Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Existing data shows atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 2000 PPM during the Jurasic period where we know life existed on the planet, and as high as 7000 PPM during the Cambrian period. Where is this balance you speak of Sir?
NOAA is under investigation for data manipulation and is well known from the climate emails as being politically motivated.
What next? Going to show me Hansen and Mann's work as proof?
If you think all scientific studies on the issue are all a hoax and nothing more than lies deceit and akin to fake news then thats your viewpoint and theres nothing i can show you other than the data NASA and NOAA are putting out thats ever going to change your mind making further conversation on the issue rather pointless.
If you think all scientific studies on the issue are all a hoax and nothing more than lies deceit and akin to fake news then thats your viewpoint and theres nothing i can show you other than the data NASA and NOAA are putting out thats ever going to change your mind making further conversation on the issue rather pointless.
Hardly. The fact is, the NOAA/NASA have been caught with their pants down many times. The climategate emails showed them to be politically motivated to promote activism, not science. Also, they don't post the details of their research, they provide summaries, and refuse to release their methodology in many of the claims they make.
You linking to them is just asking me to appeal to authority.
Go ahead, post a dataset like GISS for instance, then... be sure to post their homogenization process, how they weight the stations exactly? Whats that? They don't provide that information you say? well... maybe we could FOIA them right? Oh wait... they refuse to respond to such legitimate requests, so what do we do now? Oh I get it, appeal to authority.
This is the problem with all of these government agencies. They do not post their work, they merely post the summaries and results and proclaim to the world they are right.
Don't be lazy. I'm not going to spoon feed everything to you, just to have you claim the source isn't up to your standards or that you have some other source that says >THIS<, which is different from my sources.
Your refusal to accept what science has shown and taught, and is still showing and teaching clearly demonstrates your willingness to politicize this issue, demanding the religious dogma spewed by people shown to have fabricated data and conspired to cover it up in order to get the results they have proves you don't believe in actual science.
AGW is your religion. It certainly isn't science when the AGW crowd has to resort to these tactics to write reports which will be used to drive public policy, which was exactly what the Karl paper did.
If you think all scientific studies on the issue are all a hoax and nothing more than lies deceit and akin to fake news then thats your viewpoint and theres nothing i can show you other than the data NASA and NOAA are putting out thats ever going to change your mind making further conversation on the issue rather pointless.
When the data sets NASA and NOAA compiled do not reflect the data given to them, data that can be verified via each weather recording station archive, the data sets used by NASA and NOAA are worthless.
Don't be lazy. I'm not going to spoon feed everything to you, just to have you claim the source isn't up to your standards or that you have some other source that says >THIS<, which is different from my sources.
Your refusal to accept what science has shown and taught, and is still showing and teaching clearly demonstrates your willingness to politicize this issue, demanding the religious dogma spewed by people shown to have fabricated data and conspired to cover it up in order to get the results they have proves you don't believe in actual science.
AGW is your religion. It certainly isn't science when the AGW crowd has to resort to these tactics to write reports which will be used to drive public policy, which was exactly what the Karl paper did.
I am no lazy, I just wanted to see if you actually have a knowledge base of the subject matter. Which it appears you do not. The 4000/700 ppmv number is from blogger Ian McClintock who got that number from a model called the GEOCARB, which is used to model the movement of carbon sinks and sources.
So just to be clear you are using a computer simulation as "evidence", therefore you are accepting the validity as climate models as a tool. Now a word about models. Climate models are tools, similar to hammers, drills, whatever. Like tools, they are designed for a specific use i.e atmospheric forcing, albedo feedback, specific eras in paleoclimatology, etc. the same way a hammer and a screwdriver have a specific use. They can also be used incorrectly aka outside their parameters, the same way you can flip a screwdriver around and try to bang in some nails, with similar, crappy results.
Now, back to GEOCARB. The most important aspect, is that this model is set to 10,000,000 year time scales. The Milankovitch cycles (periods of glaciation and waring) are on the 100K year cycle. That is 3 orders of magnitude different. The issue of scale is so large it would be similar to using a telescope to look for bacteria. It is too big to see things 3 orders of magnitude smaller.
