Global Warming

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Pooeypants Yes, we can account for the dips in temperature with these events. But that along does not mean humans cannot influence global climate, merely that there are over factors that can and have done so in the past. Who's definition of Ice age are you referring to? 4C above average? Is that globally? Where is your source for this claim? None of what you say is sufficient to absolve human influence. You've merely pointed out climatic changes that we're all aware of has happened.

I understand that I should be able to document my sources, but I'm just a citizen who reads and watches documentaries. So I pick up knowledge here and there. I don't record sources on 3 x 5 cards.

I didn't know that I had to define an Ice Age. We all know about the last Ice Age, the people at Lascouix (boy that's challenging spelling attempt)
enhabited that place off and on for 4,000 years; painted on the walls, etc.. The ice came as far south as South Texas.

(I'm being called and must go. I'll reel back in later.)

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Deadeye I understand that I should be able to document my sources, but I'm just a citizen who reads and watches documentaries. So I pick up knowledge here and there. I don't record sources on 3 x 5 cards.

I'm afraid that's not how it works here. There are many documentaries and articles out there but unfortunately, not everyone is telling the truth or worse, mixing truth with lies. Therefore, we must use established sources of information to back up our statements, this is especially important when debating scientific matters. Because I could just make up something now but how would you know different if I didn't have to cite a source?

Quote by: Deadeye I didn't know that I had to define an Ice Age. We all know about the last Ice Age, the people at Lascouix (boy that's challenging spelling attempt) enhabited that place off and on for 4,000 years; painted on the walls, etc.. The ice came as far south as South Texas. (I'm being called and must go. I'll reel back in later.)

I was just pondering seeing as you described the coming of Ice Ages as rather spontaneous (occurring a year?!).

[xyzer]

Pooey, how dare you post this? You who keep talking about peer review and scientific data?

We've already explained the apparent dip but now it seems the measurements are flawed. Yes, I cite a scientific paper from the most well known journal in the world, what do you have?

This is not a scientific paper, nor is its source the most well known journal in the world!!!!! It is the contention of several scientists who analized some global temperature data in 1945(before we had satellite accuracy)? You have the temerity to posit this as a scientific paper? I have emphasized the word 'argue'! Arguments are not scientific certainty except in the eyes of fools?

We argue that the abrupt temperature drop of 0.3 °C in 1945 is the apparent result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record. Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures.

We have been discussing accuracy and complete data from scientific studies and now you criticize deadeye for quoting from non scientifically reviewed papers and then turn right around an do the same thing? And even embellish your response to deadeye with this?

4C above average? Is that globally? Where is your source for this claim?

You who keep referring to studies based on contrived(proxy) data for past temperatures and climates now buy blindly into some assumptions of a flawed reading of ocean temps(where, nobody knows)some 60 years ago. You who complain about people questioning the accuracy of the proxy data and assumption made by the IPCC. Do I hear the cornflakes crunching ? Is this discussion turning into a childlike "my references are better than your references?" Why? Because I say so.

Then there is this pearl of logic?

None of what you say is sufficient to absolve human influence. You've merely pointed out climatic changes that we're all aware of has happened

How did humans influence the 'Little Ice Age"? How did humans influence the cold decades of the mid 1900s? How did humans influence of the drouth years in the mid 20 and 30s? Surely you jest?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey, how dare you post this? You who keep talking about peer review and scientific data? This is not a scientific paper, nor is its source the most well known journal in the world!!!!!

My apologies, it is not a paper in the traditional sense but has definitely been reviewed; if you would care to notice that Also, if Nature isn't the most well known (scientific) journal in the world, could you name another one with greater acknowledgement? You'll probably not read this but as the same article is currently available only to subscribers, here's what Newscientist reported on it. The analysis work is still on going so you'll have to bear with us.

Quote by: xyzer It is the contention of several scientists who analized some global temperature data in 1945(before we had satellite accuracy)?

Wait, so you're saying that we shouldn't even investigate the idea that past temperature readings may have been wrong? Why is that an issue?

Quote by: xyzer You have the temerity to posit this as a scientific paper? I have emphasized the word 'argue'! Arguments are not scientific certainty except in the eyes of fools?

I merely brought up a pointer because I have already gone through what was the most probable cause of that period (massive release of sulphates by our industrial activity coupled with some volcanic eruptions) and this was a new finding. If you'd have read their abstract, you'd see that there are also alternate explanations for the apparent dip in temperature of those decades. But hey, like I said, this is an alternate explanation for those readings.

Quote by: xyzer We have been discussing accuracy and complete data from scientific studies and now you criticize deadeye for quoting from non scientifically reviewed papers and then turn right around an do the same thing? And even embellish your response to deadeye with this?

