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.
You talk about cherry picking? That's a laugh ... you cherry picked my freaking post, which gave you both sides ... skeptic and pro AGW that acknowledged the statement I made about co2 increases coming after a warming period. You chose to attack the skeptic cite, and pretend to ignore the pro AGW cite that supported my claim that you said was wrong.
Here's another pro AGW also acknowledging this 800 year lag:
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
So, again, my claim of the 800 year lag is again corroberated by YOUR SIDE, meaning YOU LIE.
Of course, the impeccable logic of these "real climate scientists" is remarkable. And paraphrasing their remarkable scientific deductions in plain English ... "well, yes, increased CO2 levels do come 800 years after a warming period ... but pay no attention to that, because warming periods last 5000 years, so all that proves is that the first 800 years of warming wasn't caused by CO2, but don't forget about those other 4200 years of warming ... that COULD HAVE BEEN caused by CO2, so don't let those climate deniers deceive you!!"
Gotta love this type of self serving anti-logic .... what caused the first 800 years of warming is irrelevant, and probably didn't have anything to do with the continued warming. Why? Because "we don't think so". And besides, "effect does indeed maybe sometimes, we think happen 800 years before the eventual cause" And lots of people used to put the cart in front of the horse ... he just had to push it instead of pull it ... so, nothing to see here folks, move along now ... everybody knows CO2 causes warming, so there is nothing really to debate here ... the debate is over, baby!
Real Climate Science indeed!
FYI ... REAL Science is not about "coulda, woulda, shoulda" or "we think so", or "as far as we can tell". Does this sound anything remotely close to science to you ... this ... "as far as we can tell".... and "maybe" .... nonsense?
It appears that is what your reduced to. Congrats. Maybe you can come back on some other thread and spew your nonsense but we all know all you can do is bark..........not bite. Pretty sad for someone who is so much smarter than the evil "deniers". LOL
That's reason enough .. even the best reason not to give up. The youngsters today do not deserve to have to live under authoritarianism, and it is our obligation to defeat it, instead of surrendering.
There is an enlightenment taking place ... the lines are being drawn, and soldiers are forming ranks, and we cannot allow this, else the hell your children will suffer will be in part your fault too' unless you fight it.
I won't surrender to stupidity and dishonesty. And that is what we are fighting here.
It appears that is what your reduced to. Congrats. Maybe you can come back on some other thread and spew your nonsense but we all know all you can do is bark..........not bite. Pretty sad for someone who is so much smarter than the evil "deniers". LOL
In that post, the poster just cherry picked from a blog to present a straw man. He has demonstrated that he doesn't understand initial forcings or feedback and amplifiers, doesn't know where the figure of 800 years he quoted originally came from or how it was cherry-picked and misrepresented by denialists, and demonstrated that he doesn't read published papers themselves to check his claims. That's no better than a dog howling blah blah blah.
So would you like to discuss the papers I linked to to expose his BS blah blah blah? Or is all you have more howling blah blah blah too?
You said it was Milankovitch cycles or continental drift.
When did the earth change it's axial tilt in the last 100 years?
When was there any significant continental drift in the last 100 years?
the milankovitch cycles, which you acknowledge exist and are part of the equation, tend to prove that your side is playing fast and loose with the facts, you either ignore them, or try to use the to your advantage, again cherry picking the data as usual.
the axial tilt is always changing very slightly every year. it takes 26,000 years to it to complete one cycle, but the change is constant.
what would you consider significant? the plates move at about an inch per year iirc depending on the plate, one reason why there are these things called earthquakes.
the milankovitch cycles, which you acknowledge exist and are part of the equation, tend to prove that your side is playing fast and loose with the facts, you either ignore them, or try to use the to your advantage, again cherry picking the data as usual.
the axial tilt is always changing very slightly every year. it takes 26,000 years to it to complete one cycle, but the change is constant.
what would you consider significant? the plates move at about an inch per year iirc depending on the plate, one reason why there are these things called earthquakes.
Why the heck would I not acknowledge Milankovitch cycles exist? It's basic stuff. And where has any climate scientist ignored Milankovitch cycles as 'part of the equation' in the past 50 years? Do you have any idea how many published papers discuss or refer to the Milankovitch cycle? And how do Milankovitch cycles 'prove' climate scientists are playing 'fast and loose with the facts'? And try getting your facts straight between axial tilt and axial precession.
