresent the known fact that CO2 follows temperature

Ah....so you are going to ignore the science from the NOAA - the science you just claimed did not exist

They all referenced computer models as opposed to actual evidence.

No sane person takes this to mean the studies have no value - and strangely enough, dozens of reports you have cited or referred to here as recently as yesteday reference computer models as well.

A more intelligent approach would be to look at the science, and comment accordingly. We both know why you can not take this approach.

Pretending that ALL models are in some way compromised is simply a means to ignore science in favour of haruspicy.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

I am still waiting for you to answer the two questions from earlier. Please try to post with integrity.


1)

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart

Who do you mean?

2.

And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

Who is asking you to?

I explained earlier exactly why we know that European university research is not corrupted. Rather than address any of the points I raised, you simply repeated your own speech that all US university research is corrupt.

Can you explain why you did not understand or accept my explanation? You can check the details anywhere and prove that it is entirely true.

 

[Saigon]

Gslack, SSDD, Polarbear -

As the three of you have claimed that this board is full of socks, can I ask you to name the handles you suspect to be socks, and report them to the Mods?

There is no reason for anyone to use more than one handle on these forums - and I actually I very much doubt anyone is.

I dare say the Mods canfirm that people are posting from where they say they are posting from if anyone has serious doubts about someone's authenticity. Have at it, I say.

 

[gslack]

Gslack, SSDD, Polarbear -

As the three of you have claimed that this board is full of socks, can I ask you to name the handles you suspect to be socks, and report them to the Mods?

There is no reason for anyone to use more than one handle on these forums - and I actually I very much doubt anyone is.

Why? LOL, you're a liar, a fraud, and show yourself as such on a daily basis. If asking a mod if your IP's are the same or not can solve the issue, they already would have.. Your a proxy monkey and your USA IP from Finland shows that. A proxy is a way hide sockpuppetry junior. Just like your using now.. They are getting better at proxy spotting, soon they will nail yours too..

 

[gslack]

@gslack:
Check this out:

I thought rossi said that was impossible?

Well, glad to see that real data is proving that it does create heat. One step closer to becoming reality for civilization!

Like they say there is a sucker born every minute.
We could make a shitload of money from the "erudite numans", and assorted idiots that make "ink molecules", using "water chemistry", "Sai-goners", poophead "scientists who call themselves "phyisists", and rolling what`s his name etc...
I`ll make the Raney Nickel + aREALLY spectacular demonstration and you go ahead and sell shares for an

"anomalous heat energy production reactor device"
They`ll buy into it just for the reason that it`s got got all their favorite buzzwords in it :
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
[1305.3913] Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device

LOL, followed the forbes links and found this on it..

Rossi Responds to Smith's Challenge to Prove E-Cat Works - Forbes

Rossi Responds to Smith's Challenge to Prove E-Cat Works

Following my post yesterday about Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith’s offer of $1,000,000 to Andrea Rossi for proof that Rossi’s E-Cat Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) device performs as claimed, Mr. Rossi kindly responded with the following comment:

Andrea Rossi
February 15th, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I AM RECEIVENG EMAILS REGARDING: 1- THE “MILLIONAIRE” WHO OFFERS 1 MILLION FOR A TEST AND 2- WHAT WE THINK OF SOME WANNABE COMPETITORS WHO WILL MAKE OTHER TESTS ON A DEVICE OF THEM: I HAVE NOT TIME TO ANSWER SINGULARLY, SO HERE IS THE FINAL ANSWER VALID FOR ALL:

1- MILLIONAIRE TEST: I AM THE CEO OF LEONARDO CORPORATION AND RECENTLY LEONARDO CORPORATION BECAME PROPERTY OF A TRUST OF INVESTORS TO THE ATTORNEYS OF WHICH I HAVE TO ANSWER. THIS, COMBINED WITH THE FACT THAT OUR 1 MW PLANTS HAVE BEEN SOLD TO AN ENTITY THAT WANTS NOT TO BE DISCLOSED (WE ARE UNDER NDA) FORBIDS ME TO TAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE WITHOUT THE PERMISSIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS; THE OPINION OF THEM IS THAT THIS STUNT IS NOT SERIOUS AND THAT OUR TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PROVEN BY A STUNT, BUT BY A REGULAR OPERATION BY THE CUSTOMERS. WE HAVE TO WORK ON MANUFACTURING LINES TO MAKE RELIABLE AND ECONOMIC OUR PRODUCTS, NOT TO MAKE SHOWS.

2- COMPETITORS: WE NEVER COMMENT ON OUR COMPETITORS, BUT STILL WE DO NOT SEE ANY COMPETITOR ON THE MARKET AND NEITHER ON THE HORIZON. WHEN WE WILL FIND PRODUCTS WHICH WILL COMPETE WITH OURS, THEN WE WILL HAVE COMPETITORS, BUT NOW IT IS NOT THE CASE. I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT WITH OUR PRICES NOBODY WILL BE ABLE TO COMPETE, ALSO FOR THE NEW TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE DEVELOPED FOR THE E-CATS AND FOR THE PRODUCTION LINE WE ARE MAKING. BY THE WAY: IF SOME COMPETITOR WILL BE ABLE TO COPY OUR TECH AND MAKE SOMETHING REALLY WORKING ( WHICH DIDN’T HAPPEN YET) OUR ATTORNEYS WILL WORK ON THE CASE.
I WILL NOT ANSWER TO FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MILLIONAIRE AND THE WANNABE COMPETITORS.

WARM REGARDS,
ANDREA ROSSI

In other words, you have to buy one to see if it works. And from what I gather you have to sign an NDA and pay up front, to even be considered to be added to the list of "buyers"..

So evidently it's a bad idea to show people that something actually works BEFORE you pay for it and sign a "no money back" contract.. ROFL,how people can be sucked in by this insanity is beyond me...

 

[Billo_Really]

I have no idea what all of this shit about socks is - but if gslack or SSDD think there are any socks here, then they should both name them and report them to the mods.

Neither will.

I have no idea what a "sock" is.