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.
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.
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.
LOL! NOW you finally read it. Because I spoon fed you with a link to copy of it. Twice. Your posts show you had NO idea about the paper or had ever read it.
It's hilarious that you call it 'a rag posing as a legitimate science paper' 'manure' and 'pure unadulterated bovine excrement' and 'bloviating crap' yet it's that Very Same paper where that 800 year lag figure you were tossing around came from. The 800 year lag figure was not global or consistent as you seem to be claiming and it was for Termination III and taken from one ice core in Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere.
And now you skip the part about CO2 preceding temperature in the Northern Hemisphere because it shows your claims to be misinformed bunkum and your understanding of forcings, feedback and amplification is really poor. And of course you completely ignore the Shakun 2012 paper I linked to based on a much broader data set.
Who is doing the cherry picking? And who is talking 'bloviating crap'?
LOL! NOW you finally read it. Because I spoon fed you with a link Your posts show you had NO idea about the paper or had ever read it.
It's hilarious that you call it 'a rag posing as a legitimate science paper' 'manure' and 'pure unadulterated bovine excrement' yet it's that very paper where that 800 year lag figure you were tossing around came from. Or that the 800 year lag figure was not global or consistent. It was for Termination III in Antarctica.
And now you skip the part about C02 preceding temperature in the Northern Hemisphere because it shows your claims to be misinformed bunkum. Who is doing the cherry picking?
Absolutely false ... you have no idea of what you are talking about. The 800 year lag has been a known fact long before 2003, and the writing of this paper. This paper merely attempted to address this point, because it must be addressed to prop up the AGW story.
And no, I did not finally read it ... I've already seen references to it, and excerpts, like the one I posted, and I do not need to read the entire story of Sleeping Beauty to know it's a fantasy fiction. The part about the frog and prince give it away!
The same story is repeated ad nauseam by you CO2 nuts ... using the same lame reference material, so I'm sorry to inform you, but you've added nothing new here that I haven't already seen and heard about a dozen times over.
You're just not that smart or well informed, nor do you seem to understand what your own side is actually saying.
In a nut shell ... the AGW'ers are forced to admit that while initial warming periods of 800 years may not have been caused by CO2, since it wasn't there yet, once that CO2 doe show up 800 years later, all the rest of the warming is because of CO2. That's what is being claimed, and it is pure garbage.
Absolutely false ... you have no idea of what you are talking about. The 800 year lag has been a known fact long before 2003, and the writing of this paper. This paper merely attempted to address this point, because it must be addressed to prop up the AGW story.
And no, I did not finally read it ... I've already seen references to it, and excerpts, like the one I posted, and I do not need to read the entire story of Sleeping Beauty to know it's a fantasy fiction. The part about the frog and prince give it away!
The same story is repeated ad nauseam by you CO2 nuts ... using the same lame reference material, so I'm sorry to inform you, but you've added nothing new here that I haven't already seen and heard about a dozen times over.
You're just not that smart or well informed, nor do you seem to understand what your own side is actually saying.
In a nut shell ... the AGW'ers are forced to admit that while initial warming periods of 800 years may not have been caused by CO2, since it wasn't there yet, once that CO2 doe show up 800 years later, all the rest of the warming is because of CO2. That's what is being claimed, and it is pure garbage.
Years of Living Dangerously is a 9-part Showtime documentary television series focusing on climate change that will premiere on April 13, 2014. James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub and Arnold Schwarzenegger are executive producers of the series. The episodes feature celebrity investigators, who travel to areas around the world and throughout the U.S. affected by global warming to interview experts and ordinary people and view the impacts of climate change. Years of Living Dangerously - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
you AGW types crack me up. you recognize that the milankovitch cycle is natural, but you still claim that global warming is due to man made causes. that tells me that you are recognizing that the cycle exists, but you are dismissing it completely as a possible cause of global warming.
you AGW types crack me up. you recognize that the milankovitch cycle is natural, but you still claim that global warming is due to man made causes. that tells me that you are recognizing that the cycle exists, but you are dismissing it completely as a possible cause of global warming.
Seriously? Do you not understand that AGW is in addition to natural causes? No-one is 'dismissing' natural causes. Climate scientists are saying that natural causes alone can't explain the rapid change in the past 100 years.
Let's play Global Warming Denier Bingo and see how many debunked talking points, myths, errors, misrepresentations, straw men, and conspiracy theories you can all hit.
Seriously? Do you not understand that AGW is in addition to natural causes? No-one is 'dismissing' natural causes. Climate scientists are saying that natural causes alone can't explain the rapid change in the past 100 years.
Unbelievable.
so now you want to combine natural causes and man made causes, and yet this warming cycle is NO hotter than the last warming cycle, so again you argument is complete rubbish.
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.
Your posts show you had NO idea about the paper or had ever read it. 
