brenthutch 383 #126 January 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Doesn't that call into question the causal relationship between CO2 and Temp? No, because it's not a year to year direct correlation; it's only long term. Year to year things like el nino, la nina (the ENSO in other words) has a bigger effect. Take a look at graphs of temperature from 1850 to today. 1880 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for almost 60 years. 1945 was another very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 15 years. 1998 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 7 years. But on average temperatures have gone up. 53 degrees in N. Illinois today. Won't be another day this warm until tomorrow. (Normal high for this date is 31 degrees). Well there it is folks. Game over for us skeptics. The professor using the redoubtable science of a local weather forecast; has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man is causing the planet to roast. Using his unassailable logic it would seem certain that N. Illinois will be broiling in 115 degree temps this summer. Well I have to apologize to every one on this forum. I just wished I had listened before it was too late. If only I had paid $50 for a gallon of gas we would still be alive this coming summer. Again my deepest apologies for destroying the planet. Sorry, I forgot the [sarcasm] tag for those too obtuse to figure it out for themselves. That is priceless! It doesn't surprise a bit that the same person who had to look into a thesaurus to be able to use the word obtuse, would not recognize the same level of satire in my own post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #127 January 8, 2012 www.clickgreen.org.uk/research/trends/123011-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-delaying-earth%5Cs-next-ice-age,-new-study-suggests.html No need for denial, GW is GOOD for us!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #128 April 5, 2012 QuoteYes it been well documented in the ice core. Temps go up and then CO2 follows. Or vice versa. www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-climate-carbon-iceage-idUSBRE8330ZE20120404... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #129 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteYes it been well documented in the ice core. Temps go up and then CO2 follows. Or vice versa. www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-climate-carbon-iceage-idUSBRE8330ZE20120404 From your linked article: But while carbon dioxide pushed temperatures up to accelerate the ice age's end, that was not the initial cause. Instead, the big melt was first prompted by a periodic wobble in the Earth's axis, the scientists said. At some points in the wobble, the Northern Hemisphere leans slightly closer to the sun and this occurred at the beginning of the end of the Pleistocene, when ice sheets covered much of what is now North America and Europe. That slight sun-ward tilt melted those northern ice sheets within a few hundred years, pushing global sea levels up by about 33 feet, or by more than the total melting of the ice covering Greenland now would do, said co-author Peter Clark of Oregon State University. Greenland's ice sheet covers most of the island, over 656,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers), three times the size of Texas. Summer melt of this ice sheet increased by 30 percent from 1979 through 2006, and reached a new record in 2007, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. Because ice sheets are made of compacted snow, they produce fresh water when they melt, and the gush of fresh water into the salty North Atlantic altered ocean chemistry enough to shut down the Atlantic Merdional Overturning Circulation, sometimes called the conveyor belt, which typically sends heat from the tropics northward, moderating northern Europe's climate. When the conveyor belt slowed or stopped, cool temperatures stayed in the north and warmth stayed in the south, letting the Antarctic get warmer. That warming trend may also have shifted the winds and melted sea ice, drawing carbon dioxide out of the deep ocean, where quantities of it are stored, Shakun said.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #130 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteYes it been well documented in the ice core. Temps go up and then CO2 follows. Or vice versa. www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-climate-carbon-iceage-idUSBRE8330ZE20120404 From your linked article: But while carbon dioxide pushed temperatures up to accelerate the ice age's end, that was not the initial cause. Instead, the big melt was first prompted by a periodic wobble in the Earth's axis, the scientists said. At some points in the wobble, the Northern Hemisphere leans slightly closer to the sun and this occurred at the beginning of the end of the Pleistocene, when ice sheets covered much of what is now North America and Europe. That slight sun-ward tilt melted those northern ice sheets within a few hundred years, pushing global sea levels up by about 33 feet, or by more than the total melting of the ice covering Greenland now would do, said co-author Peter Clark of Oregon State University. Greenland's ice sheet covers most of the island, over 656,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers), three times the size of Texas. Summer melt of this ice sheet increased by 30 percent from 1979 through 2006, and reached a new record in 2007, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. Because ice sheets are made of compacted snow, they produce fresh water when they melt, and the gush of fresh water into the salty North Atlantic altered ocean chemistry enough to shut down the Atlantic Merdional Overturning Circulation, sometimes called the conveyor belt, which typically sends heat from the tropics northward, moderating northern Europe's climate. When the conveyor belt slowed or stopped, cool temperatures stayed in the north and warmth stayed in the south, letting the Antarctic get warmer. That warming trend may also have shifted the winds and melted sea ice, drawing carbon dioxide out of the deep ocean, where quantities of it are stored, Shakun said. You've been telling us for years that warming preceded CO2 rise. Seems you were wrong.