| Highest CO2 in thousands of years?01-03-2017 22:31 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years. |
| 01-03-2017 23:05 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14404) |
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
Obviously they are speculating. The big question is whether or not you buy what they are peddling.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 02-03-2017 00:07 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2! |
| 02-03-2017 00:08 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
Obviously they are speculating. The big question is whether or not you buy what they are peddling.
Are you willing to take one data set over the other when the first that has been widely used to calculate CO2 levels in the past is shown to have been flawed because the initial writer decided that he didn't want to correct two data sets from other areas to his proper levels because then they wouldn't match the earlier data sets that everyone was using as a reference?
Using the identical method that the second writer used for a THIRD data set on the original two data sets showed this rather remarkable change.
I should have noted the peer reviewed study but I didn't and it was very difficult to find in the first place. |
| 02-03-2017 00:23 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell. |
|
| 02-03-2017 00:43 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell.
The paper doesn't mention CO2. It's not about CO2. |
| 02-03-2017 00:44 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell.
The paper doesn't mention CO2. It's not about CO2.
OK, you understand tree ring research perfectly well so it's whatever you say it is. |
| 05-03-2017 04:56 |
Ceist★★★☆☆
(592) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell.
The paper doesn't mention CO2. It's not about CO2.
OK, you understand tree ring research perfectly well so it's whatever you say it is.
What 'paper' are you referring to? You linked to a blog opinion post by Steve McIntyre discussing the Cook et al 2000 paper on Tasmanian Huon Pine tree rings. Tree rings are used as a proxy for temperature, not CO2.
Your link didn't show any 'paper' on past CO2 levels. Did you post the wrong link?
Edited on 05-03-2017 04:59 |
| 05-03-2017 05:10 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell.
The paper doesn't mention CO2. It's not about CO2.
OK, you understand tree ring research perfectly well so it's whatever you say it is.
What 'paper' are you referring to? You linked to a blog opinion post by Steve McIntyre discussing the Cook et al 2000 paper on Tasmanian Huon Pine tree rings. Tree rings are used as a proxy for temperature, not CO2.
Your link didn't show any 'paper' on past CO2 levels. Did you post the wrong link?
Exactly where are you coming from. Dendrochronology can be used as a proxy for many things. The MOST important is the total amount of wood growth over a wide area reveals sufficient water, sufficient sunlight and most important ENOUGH CO2 to allow growth.
Exactly HOW do you think that trees and other plants utilize CO2? |
| 05-03-2017 05:28 |
Ceist★★★☆☆
(592) |
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell.
The paper doesn't mention CO2. It's not about CO2.
OK, you understand tree ring research perfectly well so it's whatever you say it is.
What 'paper' are you referring to? You linked to a blog opinion post by Steve McIntyre discussing the Cook et al 2000 paper on Tasmanian Huon Pine tree rings. Tree rings are used as a proxy for temperature, not CO2.
Your link didn't show any 'paper' on past CO2 levels. Did you post the wrong link?
Exactly where are you coming from. Dendrochronology can be used as a proxy for many things. The MOST important is the total amount of wood growth over a wide area reveals sufficient water, sufficient sunlight and most important ENOUGH CO2 to allow growth.
Exactly HOW do you think that trees and other plants utilize CO2?
You did not link to a 'paper' you linked to a blog post.
There is nothing about using tree rings as a proxy to measure past CO2 levels in the blog post you linked to.
There is nothing about using tree rings as a proxy to measure past CO2 levels in the Cook et al 2000 paper McIntyre was discussing.
There is nothing in that blog post that "infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years" as you claim.
You're just making shit up.
Edited on 05-03-2017 05:34 |
| 05-03-2017 05:55 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell.
The paper doesn't mention CO2. It's not about CO2.
OK, you understand tree ring research perfectly well so it's whatever you say it is.