Deadeye offered no source of any kind actually. But you already knew that...or maybe you didn't actually read his post and just wanted to rant because you haven't got any material from the Economist websites to post up.

Quote by: xyzer You who keep referring to studies based on contrived(proxy) data for past temperatures and climates now buy blindly into some assumptions of a flawed reading of ocean temps(where, nobody knows)some 60 years ago.

The point is, the readings from 60 years ago can recalculated and compensated for (read newscientist link). So what is this contrived data? Do you have some more accurate temperature readings of the past that we can share with the scientific community? Or do have some evidence to invalidate these proxies? Are you just bullshitting again?

Quote by: xyzer You who complain about people questioning the accuracy of the proxy data nd and assumption made by the IPCC. Do I hear the cornflakes crunching ?

No, but I can see the beads of desperation sweating off your forehead. I've asked before, what is wrong with the proxies and what can we do to make them better? Have you invented that time machine yet?

So now we move back to "Oh those proxy readings are probably wrong so there's actual no global warming at all!". I wish you'd make up your mind...

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Pooeypants I'm afraid that's not how it works here. There are many documentaries and articles out there but unfortunately, not everyone is telling the truth or worse, mixing truth with lies. Therefore, we must use established sources of information to back up our statements, this is especially important when debating scientific matters. Because I could just make up something now but how would you know different if I didn't have to cite a source? I was just pondering seeing as you described the coming of Ice Ages as rather spontaneous (occurring a year?!).

All I can tell you is that I watched a documentary on the coming of an Ice Age. The docu, said that Ice Ages start very rapidly, being caused by just a few short, cool summers. As the ice builds up the atmosphere cools and the situation snowballs into long winters and the ice builds up. All this ends up into becoming an Ice Age.

An Ice Age lasts a long time. I think around 1.5 million years. I have not been able to find good data on the longevity of the last few Ice Ages. As we warm, the ice recedes, things green up, the deserts grow larger and after some period of time we have some short cool summers and the entire process repeats itself.

The "little Ice Age" is what historians use to describe the colder climate in the 18th and 19th Centuries. The exceptionally cold winter at Valley Forge, the years of frozen weather during the 1880's, even the frigid 1944/45 winter in Europe. But as everyone knows the temperature of the Earth is in constant flux, but trends can be measured. We have been in a generally warm and constantly temperate period for the past 10,000 years.

But when you consider the length of the last Ice Age and how recently it ended it's reasonable to assume that we are warming and will continue to do so for some time.

This temperate climate has allowed mankind to grow to what we have become. With a new Ice Age most of us will probably die, but just as in the last time, some men would likely survive. They'd probably have to relearn how to make stone tools.

[Sonart]

.
Dang, this is moving way too fast for me...

Quote by: Deadeye The Earth has been in a long warming trend started after the end of the last Ice Age. We are still in that warming trend. It will eventually turn and we will experience another Ice Age. This has been happening for a very long time and the cycle has repeated many times.

This is simply false. Since we leapt out of the last Ice Age, temperatures peaked about 6,000 years ago. We've been in an overall cooling trend since then, which, under normal circumstances, would be the beginning of a lengthy, 25,000 year descent into the next Ice Age. The medieval warm period led into the "Little Ice Age", which, if you examine it, was an extension of the cooling trend that ended... {{GASP}} ...what a coincidence! around 1800, near the beginning of the Industrial Age.






Once again, your facts are simply wrong.

Quote by: Deadeye This may or may not be so, but we do know for certainty that the temperature of the Earth is in constant flux and it will always be so.

Do you honestly believe that the world's scientists who've been studying global warming for the last 40 years aren't aware of all these natural fluctuations and taken them into account?

What did you imagine they've been doing all this time? Did you actually imagine that if you simply informed...

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes

...all of whom have declared that global warming is a fact, that we caused it, and that it's happening faster than predicted, that the earth's temperatures are in "constant flux", that they'd all slaps their foreheads in unison and shout, "Oh my gosh, why didn't we think of that?!?!"

Quote by: Deadeye I do not believe that the evidence that man causes climate change is overwhelming enough for me to revise my lifestyles.

Believe it! See above.

Quote by: Deadeye Natural climate change can happen very rapidly without our messing with it. Two examples: The great volcanic eruption in Krakatowa caused an almost immediate reduction in temperature. We suffered cloudy shys for three years. I think it was Shelly who wrote about it.

Yes, and we know EXACTLY what the cause was, and that the effect disapated within a couple of years. Current global warming has been going on for 200 years, it's accelerating, and we also know EXACTLY what the cause is. Human forcing of greenhouse gases.

