OT: Global Warming conference

[Clive George]

Creation :-)

[dennis]

to prove he is talking cr@p, just plot CO2 vs. temp for the last 150 years, you know the industrial revolution when all the CO2 has been released. I stand by what I said and that article offers no proof and no data. If that is the best you can find then I think my thoughts about ecological evangelists is proven.. take any word and turn it to support global warming whatever it says.

[Roger]

The message from "Clive George" contains these words:

No, that is a known unknown with at least a plausible conjecture to explain it.

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

snip

Easy to prove he is talking cr@p, just plot CO2 vs. temp for the last 150

Oldest trick in the book is to try and tar your opponent with your own dirty tricks but it won't wash. You are the one with a faith that obscures the science. Contrast the way the facts are presented in the article you have just rubbished with the smoke and mirrors that started this thread off.

To take the stand you have you must have already plotted CO2 against temperature for the last 150 years so how about sharing your figures to bolster your case.

[dennis]

>> Easy to prove he is talking cr@p, just plot CO2 vs. temp for the last 150

Its your trick so I guess you would know.

Do you own research and then you might understand things, as it is you wouldn't believe me if I posted a URL to the data.

However as you like quotes here is one from one of your supporters

"Thus, CO2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it's not playing a crucial role in the warming. "

As you can see even your side agree that the temp goes up followed by the CO2, however they then invent a theory to make the CO2 responsible for further rises.

The data is from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica BTW and you can download the raw data and do your own analysis if you want to prove the CO2 leads the temp.

Then of course if you want to discuss some pretty pictures there is always

depending on where you start can prove either theory. However you will note that CO2 was rising 1880 to 1930 even while temperatures were falling.

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

snip

>

You are the one who mired in trickery. You are the one who called a reasoned article crap, raised the spectre of religious fervour and mindless adherence to the cause.

Just as I thought, you haven't done it yourself.

It is not germane to my argument whether CO2 lags or leads, nor his by the looks of it.

Positive feedback.

What I wanted to do was establish whether you had gone to the trouble of drawing your own graph. If you had you would have posted the figures.

Which depending on where you start can prove either theory.

You just see what you want to see but it is clear that the decline in temperature bottomed out in 1909.

If the change in CO2 really is that smooth then the only way to determine lag or lead is to look at when the cycle flips and you are half right, if you take the start of the cycle as 1909 there is no doubt CO2 is leading. You can't however say what is happening before 1909 as there is no real sign of the previous peak unless you want to take 1900 in which case the CO2 is still leading.

It would have been instructive if they had also plotted mean sea temperatures and there are a number of other factors that would need to be considered the two most important of which is that CO2 is only one of several elements that influence global temperature and the other is the disparity between the two scales. The concentration of CO2 goes from 290 to (presumably) 384, an absolute difference of some 32%. The temperature graph OTOH goes from 56.4 to 58.1, an absolute difference of about 0.2%.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, looking at ice shows that CO2 build up in ICE lags temperature change. How long does CO2 take to get INTO the ice?

[The Natural Philosopher]

That may not be a process..as we understand it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Almost impossible to say for certain, since we only know about 5% of the species that exist on earth anyway.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere a puddle has dried up and killed the last lesser mongolian flatworm or something like that.

Species are totally associated with habitat: destroy the habitat and the species goes with it.

[dennis]

> >

It is cr@p.. it has no substance and no data, it may as well have been The Sun.

You posted that before you read the post didn't you. You would have noticed that I have pointed you at the data later if you had.

Really, so you agree temps cause CO2 and there is nothing we can do about it? It is key to what is the cause of GW and what we can do about it. If its not CO2 we can't do anything.. even if it is CO2 we may not be able to do anything.

You like that answer but ignore my negative feedback. Closed mind I take it.

>> Which depending on where you start can prove either theory.

You just see what you want to see but its clear that CO2 was going up while temp was going down.

Well there isn't any data before that. So why do you assume I am wrong.. you don't have any evidence to say I am. See what I mean about the closed mid you have.. no evidence but you are right.