Second, GEOCARB is not meant to model short team CO2 values on the order of Milankovitch cycles as stated in the paper McClintock originally cited.
"This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary,late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to
the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the
standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification.
Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is
indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the
atmospheric greenhouse effect." Berner.
When you combine that with the fact that we know the late Ordovician glaciation was unique in its briefness (it was less than 1 million years) and many other lines of evidence suggest there was a geologically brief decline in atmospheric CO2, that since it lasted less than the 10 millions year step of the GEOCARB, it wouldn't even be seen, that allowed a geologically brief period of glaciation.
So basically no, the likeihood of a high amount of atmospheric CO2 on either side of a glaciation is not really unexpected.
Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z. 2001: Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over
Phanerozoic time. American Journal of Science 301: 182-204
Brenchley, P.J.; J. D. (1994). "Bathymetric and isotopic evidence for a short-lived Late Ordovician glaciation in a greenhouse period". Geology. 22: 295–298
Don't be lazy. I'm not going to spoon feed everything to you, just to have you claim the source isn't up to your standards or that you have some other source that says >THIS<, which is different from my sources.
Your refusal to accept what science has shown and taught, and is still showing and teaching clearly demonstrates your willingness to politicize this issue, demanding the religious dogma spewed by people shown to have fabricated data and conspired to cover it up in order to get the results they have proves you don't believe in actual science.
AGW is your religion. It certainly isn't science when the AGW crowd has to resort to these tactics to write reports which will be used to drive public policy, which was exactly what the Karl paper did.
Good work, now move on and let them stew.
I have watched many arguments on these forums over the last 10 years and one thing is certain, they will NEVER see reason no matter how many facts you give them, no matter how hard you push them into the corner with their false statements. Look back on this topic over the last decade, many have set a lot of these jokers straight numerous times, but they just run off.. wait and come back. It wouldn't matter if you pulled out the raw data and showed how they manipulated things. It wouldn't matter if you showed them the climategate emails like the harryreadme files where the database programmer was going off on how these guys were full of crap, how they were making up crap and didn't make sense.
Fact is, it doesn't matter what you provide as some are paid posters and the rest are idiot sheep.
It is time to move on and let them go into back patting mode about how cool they are, how smart they are and how we are just stupid people who don't know the real truth about saving the planet.
What is that old saying?
"Do not argue with a fool lest you be mistaken for one".
I have watched many arguments on these forums over the last 10 years and one thing is certain, they will NEVER see reason no matter how many facts you give them, no matter how hard you push them into the corner with their false statements. Look back on this topic over the last decade, many have set a lot of these jokers straight numerous times, but they just run off.. wait and come back. It wouldn't matter if you pulled out the raw data and showed how they manipulated things. It wouldn't matter if you showed them the climategate emails like the harryreadme files where the database programmer was going off on how these guys were full of crap, how they were making up crap and didn't make sense.
Fact is, it doesn't matter what you provide as some are paid posters and the rest are idiot sheep.
It is time to move on and let them go into back patting mode about how cool they are, how smart they are and how we are just stupid people who don't know the real truth about saving the planet.
What is that old saying?
"Do not argue with a fool lest you be mistaken for one".
I have watched many arguments on these forums over the last 10 years and one thing is certain, they will NEVER see reason no matter how many facts you give them, no matter how hard you push them into the corner with their false statements. Look back on this topic over the last decade, many have set a lot of these jokers straight numerous times, but they just run off.. wait and come back. It wouldn't matter if you pulled out the raw data and showed how they manipulated things. It wouldn't matter if you showed them the climategate emails like the harryreadme files where the database programmer was going off on how these guys were full of crap, how they were making up crap and didn't make sense.
Fact is, it doesn't matter what you provide as some are paid posters and the rest are idiot sheep.
It is time to move on and let them go into back patting mode about how cool they are, how smart they are and how we are just stupid people who don't know the real truth about saving the planet.
What is that old saying?
"Do not argue with a fool lest you be mistaken for one".
Time to move on my friend.
Paid posters now?
Anyway, this post boils down to the fact that neither of you can refute the science in my post, so you "give up". Got it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