Quote by: Deadeye Also the so called "little Ice Age" may have been caused by the same eruption. We are just now recovering from that climatic era. The great freeze in our Northwest is an example of this weather.

The "Little Ice Age" is part of the cooling trend that has been happening since the end of the last Ice Age.

Quote by: Deadeye An Ice Age comes very rapidly.

No, it doesn't... it takes about 75,000 years to descend to the bottom of an Ice Age, and about 10,000 years to come out of it.

You're completely full of it... you're simply making stuff up based on tidbits you've heard.

Quote by: Deadeye The temperature of the Earth in the 14th Century was much warmer (about 4 degrees on the average) than it is today.

Once again... no, it wasn't.

An Ice Age lasts a long time. I think around 1.5 million years.

No, Deadeye, it doesn't. An average Ice Age lasts about 80,000 to 100,000 years, about 1/15th of what you're suggesting.

The "little Ice Age" is what historians use to describe the colder climate in the 18th and 19th Centuries. The exceptionally cold winter at Valley Forge, the years of frozen weather during the 1880's, even the frigid 1944/45 winter in Europe.

Once again, the 'Little Ice Age' was part of the cooling trend leading us into the next Ice Age...

...except it got interupted during -- as you yourself stated -- in the 19th century, during the industrial revolution, when human population combined with industrialization to begin pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

.

[GloriousCause]

John Stossel on Global Warming - a great watch....

YouTube - 20/20 Stossel- GMAB - Al Gore Global Warming Debate

[xyzer]

Revealing video GloriousCause! It's the truth that Pooey has been ignoring. We just don't know enough about climate variability yet and there are all sorts of influences

Pooey I don't like to criticize but isn't this a bit much?

Wait, so you're saying that we shouldn't even investigate the idea that past temperature readings may have been wrong? Why is that an issue?

You are the one(along with the IPCC,Gore, et al) that keeps saying the die is cast? The globe is warming and humans are the cause. Haven't you given us the impression over the past few months that we humans are responsible and unless we do something increased warming is inevitable?...that there is no use to further invstigate the issue?


When I point out that actual measurements in this decade indicate the warming trend has slowed, you reluctantly admit the change is caused not by human activity but by ocean currents which routinely affect climate change. And you question the source (NASA) suggesting that any reference to this is not peer reviewed, scientifically accurate, etc, Incredibly we are told that the actual measurements don't compare with IPCC generated projections and models and therefor can't be correct?

When its pointed out that climate change correlates with CO2 you and sonart, overlook the fact that CO2 increases and decreases follow global temp changes, rather than preceding them.

Sonart posts graphs and the reads them upside down or generalizes off points that aren't factual?.could it just be when the ocean warms it releases a greater amount of its CO2? After all the greates portion of our planet is ocean. sonart even post a graph showing a gradual warming trend since the last Ice Age and then says ...

This is simply false. Since we leapt out of the last Ice Age, temperatures peaked about 6,000 years ago. We've been in an overall cooling trend since then, which, under normal circumstances, would be the beginning of a lengthy, 25,000 year descent into the next Ice Age. The medieval warm period led into the "Little Ice Age", which, if you examine it, was an extension of the cooling trend that ended... {{GASP}} ...what a coincidence! around 1800, near the beginning of the Industrial Age

I have trouble grasping the reasoning behind that one? We lept out of an Ice Age and it has been cooling since then? Huh? The medieval warming period was about 800 years before the little ice age, was it not? Was there an increase in human generated CO2(or bovine flatulence) around 800AD that initiated the warming period? I didn't know the norsemen had reciprocating engines in those days sonart?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Revealing video GloriousCause! It's the truth that Pooey has been ignoring. We just don't know enough about climate variability yet and there are all sorts of influences

I should point out once more, I have never seen Al Gore's film and I have never quoted any material from the man in use for my case.

Quote by: xyzer Pooey I don't like to criticize but isn't this a bit much? You are the one(along with the IPCC,Gore, et al) that keeps saying the die is cast? The globe is warming and humans are the cause. Haven't you given us the impression over the past few months that we humans are responsible and unless we do something increased warming is inevitable?...that there is no use to further invstigate the issue?

No, that would you misinterpreting what I've said. Furthermore, do not lump me in with Al Gore, I have nothing to do with politicians when it comes to scientific debate.

Quote by: xyzer When I point out that actual measurements in this decade indicate the warming trend has slowed, you reluctantly admit the change is caused not by human activity but by ocean currents which routinely affect climate change.

I did not reluctantly admit, I actually came up with the articles that told us why the warming has not been higher. Do you have some kind of backwards memory or do I really have to trawl through the posts to prove my point?

