Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[lomiller]

mhaze you are not being ridiculed based on some fantasy rules no one but you has ever heard of let alone practiced, you are being ridiculed because you are posting on a skeptic forum claiming that some random opinion you found on the internet overrides all the peer reviewed science.

 

[lomiller]

However, if you take a look at the plot between 0 and 8k years BP,

FYI the second graph isn’t a reconstruction of global temperatures, those are specific locations and the black line is the average of those location. Given the small number of locals, it’s likely not a particularly good representation for global temperate, though it’s probably the best available at this point. The article in question was specific to the last 2000 years, a period for which there is much better proxy evidence.

 

[mhaze]

mhaze you are not being ridiculed based on some fantasy rules no one but you has ever heard of let alone practiced, you are being ridiculed because you are posting on a skeptic forum claiming that some random opinion you found on the internet overrides all the peer reviewed science.

But I'm prepared to defend the assertion:

Unfortunately, the paper's calibration of the proxy composite is defective. The 23 proxies used include lake varve thicknesses, varve densities, varve and sediment organic material (OM), sediment biosilica, ice core 18O depletions, and tree ring widths, and are all from different locations. There is no a priori reason to expect these very diverse proxies to all have the same behavior with respect to temperature, even when normalized. Because not all the proxies are available in each decade, the composite does not have constant composition. As its composition changes, it essentially becomes a different index, which must be calibrated separately to temperature. The authors fail to do this, and hence the reconstruction is invalid.

​

And I believe that if you will not argue based on the facts, you self define as an intellectual coward.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

But I'm prepared to defend the assertion:

Unfortunately, the paper's calibration of the proxy composite is defective. The 23 proxies used include lake varve thicknesses, varve densities, varve and sediment organic material (OM), sediment biosilica, ice core 18O depletions, and tree ring widths, and are all from different locations. There is no a priori reason to expect these very diverse proxies to all have the same behavior with respect to temperature, even when normalized. Because not all the proxies are available in each decade, the composite does not have constant composition. As its composition changes, it essentially becomes a different index, which must be calibrated separately to temperature. The authors fail to do this, and hence the reconstruction is invalid.

​

And I believe that if you will not argue based on the facts, you self define as an intellectual coward.

By quoting an economics professor?

 

[lomiller]

By quoting an economics professor?

exactly

 

[GreyICE]

In a similar thread years ago, I pointed out that "carbon sequestration" was one possible way to deal with "too much C02".

Me: Interestingly, a decent amount of said sequestration could be done by letting yard waste into non-biodegrading landfills. [This slaps in the face the "environmentalist" political correctness that we need to compost, compost, compost! For the environment! And the laws everywhere that outlaw yard waste in landfills.]


Of course, they had a ready response: "Well, C02 really isn't very important as a global warming gas."

Since that's the Official Line of environmentalism, I hereby dismiss this thread as pointless.

I'd just like to point out something. This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a global warming thread, and given that Mhaze and co once tried to argue that the effects of Global Warming would not occur because of an assumption of constant global temperature that's pretty impressive.

You once anecdotally pointed out in an unlinked thread that you could carbon sequester by not composting yard waste. You're pretty sure that people said that that wasn't a big deal because CO2 wasn't significant (maybe they said the amount you'd reduce wasn't significant? At 6 billion tons of carbon released annually, I can see why your method might not reduce much). You then think that because some people on an internet forum said something, that's the Official Line of environmentalism, and thus you're right in dismissing it.

This is the most intensely stupid thing I have read in a good long time. Can you please end posts like this with a gnome smiley?

 

[mhaze]

By quoting an economics professor?

Nope. By bringing the base datasets in and examining them.

And I've challenged you to either discuss the merits of the issue based on the facts, or self define as an intellectual coward.

 

[lomiller]

You made the claim, you are the only one under the gun here.

 

[Wangler]

I dunno, Mhaze, they do have an air-tight counter argument.

 

[mhaze]

Which is what? That the correctness of scientific method in a published article cannot be discussed, and conclusions made on it, using logic, by mere mortals?