What 'paper' are you referring to? You linked to a blog opinion post by Steve McIntyre discussing the Cook et al 2000 paper on Tasmanian Huon Pine tree rings. Tree rings are used as a proxy for temperature, not CO2.
Your link didn't show any 'paper' on past CO2 levels. Did you post the wrong link?
Exactly where are you coming from. Dendrochronology can be used as a proxy for many things. The MOST important is the total amount of wood growth over a wide area reveals sufficient water, sufficient sunlight and most important ENOUGH CO2 to allow growth.
Exactly HOW do you think that trees and other plants utilize CO2?
You did not link to a 'paper' you linked to a blog post.
There is nothing about using tree rings as a proxy to measure past CO2 levels in the blog post you linked to.
There is nothing about using tree rings as a proxy to measure past CO2 levels in the Cook et al 2000 paper McIntyre was discussing.
There is nothing in that blog post that "infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years" as you claim.
You're just making shit up.
In case you didn't bother to read that it referenced A PAPER. If you had the slightest ability to READ you could look at the REFERENCES at the bottom of that paper.
Are you all there? And you needn't give me any credentials since you have just shown them.
Edited on 05-03-2017 05:58 |
| 05-03-2017 06:15 |
Ceist★★★☆☆
(592) |
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I was talking yesterday about the possible defects in means of measuring CO2 as it varied over the years and how it was estimated before that. Here is a paper:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805
If you read this carefully to the end it actually infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years.
How do you work that out? It doesn't even mention CO2!
If you DO NOT understand the paper, what it means and how it is used please do not expect me to hold your hand. You are the one criticizing everything that you can't even spell.
The paper doesn't mention CO2. It's not about CO2.
OK, you understand tree ring research perfectly well so it's whatever you say it is.
What 'paper' are you referring to? You linked to a blog opinion post by Steve McIntyre discussing the Cook et al 2000 paper on Tasmanian Huon Pine tree rings. Tree rings are used as a proxy for temperature, not CO2.
Your link didn't show any 'paper' on past CO2 levels. Did you post the wrong link?
Exactly where are you coming from. Dendrochronology can be used as a proxy for many things. The MOST important is the total amount of wood growth over a wide area reveals sufficient water, sufficient sunlight and most important ENOUGH CO2 to allow growth.
Exactly HOW do you think that trees and other plants utilize CO2?
You did not link to a 'paper' you linked to a blog post.
There is nothing about using tree rings as a proxy to measure past CO2 levels in the blog post you linked to.
There is nothing about using tree rings as a proxy to measure past CO2 levels in the Cook et al 2000 paper McIntyre was discussing.
There is nothing in that blog post that "infers that the CO2 has been higher than today at lead twice in the last 2000 years" as you claim.
You're just making shit up.
In case you didn't bother to read that it referenced A PAPER. If you had the slightest ability to READ you could look at the REFERENCES at the bottom of that paper.
Are you all there? And you needn't give me any credentials since you have just shown them.
Yes the blog post you linked to was discussing the Cook at al 2000 paper- which I mentioned in my post (see bolded) oh dopey one. I also took the time to read the Cook et al 2000 paper (as well as the Gergis 2016 paper and the Allen at al 2014 paper) - which is one reason I knew you were just making shit up about that blog post you linked to and the paper it was discussing.
You obviously didn't bother to read the Cook et al paper or the blog discussion or any of the 4 papers referenced at the bottom of the post.
Here's a copy of the Cook et al 2000 paper that you didn't bother to read:
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
LIke I said -You're just making shit up.
Edited on 05-03-2017 06:33 |
| 05-03-2017 12:19 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Wake;
Whilst it may well be that CO2 and temperature will show similar effects on tree growth the papers you are talking about, and all the climate papers otherwise, will use the idea that it was temperature.
This is reasonable because there is nothing to suggest a mechanism which would have loads of CO2 going into the air other than burning stuff.
It is also backed up by the real way we measure CO2 levels of the past using the ice core data. This uses air pockets traped in the ice since it fell as snow. A good measure but tends to smooth out peaks etc.