Quote by: xyzer And you question the source (NASA) suggesting that any reference to this is not peer reviewed, scientifically accurate, etc, Incredibly we are told that the actual measurements don't compare with IPCC generated projections and models and therefor can't be correct?

When did I question NASA? You mean this post of yours

Quote by: xyzer Here are some sites that verify the cooling trend by actual measurement as opposed to predictive models.. Is the climate cooling? « ClimatePolice Sweet vindication – It really is climate cooling! Now answer the question Pooey? Why is it cooling when CO2 is measureably increasing? Could it be that natural causes(as NASA thinks) have a much more important influence of climate change? Can we predict the extent of thei suns influence?. The so called references you post predict that when nina wanes its going to get even hotter? Where do they get that prediction except from an underlying assumption that CO2 is the main cause?

Again, I've asked you, when did NASA say that natural causes are much more important than CO2 in recent warming? Basically, you haven't actually read said article properly...have you? I'll give you a few more weeks, eh?

Quote by: xyzer When its pointed out that climate change correlates with CO2 you and sonart, overlook the fact that CO2 increases and decreases follow global temp changes, rather than preceding them.

No, we've always acknowledged that in past history, that CO2 is part of the positive feedback which increased as temperatures increased. This is a well known fact that we've never contested and every climate scientist knows. But this alone does not mean that artificially increasing CO2 cannot increase temperature, unless you can show otherwise.

Quote by: xyzer Sonart posts graphs and the reads them upside down or generalizes off points that aren't factual?.could it just be when the ocean warms it releases a greater amount of its CO2? After all the greates portion of our planet is ocean. sonart even post a graph showing a gradual warming trend since the last Ice Age and then says ...

I presume you're talking about this graph
So now you're proposing that the ocean warming caused the CO2 increase of recent times? What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis?

Quote by: xyzer I have trouble grasping the reasoning behind that one? We lept out of an Ice Age and it has been cooling since then? Huh? The medieval warming period was about 800 years before the little ice age, was it not? Was there an increase in human generated CO2(or bovine flatulence) around 800AD that initiated the warming period? I didn't know the norsemen had reciprocating engines in those days sonart?

Flawed logic, no one said that all climate change is driven by CO2. Therefore, it does not logically follow that just because of a temperature increase (if it was global) in 800AD that you'd assume it was due to increased CO2 levels.

[xyzer]

I'll keep this short!Pooey, I find it hard to believe your rigid, illogical, interpretation of reality?

So now you're proposing that the ocean warming caused the CO2 increase of recent times? What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis?

Good gosh, golly Pooey haven't we just been discussing the climate influence of La Nina and El Nino? We have evidence to support these contentions and you'v agreed with the effect of these ocean currents? They are natural influences! In addtiion it is a fact that as the ocean warms it gives off CO2 as it cools it absorbs more. Here is a general reference...
Biological pump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are drifting ever farther away from reality as you frantically try to patch up your arguments? You repost sonarts graph of temperature changes over th past 10,000 years (which show a gradual global warming since the last Ice Age)for no apparent reason? Unless it is more evidence that he is reading it upside down?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GloriousCause John Stossel on Global Warming - a great watch....

Ah yes, John Stossel, pre-emminent climate scientist, television pundit and...

Oooops...

...Libertarian.

--"As a libertarian, Stossel believes in both personal freedom and the free market. He frequently uses television airtime to advance these views and challenge viewers' distrust of free market capitalism and economic competition. He told The Oregonian, on 26 October 1994:

"I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market." "--

Quote by: Xyzer You are drifting ever farther away from reality as you frantically try to patch up your arguments?

While you were never even in the vicinity.

--"Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.

In a new study conducted with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI),Tim Barnett and David Pierce of Scripps Institution used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans. The authors make the case that their results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically, or by human activities."--

Quote by: Xyzer So now you're proposing that the ocean warming caused the CO2 increase of recent times? What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis?

Xyzer is about 180 degrees correct here, Pooey, but accidently falling in the right direction. What's the old saying? Even a total idiot is right twice a day.

It's one of the many "positive feedback loops" that is causing global warming to accelerate. Humans add CO2 to the atmosphere, causing it to warm, which warms the oceans. Warming, in turn, causes the oceans to absorb less CO2, thus warming the atmosphere even more. Oceans don't release CO2, they, along with plants, absorb it. The oceans are carbon sinks.

Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2 --"Global warming has caused the Southern Ocean to become windier, churning up the waters so that they are unable to absorb CO2 at the rate we produce it, the researchers say."--

Fun, huh.

