Ice age data bolsters greenhouse gas, warming link

Quote from FightTheFuture:

CO2 rises, temperature falls.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daleo-cru-msu-co2.png?w=640
More...

Are you serious? A cherry-picked ten year period of cherry-picked temp records? Back to school for you. See if you can find a clue there.


1) Maintaining speed

In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

2) An accelerating world

A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Watts is hack, a joke, a shill for the FF industry.

Try NOAA.
 
Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png



Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc1.jpg
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

More...
Those charts are only alarming if you believe the projections are going to come true. So long as CO2 levels never rise significantly above 300 ppmv there is no reason for concern. : )
 
I have asked you approx 2 dozen times showing the increase in CO2 causes warming and not the other way around. There is no support for such an idea. Your recent articles bare that assertion out... It is conjecture. It may be correct ... but it is a guess.

Even from your own chart in this thread, you can see the earth cycles to these levels on its own. ?

Quote from futurecurrents:

Without a stitch of support? Are you serious? How are you able to cross a street without getting hit by a bus with the blinders you have on ? Incredible. But you're a creationist so it's not too surprising that your logical mental faculties are limited.

No, they are sure about quite a bit. Not being completely sure about one minor aspect, which is at best a small influence compared to the forcing of greenhouse gases does NOT mean they sure about nothing. Science is NEVER completely sure. The only things completely sure are self-deluded dolts who cannot see the facts and are able to "have faith" that they are right.

Try again.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

I have asked you approx 2 dozen times showing the increase in CO2 causes warming and not the other way around. There is no support for such an idea. Your recent articles bare that assertion out... It is conjecture. It may be correct ... but it is a guess.

Even from your own chart in this thread, you can see the earth cycles to these levels on its own. ?
More...

Excuse me. But just how fucking stupid are you?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Even YOU, yes YOU, have admitted that. Are you able to make ANY conclusion from deductive reasoning? Can you add 2+2 ? Can you see the spike in CO2 levels on the chart? Can you see the spike in world temps? Can you read? As in the recent study I posted that indeed showed how rising CO2 levels caused the temps in to increase in the past after melting the arctic ice and raising CO2 which then raised temps? Remember?

If CO2 goes up what do YOU think will happen? Temps stay the same? Remember CO2 is greenhouse gas. Try to strain your brain here and actually think.

We await your answer.


I expect more stubborn stupidity.
 
You are saying more CO2 causes more warming.
And I am saying more warming seems to cause more CO2...
and only one of us has the data to show it.

I have the data... in the ice cores.
What data have you got... numbnuts.


Quote from futurecurrents:

Excuse me. But just how fucking stupid are you?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Even YOU, yes YOU, have admitted that. Are you able to make ANY conclusion from deductive reasoning? Can you add 2+2 ? Can you see the spike in CO2 levels on the chart? Can you see the spike in world temps? Can you read? As in the recent study I posted that indeed showed how rising CO2 levels caused the temps in to increase in the past after melting the arctic ice and raising CO2 which then raised temps? Remember?

If CO2 goes up what do YOU think will happen? Temps stay the same? Remember CO2 is greenhouse gas. Try to strain your brain here and actually think.

We await your answer.


I expect more stubborn stupidity.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

You are saying more CO2 causes more warming.
And I am saying more warming seems to cause more CO2...
and only one of us has the data to show it.

I have the data... in the ice cores.
What data have you got... numbnuts.
More...
\

We are BOTH right you nitwit. Are you saying that rising CO2 will not cause temps to rise? Really? Do you realize CO2 has never been pumped into the air at current rates before? That current rise is unprecedented? Do you know what that might mean to the value of looking at the past?

Besides there IS data showing CO2 leading temps. Once again......

"April 4, 2012 RSS Feed Print
A team of climate experts say they've solved the chicken-or-egg question—Which came first? Carbon dioxide or temperature increases?—surrounding the global warming debate for years: Around 10,000 years ago, increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused the end of the last Ice Age."

"Back then, it was natural, but the key thing is—we found that carbon dioxide was driving global warming back then. The Earth doesn't care where the carbon dioxide came from—if it caused it back then, it's going to cause it today," he says. "Over the last 7,000 years of the Ice Age, the CO2 levels rose by 100 parts per million. Over the last century, we've run up the same amount. You look at that, and it's sobering."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/04/study-carbon-dioxide-increase-caused-end-of-ice-age
 
Is it at all a problem, with the solar/orbital variations explanation for warming, that the night side of Mercury is much colder than the night side of Venus?
 
f/c here is a critique of your author's study .. done with data from your author's study and other data collected from other studies.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...sed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/#more-60932/

The author shows that your author left out a very interesting piece of info. he cut off the relatively recent data which showed CO2 rising at a significant rate... but temperature dropping. How the heck could that happen if CO2 causes warming?


I currently have a few of my own hypothesis.

1. The ice core studies are good for figuring out trends... but not so good for figure out actual dates.

a. studies are coming out showing the bubbles of trapped gas leak in the ice.

b. dating is very tricky.

2. There is so much fuzzy data that all this stuff is up for interpretation.

3. The man made global warming kooks will manipulate and lie about the data to get published and get funded all day long. I am sure some on the other side are paid off too.

4. Money has corrupted politics and academics. Its not longer no one trust these guys anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top