Edited on 05-03-2017 12:19 |
| 05-03-2017 18:47 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake;
Whilst it may well be that temperature will show similar effects on tree growth the papers you are talking about, and all the climate papers otherwise, will use the idea that it was temperature.
This is reasonable because there is nothing to suggest a mechanism which would have loads of CO2 going into the air other than burning stuff.
It is also backed up by the real way we measure CO2 levels of the past using the ice core data. This uses air pockets trapped in the ice since it fell as snow. A good measure but tends to smooth out peaks etc.
The oceans hold CO2 in solution at or near maximum concentration. This was a leftover from the original atmosphere being some 40% CO2.
This means that in cold periods it can absorb more CO2 and in warm periods it exudes CO2 out of solution. So during warm periods the CO2 concentration can go up remarkably. Now burning forests from lightning etc. can cause local increases in CO2 but over very wide areas it suggests that the CO2 came from other sources such as warm periods venting CO2 into the atmosphere.
When you can calculate extraordinary amounts of timber growth over a very wide area indeed it DOES show an increase in temperature - but indirectly through the rapid increases in CO2.
New Zealand being a large island is most susceptible to demonstrating this effect in full force. And the corrections to the data bases show just what we have been suspicious about - supposedly low CO2 levels and yet rather massive amounts of timber growth over a wide area.
And other papers claimed by Ceist to be garbage science just happen to show similar results.
Well gosh, these VERY large percentages of CO2 (as high as 600 ppm?) have been shown via DIRECT chemical analysis in the northern hemisphere. Now where would you expect CO2 to spike? In the northern hemisphere where the continents offer much larger area of heat absorption and emission or in the Antarctic area where there is little to no sources of CO2 beyond long distance mixing of the atmosphere?
Further evidence of the power of this warming from large land massed is the position of the continents during the Permian through the Cretaceous. http://www.livescience.com/29231-cretaceous-period.html
As you can see - there have been many theories about what caused the Cretaceous extinction events but the evidence for a cooling event due to the motions of the continents would appear to be likely coupled with the bolide strike that is the present main theory. This strike, if strong enough, could have accelerated large seismic separation of these continents and the cooling due to the separating land masses.
The Chicxulub crater is sufficient size and age to have created such motions and cooling both through clouding the atmosphere with dust and greatly accelerated seismic separation of the continents. |
| 05-03-2017 19:00 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
What a load of error filled baffle-gab.
Nobody with "credentials" thinks the K-T asteroid strike caused continents to break up, to suggest that it was the cause is science fiction you muppet.
Edited on 05-03-2017 19:01 |
|
| 05-03-2017 19:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Ceist wrote:
[
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
LIke I said -You're just making shit up.
While you were "reading" that paper (which isn't available at that address) did you happen upon:
"This result has implications in detection and attribution studies of greenhouse gas forcing because it suggests that Austral summer temperatures in this sector of New Zealand have been anomalous during the 20th Century relative
to earlier times"
It is noticeable that the authors of this paper have been contaminated with the idea that it is the gas that caused the temperature when the record clearly shows the temperature increasing before the CO2.
If you are going to hold a scientific discussion it doesn't help your cause with childish rants like "you're lying" or "you're making things up." Of course it is much easier to proclaim victory while laying on the floor with an arrow through your heart. |
| 05-03-2017 22:38 |
Ceist★★★☆☆
(592) |
Wake wrote:
[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
[color=blue]Wake;
And other papers claimed by Ceist to be garbage science just happen to show similar results.
.
What papers did I claim were 'garbage science'? You're just making shit up again. This seems to be your modis operandi.
Edited on 05-03-2017 22:39 |
| 05-03-2017 22:46 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
[color=blue]Wake;
And other papers claimed by Ceist to be garbage science just happen to show similar results.
.
What papers did I claim were 'garbage science'? You're just making shit up again. This seems to be your modis operandi.