This is on top of that other notorious feedback loop; water vapor is the most abundant effective of all greenhouse gases. Global warming creates more water vapor, which creates more warming, which creates more...

You get the picture.

What kills me is not that Xyzer is simply wrong about everything he utters, but that he's so smug about it.

.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'll keep this short!Pooey, I find it hard to believe your rigid, illogical, interpretation of reality? Good gosh, golly Pooey haven't we just been discussing the climate influence of La Nina and El Nino? We have evidence to support these contentions and you'v agreed with the effect of these ocean currents? They are natural influences! In addtiion it is a fact that as the ocean warms it gives off CO2 as it cools it absorbs more. Here is a general reference... Biological pump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You are drifting ever farther away from reality as you frantically try to patch up your arguments? You repost sonarts graph of temperature changes over th past 10,000 years (which show a gradual global warming since the last Ice Age)for no apparent reason? Unless it is more evidence that he is reading it upside down?

You seem to be losing the plot here. The PDO causes temporarily rise and fall of ocean temperatures, so the net change in temperature will be effectively zero over the cycle period. As you said yourself, the warmer ocean may not absorb as much CO2 (or release some) but when it comes to the cooler part of the cycle, the reverse is seen. Do you not see where I am going with this? So therefore, if we see a consistent warming trend over a long period where multiple PDO cycles have been observed, which we have, you cannot attribute the overall increase in CO2 levels to such an event.

Can you grasp such simple reasoning or do I have to draw a picture diagram for you?

[xyzer]

No Pooey I don't see what you are driving at unless you are admitting that a natural climate influence is working both ways to affect climate? Thats what we have been talking about there is a variability and it is(and has been) caused by natural rather than one Factor(CO2)

Here is a very good summation by a scientific entity and as I understand it signed off by some 19,000 scientists. Oregon Scientifiic Instutitute is the source
Don't be put off by the fumbling introduction. Wait for the main speaker and you will see what I've been talking about...Discovery Institute
Incidentally you will note at the beneficial effects of greater ppm of CO2?
All this crap about rapid warming and rising ocean levels is just that, crap!

By the way sonart this is not some crackpot group either..I thought you'd like the charts.

Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds. It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer No Pooey I don't see what you are driving at unless you are admitting that a natural climate influence is working both ways to affect climate? Thats what we have been talking about there is a variability and it is(and has been) caused by natural rather than one Factor(CO2)

You don't quite seem to be able to get it through your thick skull, can you? The PDO cycle produces fluctuations in cycles over decades, therefore, it can temporarily cause heatwaves and apparent plateaus of warming. That means it can add or subtract from our current warming trend, however, because it is cyclical, overall it has no affect in the long term trend. Do you really not understand that?

Quote by: xyzer Here is a very good summation by a scientific entity and as I understand it signed off by some 19,000 scientists. Oregon Scientifiic Instutitute is the source Don't be put off by the fumbling introduction. Wait for the main speaker and you will see what I've been talking about...Discovery Institute Incidentally you will note at the beneficial effects of greater ppm of CO2? All this crap about rapid warming and rising ocean levels is just that, crap! By the way sonart this is not some crackpot group either..I thought you'd like the charts.

We've already been through the forgery that is OSIM. I'm sure you remember about its fake petition, in fact, I remember finding out about this hoax back in 2006. Link for those who want to learn more about these frauds (beware Xyzer, it may conflict with your programming so don't read it!!).
In fact, I bet if I search back through your posts, I'd probably find you posting said petition & group's statements previously...
Is there no end to your farce?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer By the way sonart this is not some crackpot group either..I thought you'd like the charts.

Neither are these folks...

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes

...yet you completely ignore them.

As to the Discovery Institute? Surprise, surprise...

--"Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website."--

Yet another libertarian, free-market think tank. {{YAWN}} Give it up, Xyzer.

.

[xyzer]

OK sonart..

National Academy of Sciences American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society National Weather Association National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes

Give me the exact references in your array of institutions that directly refute the ..
influence of the oceans carbon sink from the suns rays? That show that CO2 increases precede climate warming?
Evidence that most of the recent climate trends are not minimal overall..(less/more than one degree change per 100 years)?
Refute the suns increasing and decreasing brilliance and its direct influence on its planets?
Direct proof(by satellite measurement)that the earths warming cycle has not diminished, leveled in the current decade?

You are really a great graph presenter but unfortunately you interpret the graphs wrong..purely to substantiate outlandish claims. You even claim one indicates it hasn't been gradually getting warmer since the last ICE AGE?
Over the last year or so you(and Pooey) have never answered why if human produced CO2 is a major influencer in the climate warming trend of the past century it has cooled during several decades even though humans have been increasing their carbon use?