All you are demonstrating is that you don't even know what climate scientists have actually been saying. No doubt because you don't actually read any published papers.
You guys are hilarious. Try Read some published papers for a change instead of listening to conspiracy nonsense.
In that post, the poster just cherry picked from a blog to present a straw man. He has demonstrated that he doesn't understand initial forcings or feedback and amplifiers, doesn't know where the figure of 800 years he quoted originally came from or how it was cherry-picked and misrepresented by denialists, and demonstrated that he doesn't read published papers themselves to check his claims. That's no better than a dog howling blah blah blah.
So would you like to discuss the papers I linked to to expose his BS blah blah blah? Or is all you have more howling blah blah blah too?
What? You post a dog barking and now want to "discuss" papers? What are you nuts? Or are you in Oz.........You just post your big graphs and yell like you always do.
Hey have you moved up on a mountain to escape it all. If not your as full of it as the scientists who fly around yelling about it. Go learn how to trap and hunt etc. as the world is coming to an end and all. Or do you sit on your PC and tell everybody else what to do? I know the answer..........but I'm not the one telling everybody else what to do. Just pathetic.
Your posts just keep showing that you NEVER read the original 2003 Caillon paper where that figure of an 800 year lag was taken from. I even provided you with a link to a copy of the paper, yet you didn't bother to read it. I also provided a link to the 2012 Shakun paper which also shows where C02 lags as well as precedes temperature rises.
The 2003 Caillon paper states in slightly different words what I posted previously. Here is an excerpt from the paper "I have not read" according to you. Of course, had you actually read it, you would have recognized that similarity:
Exact word for word excerpt from the 2003 Caillon paper:
“The situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump, we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming”
I could dissect this load of manure word for word, and line for line, but I'll focus on the three fundamental frauds this small excerpt contains, which defines the entire bloviating crap making up the whole of the paper.
1) reference is made urging that there needs to be a distinction considered between climate change driven by natural factors in the past, called "internal influences", prior to industrial man, with current climate change which have "external influences" (anthropogenic CO2). This self serving nonsense assumes two points that are not facts, a) that CO2 drives climate change, and b) that the miniscule amount for which man actually contributes, which is but a small fraction of the overall CO2, is having a significant impact. The first premise is pure speculation being passed off as fact, and the second is grossly lacking logic. Even if CO2 did drive climate, which is assumption being challenged, the tiny amount contributed by man should not be expected to represent a significant influence. This point is pure self serving crap, assuming and declaring true the very point being challenged.
2) then, we go on to the pure deception of claiming that NOW, we see clearly that elevated CO2 levels have come before the current warming period (which is likely why you keep beating your inane drum about this rag posing as a legitimate science paper, rather than the biased BS thtat it is). This again makes the insinuation that current CO2 levels are a product of man's activities, when the truth is, according to the 800 year lag, current levels are a result of the medieval warm period around 1200 ad, which roughly coincides with that 800 year lag ... imagine that! Furthermore, again, man's contribution is but a small fraction of the overall CO2. So this part also presents two false constructs. It ignores the current CO2 levels are a product of warming that occurred 800 years ago, insinuating it is a product of modern making, and it promotes the pure fallacy that man is responsible for the lions share of current CO2 levels.
3) it acknowledges the 800 year lag of CO2 (underlined portion above), while promoting this 5000 year warming cycle, pointing to the other 4200 years of warming as CO2 caused, minus the 800 years when CO2 couldn't have caused the initial warming, but is responsible for all of the warming thereafter ... which was the EXACT insinuation of the "RealClimate website for which I previously referenced making the same idiotic and assinine assumption.
In short ... your paper here you keep fussing over is pure unadulterated bovine excrement, filled not with scientific facts, but simply the biased BS opinion based on ssumptions of it's author.
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.
And lots of people used to put the cart in front of the horse ... he just had to push it instead of pull it ... so, nothing to see here folks, move along now ... everybody knows CO2 causes warming, so there is nothing really to debate here ... the debate is over, baby!