I am STILL waiting for your credentials to criticize professor Ball. " You're just making shit up" seems to be your response to "what are your credentials". |
| 05-03-2017 22:46 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
[color=blue]Wake;
And other papers claimed by Ceist to be garbage science just happen to show similar results.
.
What papers did I claim were 'garbage science'? You're just making shit up again. This seems to be your modis operandi.
I am STILL waiting for your credentials to criticize professor Ball. " You're just making shit up" seems to be your response to "what are your credentials". |
| 05-03-2017 23:01 |
Ceist★★★☆☆
(592) |
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
LIke I said -You're just making shit up.
While you were "reading" that paper (which isn't available at that address) did you happen upon:
"This result has implications in detection and attribution studies of greenhouse gas forcing because it suggests that Austral summer temperatures in this sector of New Zealand have been anomalous during the 20th Century relative
to earlier times"
Well duh. And a copy the Cook et al 2000 paper discussed on the climateaudit blog you linked to is certainly available at the address I provided. Here it is again:
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
Wake wrote:
It is noticeable that the authors of this paper have been contaminated with the idea that it is the gas that caused the temperature when the record clearly shows the temperature increasing before the CO2.
What 'record clearly shows the temperature increasing before the CO2" in the 20th century? Perhaps you've fallen for the ridiculous junkscience meme that CO2 rise can only follow a temperature rise? Something you read on a junkscience blog?
Wake wrote:
If you are going to hold a scientific discussion it doesn't help your cause with childish rants like "you're lying" or "you're making things up." Of course it is much easier to proclaim victory while laying on the floor with an arrow through your heart.
LOL! If you are going to attempt to hold a 'scientific discussion', how about you try using published literature as a source rather than junkscience blogs and shit assertions you just made up or parroted. At least that way, we can point out to you where you are mindlessly repeating myths and misrepresentations of the science you 'believe' you are 'discussing'?
For example, try reading this paper:
Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., ... & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49-54.
Here's a link to a copy as I doubt you have access to Journals:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun%20et%20al.,%202012,%20Nature.pdf
Or perhaps try reading the Caillon et al 2003 paper where that ridiculous science denier myth of "temp always leads CO2" originally came from. It was from a misrepresentation of this paper.
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J. P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J. M., Kang, J., & Lipenkov, V. Y. (2003). Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299(5613), 1728-1731.
Here's a copy:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/CaillonScience2003.pdf
Edited on 05-03-2017 23:22 |
| 05-03-2017 23:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
LIke I said -You're just making shit up.
While you were "reading" that paper (which isn't available at that address) did you happen upon:
"This result has implications in detection and attribution studies of greenhouse gas forcing because it suggests that Austral summer temperatures in this sector of New Zealand have been anomalous during the 20th Century relative
to earlier times"
Well duh. And the paper is certainly available at the address I provided. Here it is again:
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
Wake wrote:
It is noticeable that the authors of this paper have been contaminated with the idea that it is the gas that caused the temperature when the record clearly shows the temperature increasing before the CO2.
What 'record clearly shows the temperature increasing before the CO2" in the 20th century? Perhaps you've fallen for the ridiculous junkscience meme that CO2 rise can only follow a temperature rise? Something you read on a junkscience blog?
Wake wrote:
If you are going to hold a scientific discussion it doesn't help your cause with childish rants like "you're lying" or "you're making things up." Of course it is much easier to proclaim victory while laying on the floor with an arrow through your heart.
LOL! If you are going to 'attempt' to hold a 'scientific discussion', how about you try using published literature as a source rather than junkscience blogs and shit assertions you just made up or parroted.
For example, try reading this paper:
Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., ... & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49-54.
Here's a link to a copy as I doubt you have access to Journals:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun%20et%20al.,%202012,%20Nature.pdf
Or perhaps try reading the Caillon et al 2003 paper where that science denier myth of "temp leads CO2" originally came from. It was from a misrepresentation of this paper.
