Re: [CC] UN: Climate disaster predictions from 30 years ago

Aug 08, 2019 Last reply: 7 years ago 7 Replies
Saved reading
Jump to replies (7)


> >


> >> The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
> >> rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
> >> of years.
>
> > That's quite an old chestnut now. See eg:
>
> >
formatting link
>
> Interesting.
>
> The presenter said in short that the CO2/temperature issue was one of
> one sometimes leading, and sometimes following, the other, the
> perturbing agent being Milankovich cycles,
>
> Unfortunately, this raises more questions than it answers. One such is
> that where in the Vostok record is this shown? What records do in fact
> show this? What is the mechanism whereby a lead changes to a lag? >
> And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
> Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
> vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
> R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all. >
> --
> Spike

It is not Jupiter that is causing the rise in CO2 this time; it is civilised mankind.

Then that latter claim needs to be proved.

One start would be to explain the mechanism of the alleged 'crossover' between half-a-million years of CO2 lag behind temperature and some undetermined point of 'lead', and put forward some evidence for it. I take it from your claim that Vostok and similar records don't show this.

[Reposted due to removal of UKDIY from the FU[

On 08/08/2019 14:10, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:> On Thursday, 8 August

2019 09:12:22 UTC+1, Spike wrote:>> >>>> The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels

Then that latter claim needs to be proved.

One start would be to explain the mechanism of the alleged 'crossover' between half-a-million years of CO2 lag behind temperature and some undetermined point of 'lead', and put forward some evidence for it. I take it from your claim that Vostok and similar records don't show this.

Apparently it's due to natural cycles, as explained in this video, although the term isn't used in it:

formatting link

When eight out of twelve forcing mechanisms are known only to a 'very low' level of understanding, your claim would appear to be not well founded.

It seems that you have a low level of understanding of the other four!

The eight-out-of-twelve issue begs the question of what exactly it is that climate modellers plug in to their models, if they have such a low level of knowledge from which to work. Your remark suggests these eight are irrelevant, yet so much treasure is staked on the models' predictions. That's a courageous position to have to defend.

Quite right, Sir Humphrey.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required