Pooey keeps saying he has answered that? But he hasn't. He has merely referred to general IPCC and Gorelike conclusions? He obviously can't answer it directly because he doesn't? But he then reluctantly admits that oceans currents(La Nina @ El Nino) have an overriding effect? He posts scientists opinions and theories as scientific truth just because they appear on a scientifically named internet site? Spews nonsense about human activity and directly countering the obvious influence of the sun, ocean and other natural factors. Ignores the less than 1% of the earths CO2 in its atmospheric gas content? Plus humans small fraction of that 1%? He paints the earth as in stasis with humans the only influence of climate because they are spilling increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

You post a bunch of charts and graphs that don't relate to the question. And even interpret them incorrectly, yet you don't answer the question or even show us where in the references your so called evidence is found? You don't even know the definition of ICE Age because you indicate its been getting cooler since the ice age?

Both you guys/girls are paper tigers floundering around in a cauldron of confusion. You keep bring ing up the refrain we humans are directly resoponsible for climate change and have to do something about it? I would like to refer to you as Gore believers. Gore the prominent scientist who along with a political panel(IPCC) has started the wild rumors that are currently scaring politicians and dunderheads alike?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Over the last year or so you(and Pooey) have never answered why if human produced CO2 is a major influencer in the climate warming trend of the past century it has cooled during several decades even though humans have been increasing their carbon use?

We have always pointed out that CO2 is a significant positive thermal forcing component, but at no point did we state that other factors would not counteract its effects, such as sulphates from our industrial activity and large volcanic eruptions. This has been pointed out to you before, many, many times but you never really acknowledge it. Why? Because it's not printed in an Economist magazine? Where you get all your latest climate science...

Quote by: xyzer Pooey keeps saying he has answered that? But he hasn't. He has merely referred to general IPCC and Gorelike conclusions?

Please stop lying, I have never referred to the IPCC or Al Gore when I answered said question.

Quote by: xyzer He obviously can't answer it directly because he doesn't? But he then reluctantly admits that oceans currents(La Nina @ El Nino) have an overriding effect?

Excuse me, I was the one that pointed out the very article

Quote by: Pooeypants As for the beginning of this century, if I may quote from your own previous source

That's right, I point out the fact that the article you posted actually talks about how the warming will be temporarily countered by the PDO's La Nina part of the cycle. That's right, temporarily, because the cycle will swing the other way like it did in 1998 and cause record temperatures.

Quote by: xyzer He posts scientists opinions and theories as scientific truth just because they appear on a scientifically named internet site?

Do you know what the Nature journal is? Allow me to quote from Wiki

Nature is a prominent scientific journal, first published on November 4, 1869. Although most scientific journals are now highly specialized, Nature is one of the few journals, along with other weekly journals such as Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that still publishes original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields. In many fields of scientific research, important new advances and original research are published as articles or letters in Nature.

The very fact that you called Nature and I quote, "a scientifically named internet site", just hammers the point about the fact you don't know any science and you don't get your science from the scientists themselves.

Quote by: xyzer Spews nonsense about human activity and directly countering the obvious influence of the sun, ocean and other natural factors.

If it's obvious, then you can prove conclusively to me that these natural factors can account for all the warming we've observed. It's a simple challenge but you've never managed to do it, I wonder why that is?

Quote by: xyzer Ignores the less than 1% of the earths CO2 in its atmospheric gas content? Plus humans small fraction of that 1%?

Again, you are trolling. We've been through this, 79% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, this has next to zero thermal retentive properties. CO2, on the other hand is a significant player, that's not to say it's the biggest component. We've also covered about how you mislead people and say that our emissions are insignificant, because they're not. But you won't read these and nor will you acknowledge the points. I know this because I have dozens of pages covering the same points that I've countered but you've ignored.

Quote by: xyzer He paints the earth as in stasis with humans the only influence of climate because they are spilling increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

More fabrication, I've never said that or suggested that. Ever. I challenge you to quote me where I've said what you've claimed. Otherwise you are a big fat liar.

Quote by: xyzer Both you guys/girls are paper tigers floundering around in a cauldron of confusion. You keep bring ing up the refrain we humans are directly resoponsible for climate change and have to do something about it? I would like to refer to you as Gore believers. Gore the prominent scientist who along with a political panel(IPCC) has started the wild rumors that are currently scaring politicians and dunderheads alike?

Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician with an agenda. I have never quoted his material to use for scientific debate and I will never do so. You, on the other hand appear to be in a cult whereby you must reference to Al Gore even though he is not part of the discussion.

[xyzer]

More Gobbldy Goop! from Pooey?