Well please plot sea temps as they are actually cooler. Remember to allow for the 100-450 year lag too (depending on which model you choose). Maybe you could include the NOAA data too?

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

snip

So we will have to agree to differ. I think it is a reasoned article. You think it is crap which, funnily enough, is precisely what I think of the rubbish you have been entertaining us with.

Ah magic at work. I post the first half of my final response before the second, then I recited an incantation and low and behold the two halves miraculously reunited. The reference below did not point to 150 years of data, just to a rather micky mouse graph covering less than 130 years, and it is not evident that you prepared it yourself.

I agree nothing of the sort. The reality is that extra atmospheric CO2 causes warming and that warming causes extra CO2. If enough CO2 could be extracted from the atmosphere it could precipitate another ice age.

I blame Milankovitch for much of the variability. The CO2 induced temperature difference is just an additional factor.

You are the one with the closed mind. I take both positive and negative feedback into account. Given your lack of understanding of correlation I wouldn't be at all surprised if you have a similar difficulty with the notion of feedback.

>> Which depending on where you start can prove either theory.

Lag, lead, take your pick but the low point for temperature is near the middle of the period you claimed for falling temperatures and rising CO2.

If there is no data how could you possibly have come to your opinion?

The further back in time the more suspect the data becomes but there is no abrupt cut-off at 1880. In any event you are having trouble accepting derived data but appear to have overlooked the obvious. The cited reference includes CO2 data from ice cores for the years prior to 1954. Ice cores good, tree rings bad?

Do your own work.

[dennis]

No, as the temperature is also derived from gases dissolved in ice about the same time give or take a few decades.

[dennis]

So just FUD then, there is a lot of FUD in GW. In fact I think there is far more chance that GW is caused by FUD than CO2.

[dennis]

No of course not I chose it because it is used to support man made GW even though it doesn't. Are you disputing the validity of the data or the reputation of woods hole?

I doubt that as CO2 only accounts for about 4% of the greenhouse effect. You would have to remove a lot of CO2 to have any effect. However you could get an ice age by having more clouds and preventing energy from reaching the Earth. Say an increase in cloud cover of 1%.

Additional to what?

You have a closed mind.. you have yet to introduce anything into this thread that should influence anything. However I have posted facts as well as opinion.. a proper scientific evaluation could only come down on my side unless you actually post some evidence rather that opinion.

>> >> Which depending on where you start can prove either theory.

CO2 was increasing throughout that graph incase you didn't notice.

Because the only data doesn't fit with CO2 caused global warming. are you being deliberately thick?

I never said CO2 values in ICE cores were inaccurate, where did you imagine it?

You haven't done any so far its about time you did.

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

snip

Your mind is completely closed to reason. You persist with nonsense such as the claim there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature when you must know you are spouting nonsense. When the facts don't suit you resort to wholesale lies and you constantly misrepresent what I have said. I lack the patience to refute your lies point by point.

snip

More evidence of a completely closed mind.

snip

You are the moron who introduced the Dennis effect.

snip

So you say but as you are a liar so why should I believe you on this point.

snip

Just going on your track record.

snip

I don't care a toss what an ignoramus like you thinks about me. It takes a really clueless f****it to come to the conclusion you did from my statement above.

snip

I don't need to but I will address that nonsense from Singer in another post.

I see you have at last dropped your long standing lie about methane. (Visited Singers site perhaps?)

snip

More misrepresentation. You denied both the correlation between CO2 and temperature and the presence of any positive feedback. The atmosphere has flipped from one stable system to another several times in the past. If temperatures get too high it is going to flip to a hotter state, no ifs, no buts.

snip

I think you are a brazen liar. Just above you claimed that "Temperatures for anytime before about 1900 [*]anywhere[*] are estimates based on tree ring growth, concentrations of gases in ICE cores, etc. not measurements."