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #131 April 5, 2012 QuoteYou've been telling us for years that warming preceded CO2 rise. Seems you were wrong. "But while carbon dioxide pushed temperatures up to accelerate the ice age's end, that was not the initial cause. " Reading comprehension problems?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #132 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou've been telling us for years that warming preceded CO2 rise. Seems you were wrong. "But while carbon dioxide pushed temperatures up to accelerate the ice age's end, that was not the initial cause. " Reading comprehension problems? Nope. Your repeated statements on heating leading CO2 rise appear to be WRONG. Get over it and stop weaseling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #133 April 5, 2012 QuoteNope. Your repeated statements on heating leading CO2 rise appear to be WRONG. "But while carbon dioxide pushed temperatures up to accelerate the ice age's end, that was not the initial cause. " Certainly looks like a reading comprehension problem to me. QuoteGet over it and stop weaseling. Indeed - maybe you should.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #134 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteNope. Your repeated statements on heating leading CO2 rise appear to be WRONG. "But while carbon dioxide pushed temperatures up to accelerate the ice age's end, that was not the initial cause. " Certainly looks like a reading comprehension problem to me. QuoteGet over it and stop weaseling. Indeed - maybe you should. Oh, the mnealtx 4th grade "rubber/glue" debating tactic again. You'll get over it. www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #135 April 5, 2012 Quotewww.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Hey, that's great - maybe next they can find Trenberth's missing heat, or explain the dozen years of flat temperatures while CO2 has continued to rise ever higher...or why Hansen's 'Venus scenario' never came to pass even though CO2 levels were many times higher than today in the historical record.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #136 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuotewww.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Hey, that's great - maybe next they can find Trenberth's missing heat, or explain the dozen years of flat temperatures while CO2 has continued to rise ever higher...or why Hansen's 'Venus scenario' never came to pass even though CO2 levels were many times higher than today in the historical record. One major pillar of the deniers' argument has been demolished. Get over it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #137 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotewww.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Hey, that's great - maybe next they can find Trenberth's missing heat, or explain the dozen years of flat temperatures while CO2 has continued to rise ever higher...or why Hansen's 'Venus scenario' never came to pass even though CO2 levels were many times higher than today in the historical record. One major pillar of the deniers' argument has been demolished. Oh noes - forget Trenbeth's missing heat, the missing tropical 'hotspot' (now THERE'S a 'demolished pillar' for you), or the continued flat temps while CO2 climbs ever higher...finding out that the entire globe didn't match the Antarctic CO2 profile *completely invalidates* climate scepticism!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #138 April 5, 2012 Your claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. I realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #139 April 5, 2012 QuoteYour claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. Wrong again. This doesn't disprove the claim, it merely limits the area it applies to. Must suck when your only argument is *THAT* lame. QuoteI realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover. Indeed, I'm sure you shall.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #140 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteYour claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. Wrong again. This doesn't disprove the claim, it merely limits the area it applies to. Must suck when your only argument is *THAT* lame. QuoteI realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover. Indeed, I'm sure you shall. Oh, the mnealtx 4th grade "rubber/glue" debating tactic again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #141 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. Wrong again. This doesn't disprove the claim, it merely limits the area it applies to. Must suck when your only argument is *THAT* lame. QuoteI realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover. Indeed, I'm sure you shall. Oh, the mnealtx 4th grade "rubber/glue" debating tactic again. A perfectly reasonable response to the kallend 4th grade science debate logic.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #142 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYour claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. Wrong again. This doesn't disprove the claim, it merely limits the area it applies to. Must suck when your only argument is *THAT* lame. QuoteI realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover. Indeed, I'm sure you shall. Oh, the mnealtx 4th grade "rubber/glue" debating tactic again. A perfectly reasonable response to the kallend 4th grade science debate logic. Why don't you write to the editor of "Nature" and tell him he's publishing 4th grade science. Be sure to give your own science credentials so you have some credibility.