If it's obvious, then you can prove conclusively to me that these natural factors can account for all the warming we've observed. It's a simple challenge but you've never managed to do it, I wonder why that is?

I've never claimed that natural factors accounted for ALL warming, have I? I rarely commit your logical sin of using universal affirmatives or negatives.(I've had a course of two in logic!) I've repeatedly said that human carbon energy use is too small to have a major influence as repeatedly claimed by you, Gore and Sonart?
What I've thrown your way(and it obviously hasn't dented your skull) is that anthropogenic causes on forcing are minor. Natural causes are much more of a factor.(e.g.the oceans carbon sink and the CO2 it produces when heated by the sun). Besides human contributions to climate change are very recent. Natural factors have been influencing it for billions of years?
.. A new actual global temp measurement revelation has shown that ocean currents have overcome all else and the climate is cooling and some are predicting it will continue to cool until the next El nino kicks in. I pointed that out in an associated article(indirect source) which you rejected off hand saying it wasn't a scientific study? Now you are using the very same data and source?

You forget you have been claiming its humans that created the warming scenario of the last century! And don't call me a liar on that one you have repeatedly agreed that changing human energy use will restore some sort of balance to the climate..ergo human carbon consumption is the primary cause of warming. We have even provided you with examples of cooling as industrialism increased just after mid century. This lates video showed that many of the trends started well before humans had much of a carbon footprint.
Both you and Sonart(who should know better), talk in circles? Denying facts and then claiming you presented them? Attacking any contra opinion as unscientific and then claiming a scientist opinion in some prestigious journal is fact while in the same breath talking about scientific studies and the importance of peer review? I'm begining to wonder what playground you are operating from?
Another example of playground misinterpretation? ..

Please stop lying, I have never referred to the IPCC or Al Gore when I answered said question

I didn't say you did refer to them? I said you make Gorelike statements? Illogical and ridiculous! There is a difference. Subtle I'll admit..

Here is another reference to your addictive memory..

In simple terms, CO2 is a thermal retentive gas that is contributes to a sizeable amount of positive forcing. We have increase its concentration by around 30% over the past two centuries. We have also seen a rise in global temperature in the last century, but we can account for all that increase by natural influences. Now, if you have eliminated all possible factors, what else can you conclude about the last factor?

You claim you never said human carbon use had caused global warming and yet you said it in this post(.#510884, May 29) You claimed then that there was no other cause that could have done it so we have to conclude that 1 degree rise in a century(Or is it two if CO2 has increased 30% over two centuries?)? had to be because of human energy use? And yet now you admit that the PDO and El Nino(natural causes) may be the cause? Plus you ignore the evidence from the Oregon Scientific Paper that shows that the warming trend started well before the big industrial expansion after WW2? i.e. CO2 started to rise well before humans could have realistically contributed to it?
I've suggest before you take a ciourse in logic..Then you will quit saying Never, Always..and the .Illogical stuff! You may never be called a liar when you claim you never said that?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer More Gobbldy Goop! from Pooey? I've never claimed that natural factors accounted for ALL warming, have I?

But you're so quick to point out (using misleading figures) how small the level of CO2 is in the environment. You then move on to point out that humans have barely alternated the composition of the atmosphere as a whole. You've also always claimed that our activities are too insignificant to make any impact and that natural changes have been happening since the dawn of time. So what is your official stance then? Let's clear the deck, make your opinion crystal.

Quote by: xyzer I rarely commit your logical sin of using universal affirmatives or negatives.(I've had a course of two in logic!) I've repeatedly said that human carbon energy use is too small to have a major influence as repeatedly claimed by you, Gore and Sonart?

By this statement alone, you're basically trying to say that natural factors are the cause of the recent increased warming. Therefore, it logically follows that you've got evidence to support this conjecture?

Quote by: xyzer What I've thrown your way(and it obviously hasn't dented your skull) is that anthropogenic causes on forcing are minor. Natural causes are much more of a factor.(e.g.the oceans carbon sink and the CO2 it produces when heated by the sun).

So then give us the evidence to show that these factors are what caused the recent warming. If you make it out to be as simple as that, surely you've got the proof at hand?

Quote by: xyzer Besides human contributions to climate change are very recent. Natural factors have been influencing it for billions of years?

Irrelevant comment.

Quote by: xyzer A new actual global temp measurement revelation has shown that ocean currents have overcome all else and the climate is cooling and some are predicting it will continue to cool until the next El nino kicks in.

There is no revelation, well, except for you as you don't know much about science. El Nino and La Nina have been noted for many, many decades. At no point does this invalidate AGW, because, as you pointed out, El Nino will do the opposite; make temperatures sky rocket.