Apparently.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Would you call it "weather amplification of all kinds" if Georgia's epic drought is followed nearly immediately by an epic deluge? And check out that jet stream today with that stagnant closed low trapped in the midwest a function of a near stagnant mega amplified high covering the entire western US. And fall has just begun. If this was winter with the same pattern many feet of snow would be falling somewhere in the midwest due to weather system stagnation

 

[Tumbleweed]

Its not "the warmest since xxxx in Australia" or "the coldest summer since xxxx in NY" that perks my interest. It's the widely swinging pendulum that does, from one extreme to a linked another extreme. Record hot now seems linked quite quickly to record cold, record drought with record rain, right on the heels of one another. And that is exactly what an amplified low- linked -to -high jet stream would do. Record snows and record cold followed by record heat in certain cities like Denver will be the clincher for me as far as weather amplification being the result of global warming

 

[McHrozni]

Its not "the warmest since xxxx in Australia" or "the coldest summer since xxxx in NY" that perks my interest. It's the widely swinging pendulum that does, from one extreme to a linked another extreme. Record hot now seems linked quite quickly to record cold, record drought with record rain, right on the heels of one another. And that is exactly what an amplified low- linked -to -high jet stream would do. Record snows and record cold followed by record heat in certain cities like Denver will be the clincher for me as far as weather amplification being the result of global warming

The thing you should always keep in mind is that all these extremes are "since the records began", in most cases accurate records are only available for the past 150 years, if that much. On the global scale, this is pretty insignificant, seeing as climate shifts are constant and often taking millenia.

There is at least some evidence that the climate has been unusually stable for the past 5000 years or so. If that is accurate, new extremes mean very little indeed.

Note: I won't dispute that humans are altering climate, potentially in a disasterus way. However, not everything vaugely pointing to it is indeed evidence for it.

McHrozni

 

[mhaze]

.... Record snows and record cold followed by record heat in certain cities like Denver will be the clincher for me as far as weather amplification being the result of global warming

That would be ridiculously wrong. But go ahead, I won't stop you.

 

[Tumbleweed]

The thing you should always keep in mind is that all these extremes are "since the records began", in most cases accurate records are only available for the past 150 years, if that much. On the global scale, this is pretty insignificant, seeing as climate shifts are constant and often taking millenia.

There is at least some evidence that the climate has been unusually stable for the past 5000 years or so. If that is accurate, new extremes mean very little indeed.

Note: I won't dispute that humans are altering climate, potentially in a disasterus way. However, not everything vaugely pointing to it is indeed evidence for it.

McHrozni

I have to disagree. I think 150 years worth of records is more than enough data to show changes in climate. Did not the "little ice age" occur quite rapidly and not over millennia? The Weather Nut Monks could have said the same thing. "Yeah its been kinda nice the last thousand years, but today it snowed in July. But hey it means nothing "long term" even if the crops do fail."

 

[Tumbleweed]

The thing you should always keep in mind is that all these extremes are "since the records began", in most cases accurate records are only available for the past 150 years, if that much. On the global scale, this is pretty insignificant, seeing as climate shifts are constant and often taking millenia.

There is at least some evidence that the climate has been unusually stable for the past 5000 years or so. If that is accurate, new extremes mean very little indeed.

Note: I won't dispute that humans are altering climate, potentially in a disasterus way. However, not everything vaugely pointing to it is indeed evidence for it.

McHrozni

The problem with the global warming naysayers is that we have to wait 5000 years to prove them wrong. ANYTHING that happens between now and then will just be dismissed as a "quirk" by them. How can you possibly expect to make points in an argument with them given that base

 

[Tumbleweed]

I seldom see reference to soot as a climate changer. We systemically are injecting an enormous amount of it daily into the atmosphere via 10000 flights in the US alone. Add to that the Asian Brown Cloud that has been apparent on satellites for a decade or more now. True the stuff rapidly falls to earth and is not cumulative enough to filter sunlight enough to counter the greenhouse gases, but would that not drastically increase rainfall amounts? Is that not what the evidence shows is happening? And since a lot of it ends up dumped in the polar regions would not soot on ice rapidly add to to its melt rate along with atmospheric warming? And the soot IS cumlative . It just sits there on the ice, exposed and added to every summer.

 

[BenBurch]

Soot and dust are not only cumulative, in a melt they collect at the surface to form a low albedo crust. You can see this in urban snow piles.

 

[macdoc]

Soot has a very weird set of effects depending on where it is.....much to sort out...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/b...st.cfm?id=soot-solution-new-stoves-2009-04-16

http://www.scidev.net/en/features/climate-salvation-from-low-soot-stoves-.html

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/9-the-easiest-way-to-fight-global-warming

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.html

China is building millions of higher efficiency stoves for the poor to get out of the soot racket.

•••

There is at least some evidence that the climate has been unusually stable for the past 5000 years or so. If that is accurate, new extremes mean very little indeed.

The Holocene has been +/- 2c

That is NOT where we are heading

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

 

[DogB]

Soot and dust are not only cumulative...

Speaking of dust.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26113759-952,00.html

Worst I ever seen. Visibility in the western subusrbs is down to maybe 200m. Weird orange sky.

Almost make you believe in gobal warming.