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J. P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J. M., Kang, J., & Lipenkov, V. Y. (2003). Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299(5613), 1728-1731.
Here's a copy:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/CaillonScience2003.pdf
Again and again you try this don't you? We KNOW that CO2 is in solution in the oceans at or near maximum. The HEATING of the oceans releases CO2 and the cooling reabsorbs CO2.
But since you haven't any qualifications I don't expect you to do anything more than you have by thrashing about finding anything you can misrepresent as promoting your position just like any jr. high debating club. |
| 05-03-2017 23:26 |
Ceist★★★☆☆
(592) |
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
LIke I said -You're just making shit up.
While you were "reading" that paper (which isn't available at that address) did you happen upon:
"This result has implications in detection and attribution studies of greenhouse gas forcing because it suggests that Austral summer temperatures in this sector of New Zealand have been anomalous during the 20th Century relative
to earlier times"
Well duh. And the paper is certainly available at the address I provided. Here it is again:
ftp://atmosfera.cl/pub/rgarreau/GF600_2011/cook_et_al_2000.pdf
Wake wrote:
It is noticeable that the authors of this paper have been contaminated with the idea that it is the gas that caused the temperature when the record clearly shows the temperature increasing before the CO2.
What 'record clearly shows the temperature increasing before the CO2" in the 20th century? Perhaps you've fallen for the ridiculous junkscience meme that CO2 rise can only follow a temperature rise? Something you read on a junkscience blog?
Wake wrote:
If you are going to hold a scientific discussion it doesn't help your cause with childish rants like "you're lying" or "you're making things up." Of course it is much easier to proclaim victory while laying on the floor with an arrow through your heart.
LOL! If you are going to 'attempt' to hold a 'scientific discussion', how about you try using published literature as a source rather than junkscience blogs and shit assertions you just made up or parroted.
For example, try reading this paper:
Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., ... & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49-54.
Here's a link to a copy as I doubt you have access to Journals:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun%20et%20al.,%202012,%20Nature.pdf
Or perhaps try reading the Caillon et al 2003 paper where that science denier myth of "temp leads CO2" originally came from. It was from a misrepresentation of this paper.
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J. P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J. M., Kang, J., & Lipenkov, V. Y. (2003). Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299(5613), 1728-1731.
Here's a copy:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/CaillonScience2003.pdf
Again and again you try this don't you? We KNOW that CO2 is in solution in the oceans at or near maximum. The HEATING of the oceans releases CO2 and the cooling reabsorbs CO2.
But since you haven't any qualifications I don't expect you to do anything more than you have by thrashing about finding anything you can misrepresent as promoting your position just like any jr. high debating club.
You're deflecting. Didn't read the papers eh? Typical scientifically illiterate science denier > mindlessly parrots rubbish from junkscience blogs, doesn't actually read the actual published papers.
Edited on 05-03-2017 23:27 |
| 05-03-2017 23:43 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Ceist wrote:
You're deflecting. Didn't read the papers eh? Typical scientifically illiterate science denier > mindlessly parrots rubbish from junkscience blogs, doesn't actually read the actual published papers.
We're still waiting for your science credentials. Why are you hesitating and instead calling names? Do you really think that is equal to actually knowing something? |
| 06-03-2017 06:56 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
Wake wrote: We're still waiting for your science credentials.
Meanwhile:
The solar TSI has been languid for many decades & low for 10 years (including a 3+year low setting a 100 year record). Yet, 385+ straight months of temperatures have past, all over the 20th century average. The last 3 years have been successively the hottest years ever recorded. Presently, Arctic sea ice extent has been below 14 million square kilometers, ~ 1.5 million square kilometers LESS than the 1980's. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than that of the 1980's. This is an equivalent cube of ice, 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65,000 feet high, the energy needed to melt it being 33 times the energy consumption of the U.S. All this, while the sun's HEAT.... is low.
Yes, AGW denier liar whiners are parrots..... also..... old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners are vociferous voices for rich men who will NOT reward underlings for being underlings. |