Quote by: xyzer I pointed that out in an associated article(indirect source) which you rejected off hand saying it wasn't a scientific study? Now you are using the very same data and source?

No, I didn't, I pointed out that what you claimed (cooling trend confirmed) isn't what the article said (temporarily "cooling"). You seem to have trouble reading articles.

Quote by: xyzer You forget you have been claiming its humans that created the warming scenario of the last century! And don't call me a liar on that one you have repeatedly agreed that changing human energy use will restore some sort of balance to the climate..ergo human carbon consumption is the primary cause of warming.

I called you a liar because I have never said that, and I quote "humans [are] the only influence of climate ".

Quote by: xyzer We have even provided you with examples of cooling as industrialism increased just after mid century. This lates video showed that many of the trends started well before humans had much of a carbon footprint.

I also pointed to an article that talks about how sulphates delivered to the atmosphere by the industrial activity counteracted the warming. Furthermore, we see a continuation of warming not long after the Clean Air legislations are enforced, a mere coincidence, eh?

Quote by: xyzer Both you and Sonart(who should know better), talk in circles? Denying facts and then claiming you presented them? Attacking any contra opinion as unscientific and then claiming a scientist opinion in some prestigious journal is fact while in the same breath talking about scientific studies and the importance of peer review? I'm begining to wonder what playground you are operating from?

Hmm, I'm at a loss here. The only things that you cite are blogs and articles from Economist websites, as well as farcical sources (OISM is a prime example). If you would note, the letter from Nature went through review (why do you think there's) and although their analysis is not yet complete, at least I quote from actual researching climate scientists. Not just anecdotes from Economists and think tanks.

Quote by: xyzer Another example of playground misinterpretation? ..I didn't say you did refer to them? I said you make Gorelike statements? Illogical and ridiculous! There is a difference. Subtle I'll admit..

Irrelevant to the debate, all it's doing is making a diversion from your lack of substance.

Quote by: xyzer Here is another reference to your addictive memory.. You claim you never said human carbon use had caused global warming and yet you said it in this post(.#510884, May 29)

I did not say that. You claimed and I quote again

He paints the earth as in stasis with humans the only influence of climate because they are spilling increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

But I have never said that. Humans are not the only influence, this is evident in fluctuations of warming over the 20th century, but we simply cannot account for all the warming if you looked at just the natural factors.

Quote by: xyzer You claimed then that there was no other cause that could have done it so we have to conclude that 1 degree rise in a century(Or is it two if CO2 has increased 30% over two centuries?)? had to be because of human energy use?

But onto the point at hand, no single study has been able to conclusively account for all the warming in last century as due to natural factors. If it did, we wouldn't be having this debate!

Quote by: xyzer And yet now you admit that the PDO and El Nino(natural causes) may be the cause?

No, learn to read. The PDO affects the warming, hence we see record breaking temperatures when its El Nino part of the cycle but plateaus in warming when La Nina is dominant. Unless that is, you're suggesting that this recent warming is predominately driven by the PDO, in which case, I'd ask for evidence.

Quote by: xyzer Plus you ignore the evidence from the Oregon Scientific Paper that shows that the warming trend started well before the big industrial expansion after WW2? i.e. CO2 started to rise well before humans could have realistically contributed to it?

What paper? Are you still harping on about the fraudsters at OSIM? So which journal published this paper?

Quote by: xyzer I've suggest before you take a ciourse in logic..Then you will quit saying Never, Always..and the .Illogical stuff! You may never be called a liar when you claim you never said that?

I think you need to go back to High School to learn some environmental Chemistry...

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Give me the exact references in your array of institutions that directly refute the .. influence of the oceans carbon sink from the suns rays? That show that CO2 increases precede climate warming? Evidence that most of the recent climate trends are not minimal overall..(less/more than one degree change per 100 years)? Refute the suns increasing and decreasing brilliance and its direct influence on its planets? Direct proof(by satellite measurement)that the earths warming cycle has not diminished, leveled in the current decade?

Tell you what, Xyzer... I've presented -- and Pooey has presented -- far more than enough definitive, top-of-the-scientific-foodchain sources to satisfy anyone one this board, and certainly far more than YOU have ever presented. The only person not satisfied, of course, has been you. It seems the more information we give you, the more additional information you demand.

So I'll do it; I'll get your answers. Thing is, this will be the uber post of all Volconvo posts, the most demanding in time and research ever presented on this board. So here's the deal: when I post the response with the information you've requested, that's the end of it. You respond with one more post, conceding that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, and then you never write another word on global warming on this board again... ever.

Deal?

.