16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

Ffox · Jun 23, 2014

Nice try futurecurrents. But your so called âspikeâ is like so much that you push - a red herring. Your plot of CO2 mixes apples and oranges. The only value that is CO2 in the atmosphere is the very last data point. Everything else is CO2 inferred from ice. Those values were shown by Jaworowski not to equal CO2 in the ancient atmosphere.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Before the 20<sup>th</sup> century, you donât know what atmospheric CO2 was.

futurecurrents said:
Interesting. The level of denial is amazing. That you would think that this spike

could be ANYTHING other than man's emissions is the best proof to date of what an intellectually dishonest, illogical, ideologically crazed whack job you are.

Not that it matters what YOU think. The debate is over and not dependent on your delusions at all.

jem · Jun 23, 2014

Thank you for that link... here is one of the issue...
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE

Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to â73oC) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].

One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of â15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now.

futurecurrents · Jun 23, 2014

fhl said:
It doesn't matter that the US is only 2% of the earth's surface.

If they didn't somehow 'adjust' the data to turn a cooling US into a warming US, they never would have gotten congress to pay them over two billion a year to study global warming and they couldn't have rammed through idiotic laws to prevent co2 emissions in the US.

The needed to continually adjust the data until almost half of it is now computer simulated instead of raw data to pull off the scam.

The whole thing is a pack of lies and a scam.

So say you and a few dopey right wing denialists. But it's not. It's science. The temp adjustments were totally proper.

futurecurrents · Jun 23, 2014

Ffox said:
Over the last four decades, the disagreement between CO2 and temperature is even worse. Rutan points out that CO2 emissions during the last two decades were 50% higher than emissions during the preceding two decades. Yet warming didnât increase by 50%. In fact, it didnât increase at all â it STOPPED. Even though emissions increased substantially, temperature has steadily COOLED.

Yes, keep those renewables subsidies flowingâ¦

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

It doesn't work that way. That's a ridiculous way to look at it. And the increase of the heat of the earth has not stopped at all. It is continuing to rapidly rise.

And who the hell is Rutan? A climate scientist? A science organization like this one...

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

futurecurrents · Jun 23, 2014

So jem. Is this spike of the last hundred years due to man or not? Actually, it is at 400 ppm now. That's how fast it is rising.

jem · Jun 23, 2014

Says the agw nutter troll who lies about everything including when creating the title of this thread.

futurecurrents said:
So say you and a few dopey right wing denialists. But it's not. It's science. The temp adjustments were totally proper.

futurecurrents · Jun 23, 2014

Ffox said:
Nice try, futurecurrents. But your distraction from the issue is as lame as it is outdated. Evidence which was left out of the National Science Foundation [NSF] report but which later surfaced disproved its claims. Even NSF management didnât buy them.

The NSF report was a ruse. It was produced when Salby sued his prior university to release his computer files â a university that had earlier come under criminal investigation for stealing $100,000 of Salbyâs research funds. When NSF produced its report, Salby, who had years earlier taken up a professorship at a university outside the US, wasnât even eligible for its grants.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

Judging from the reviews of his book, Salby is highly regarded in the field. Last I heard, Caltech was up there.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180

Nice try lucrumb, but this incarnation of you will also be put on ignore.

jem · Jun 23, 2014

are you that slow?

we just explained to you that we do not even know if we are experiencing a spike because you can't compare ice core proxy data and current instrument data.

futurecurrents said:
So jem. Is this spike of the last hundred years due to man or not? Actually, it is at 400 ppm now. That's how fast it is rising.

futurecurrents · Jun 23, 2014

futurecurrents said:
Do you think that it is extremely logical to conclude that this recent spike in CO2 levels is due to man?

If you want my personal opinion, I think it is premature to draw that specific conclusion. [ICO2 spike is right on schedule and likely is a natural occurrence ][/I] piezoe

Thank you for undeniable proof that you are either stupid, crazed, lying or some combination of these things.

Your opinion is now worth squat. And that's being generous.

Ricter, now do you see why I have been so insulting to him? Can you believe this guy?

Bumping this in case Ricter missed it amongst all the red herrings.

Ricter · Jun 23, 2014

futurecurrents said:
Bumping this in case Ricter missed it amongst all the red herrings.

Yeah, I missed it. I'm on my laptop and the big graphics require side-scrolling, which I hate, so I tend to skip. Anyway, you're loving this fight the most, so I look forward to your response re jem's post on the problem with calculating former CO2 levels from ice cores.