Now you are trying to rubbish the records you said didn't exist and the instruments used to provide the records you claimed didn't exist. What you are really doing of course is destroying any credibility you have left, always assuming you did have any credibility still left.

snip

Well it is relevant to how stupid you want to appear but you chose, you lose.

snip

You might think it nothing to allege that there are no models showing GW if it supports your case and almost in you next breath say that there are such models because that then supports your case. One or other is a blatant lie.

snip

So where is the question?

I really don't know why I bother. The atmosphere is getting hotter. This is ascribed to the greenhouse effect by one side and the Milankovitch cycles by most on the other. There are a few deadbeats who claim the Earth is not heating up at all but the can be discounted entirely.

Don't be stupid. Incident radiation is only part of the equation, the other part is how much escapes back into space. The Earth's atmosphere is heating up. Ergo there is more energy in the system.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

snip

That is much the same as the figure Singer comes up with with and he is peddling an insidious untruth.

Could we? I can't be bothered to track your source down (assuming this isn't another lie you have plucked out of thin air) but my money is on a

1% increase in cloud cover having very little effect.

snip

Additional to the variations in the Milankovitch cycles stupid.

snip

You have by and large posted a pack of lies.

snip

Another lie. There is a distinct dip within that period.

No, but you are.

snip

Oh well the whisky bottle is empty and it's time to go to bed. I will leave what I hope is my final post on this subject till the morning. I don't intend to bother with any more of Dennis' fake science but if he wants to continue to trade insults I shall have to oblige.

[dennis]

You have posted no reason to reason with! Show me any data that shows CO2 leading temps to even indicate CO2 causes warming. You are a typical greeny.. all opinion and *no* facts.

I know you have, post some evidence.

Still got that closed mind I see.

Well I see we are getting to your true self now. No evidence, just opinion and tell the others they are the ones that won't listen. Real closed mind syndrome.. can't even see that its you that doesn't listen.

What lie? You haven't posted any figures, I have. If you knew anything you would know that those figures aren't from Singer and would be able to look at the rest of the figures which include those for methane and a few other sources. I would post them but its pointless as you have a closed mind and a fixation on Singer.

Actually if the atmosphere gets too hot it flips to a cold cycle as can be seen from the evidence.. cold cycles follow hot cycles in case you hadn't noticed. Like wise if it gets too cold a hot cycle follows. For someone who supposedly has an open mind you don't look at the data much do you?

They are! Why do you persist in your cr@p?

You have never had any credibility.. from the start you have been a closed mind.. repeat parrot fashion.. GW is caused by man made CO2. A product of the education system where science has been removed from the curriculum I expect. All science teaching these days is this is the effect of GW and no actual science at all.

You have a closed mind, post some data.

You have a closed mind, post some data.

You have a closed mind, post some data.

Don't be stupid the earth acts as a black body. If the upper atmosphere trapped much heat it would warm and radiate more. You have a closed mind, post some data.

[dennis]

So post some data. You really do have a closed mind.

So post some data, you have a closed mind.

Back to the insults again I see.

I have posted data from reputable sources you have.. well done nothing.

Clutching at straws are we?

Now you are being really insulting.. you have posted nothing and yet you expect me to agree with you.

You are the one throwing the insults. However I will say this..

You are stupid, you believe what you are told and don't question it. You are also stupid and get annoyed when someone disagrees with your unfounded assumptions and claim all sorts of things just to discredit the

*evidence* posted rather than actually post some evidence that proves otherwise.

Rather than post evidence that proves your point you just call people liars so you can ignore the evidence.

If you want to keep posting you may, but it shows you understand nothing about GW. If you don't post any data you are not going to convert even the most open minded individual. Maybe you should stick to convincing Sun readers that you are correct because you aren't going to do so here unless you produce something meaningful. I doubt if you can produce anything meaningful but you have the opportunity to show otherwise.

[Donwill]

As a little contribution to the discussion, I thought this was quite interesting :- The average yearly increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was measured as

0.00014% over the period 1958---2004.

Regards Don

[dennis]

Source?