Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?

GasGuzzler wrote:
What seems obvious to me is that CO2 doesn't seem to have much, if any effect. I am interested in learning Mr. Sunspot, and I would like to know how the huge gap in temp and CO2 is explained. It's a simple question and for someone like yourself it should be easy. After all it's the biggest temp/CO2 spread in the earths history.....

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What seems obvious to me is that CO2 doesn't seem to have much, if any effect. I am interested in learning Mr. Sunspot, and I would like to know how the huge gap in temp and CO2 is explained. It's a simple question and for someone like yourself it should be easy. After all it's the biggest temp/CO2 spread in the earths history.....

Why are you posting in a troll infested barely moderated talk board then, why not read a book?

spot wrote:
Yep you have me there because it is not a 15C degrees instant reaction to an increase in CO2 it proves the whole theory wrong. Why did we even listen to the pencil headed scientists?

Surface Detail wrote:
It's like the thermostat in your house. If you turn the thermostat up and down slowly, the temperature in the house will match quite closely, but if you suddenly turn it right up, it'll take a while for the temperature to catch up.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It's like the thermostat in your house. If you turn the thermostat up and down slowly, the temperature in the house will match quite closely, but if you suddenly turn it right up, it'll take a while for the temperature to catch up.

So if I'm reading the chart correctly, the "thermostat" was turned on ~15000 years ago, and has been "set" at a higher level every year, starting a 180 and going over 400. Is 15000 years not long enough?

If it's like my house thermostat, if it is set at 75 and starts from 35 degrees, there will be no 1-2 hour pause pause in warming. Yes, a big jump will take longer, But if my heat source is constant, so is my temp rise.

Surface Detail wrote:
[Is 15000 years not long enough?

If it's like my house thermostat, if it is set at 75 and starts from 35 degrees, there will be no 1-2 hour pause pause in warming. Yes, a big jump will take longer, But if my heat source is constant, so is my temp rise.
The scale of the chart is too large to see the details, but it's more like this:

The thermostat was gradually turned up from 180 at 15000 years ago to 280 at about 10000 years ago, so up 100 over 5000 years and slow enough for the temperature to keep up.

It then remained at 280 until about 150 years ago, so very little temperature change.

Then, over the last 150 years ago, it was suddenly wound up to 400. So there we have a change of 120 in just 150 years. This is 40 times as fast as the earlier, natural change, and is too fast for the temperature to keep up. Give it a few hundred years or so, though, and catch up it will.

Surface Detail wrote:
The answer is quite simple: It's because of thermal inertia, primarily due to the oceans. The Earth just hasn't had time to warm up yet, though we're seeing the beginning. The recent increase in CO2 due to human emissions has happened in just 150 years - a geological instant - while previous, natural rises happened over a few thousand years.

It's like the thermostat in your house. If you turn the thermostat up and down slowly, the temperature in the house will match quite closely, but if you suddenly turn it right up, it'll take a while for the temperature to catch up.

GasGuzzler wrote:
2 questions,

How do you explain the temp rise lagging so far behind the CO2?

Why has Earth been unable to achieve the high temps it reached in the previous natural cycles in the current rising cycle we are in?

[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Didn't I just answer these questions?

We've just wound the CO2 up high in the blink of an eye in geological terms. The temperature has started to rise, but there's a lot of land and, especially, water to heat up, and that takes time. The Earth will reach and easily exceed the high temperatures of previous natural cycles, but not for a few decades yet. You don't expect a kettle to boil instantaneously when you switch on the power!

Wake wrote:

[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Didn't I just answer these questions?

We've just wound the CO2 up high in the blink of an eye in geological terms. The temperature has started to rise, but there's a lot of land and, especially, water to heat up, and that takes time. The Earth will reach and easily exceed the high temperatures of previous natural cycles, but not for a few decades yet. You don't expect a kettle to boil instantaneously when you switch on the power!

you didn't answer squat. During the last 1,000 years we have had both the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum shortly after the Medieval Warm period and our present warm period that is stalled a long way below our previous warm period. Your CO2 does seem up to the job.

[b]Surface Detail wrote: Stalled? The global average temperature has increased by 1 C in less than 100 years. This is absolutely rocketing in geological terms! Remember, it took over 5,000 years for the Earth to warm naturally by about 6 C degrees at the start of the current interglacial period.

GasGuzzler wrote:
If you look at this the current warming it a major disappointment, falling well short of expectations. I do hope the CO2 works. Hate cold weather.

Seriously, how can you look at any warming of 1 degree at this blink in history and say it's man made? Why is it not 2 degrees warmer right now?

[img][/img]

GasGuzzler wrote:
If you look at this the current warming it a major disappointment, falling well short of expectations. I do hope the CO2 works. Hate cold weather.

Seriously, how can you look at any warming of 1 degree at this blink in history and say it's man made? Why is it not 2 degrees warmer right now?

GasGuzzler wrote:

What???!!!!

The whole thing is just a theory?

Wake wrote:

The Medieval Warm Period STARTED at a warmer time, Climbed to a higher level and all with lower CO2 which is WHAT you have been suggesting is the cause of all of this.

[b]spot wrote: I don't think that is true, but taking you serous for a second, you seem sure of this. How do you know all this?

Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.

The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.

The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.

In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.

The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.

In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.

The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.

In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?

If you look at my chart you can see it stops in the mid 1800s when the industrial revolution was well underway, I believe we have had this discussion before, do you expect to ask the same question and get a different answer?

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.

The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.

In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?

If you look at my chart you can see it stops in the mid 1800s when the industrial revolution was well underway, I believe we have had this discussion before, do you expect to ask the same question and get a different answer?

In case there was some sort of misunderstanding I used your HTTP address and indeed it's the same chart - it STARTS at the year 0. It contains 9 different methods of identifying the atmospheric using 9 different METHODS. and it shows that four of the nine methods present the atmospheric temperature as heating since the little ice Age. It is even MARKED "Little Ice Age".

[b]Surface Detail wrote: CO2 was not at 200 ppm in the LIA. It was at its pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm.

Up until the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 had remained within about 10 ppm of 280 ppm for the previous 10,000 years or so, that is, throughout the current interglacial period. Before that, CO2 had dropped as low as 180 ppm in the depths of the ice age.

GasGuzzler wrote:
A very interesting closer look at the last 10,000 years....Greenland ice sheet summit[img][/img]

spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.

THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.

THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.

There is an almost complete identification with the ingroup(Watson, 1974)..... Socialization further reinforces out-group hostility as it is often rewarded within the in-group(Watson, 1974). In this group emotions spread quickly, as if contagious. The ingroup membership brings with it a feeling of superiority and security. A common goal focuses all of this energy, hence the irrationality and often aggression of such groups(McDougall, 1920).

Diane Kohl, examination of Nazis