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #143 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYour claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. Wrong again. This doesn't disprove the claim, it merely limits the area it applies to. Must suck when your only argument is *THAT* lame. QuoteI realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover. Indeed, I'm sure you shall. Oh, the mnealtx 4th grade "rubber/glue" debating tactic again. A perfectly reasonable response to the kallend 4th grade science debate logic. Why don't you write to the editor of "Nature" and tell him he's publishing 4th grade science. Be sure to give your own science credentials so you have some credibility. I must have missed where I said the article was 4th grade science vs. your debate logic. Reading really *IS* fundamental.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #144 April 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYour claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. Wrong again. This doesn't disprove the claim, it merely limits the area it applies to. Must suck when your only argument is *THAT* lame. QuoteI realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover. Indeed, I'm sure you shall. Oh, the mnealtx 4th grade "rubber/glue" debating tactic again. A perfectly reasonable response to the kallend 4th grade science debate logic. Why don't you write to the editor of "Nature" and tell him he's publishing 4th grade science. Be sure to give your own science credentials so you have some credibility. I must have missed where I said the article was 4th grade science vs. your debate logic. Reading really *IS* fundamental. Don't like it now that one of your "denier" positions has been demolished, do you? You've been telling us for years that CO2 lagged warming. That is now shown to be false.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #145 April 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYour claims for the past several years have been shown to be incorrect. Wrong again. This doesn't disprove the claim, it merely limits the area it applies to. Must suck when your only argument is *THAT* lame. QuoteI realize how much this must gall you, but you'll recover. Indeed, I'm sure you shall. Oh, the mnealtx 4th grade "rubber/glue" debating tactic again. A perfectly reasonable response to the kallend 4th grade science debate logic. Why don't you write to the editor of "Nature" and tell him he's publishing 4th grade science. Be sure to give your own science credentials so you have some credibility. I must have missed where I said the article was 4th grade science vs. your debate logic. Reading really *IS* fundamental. Don't like it now that one of your "denier" positions has been demolished, do you? You've been telling us for years that CO2 lagged warming. That is now shown to be false. How so? Where does it say what you say it does here sir? The warming was being caused by the wobble It says that CO2 accelerated the heating associated with the heat increase caused by the wobble So it indicates to me that CO2 increases were because of the heating? It looks to me like you are reading something into this that it does not say And you talk about fundamentals ......fundamentals of an agenda maybe Oh, and I am not saying it says anything one way or the other But you are"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #146 April 6, 2012 You read it incorrectly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #147 April 6, 2012 Quote You read it incorrectly. Ok Show me where it indicates that CO2 increases lead the heat increase. I am giving you the teachable moment any teacher should look forward to"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #148 April 6, 2012 QuoteQuote You read it incorrectly. Ok Show me where it indicates that CO2 increases lead the heat increase. I am giving you the teachable moment any teacher should look forward to It is clearly articulated in the original article in Nature, previously cited.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #149 April 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote You read it incorrectly. Ok Show me where it indicates that CO2 increases lead the heat increase. I am giving you the teachable moment any teacher should look forward to It is clearly articulated in the original article in Nature, previously cited. Ok I was looking at the quoted part where a section was bolded So, we have confliting ideas Good It is still not settled Which is what I have been saying all along (why, because there are other ice studies that say the oposite, which is correct?) BTW, I had not looked at the article until your last post. I assumed that the quote was from that arctice. It was not. My bad"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #150 April 6, 2012 "It is still not settled" One last time. Nothing in science is ever settled. Indeed, almost every scientist makes his or her living challenging what others have already agreed upon. There are scientist who carry bias into their work, but when done correctly the scientific method eliminates these bias. Put another way, science doesn't give us absolute truths. The ptolemaic method could (2000 some years ago) produce observations equal to the Copernican model, no one today holds these models as equal because additional information vetted using the scientific method produced evidence that heliocentrism matches reality more closely than geocentrism. This does not imply heliocentrism is an absolute truth of reality. Many scientist engage in pseudo-science on both sides of the issue. That has no bearing on the lines of evidence which support an understanding of warming as anthropomorphic. So while the science isn't settled the evidence points towards a consequence to our actions as opposed to just blaming it on the sun spinning around us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
