Nature: Man Made Co2 saves us from Ice Age

[futurecurrents]

So why didn't you post the nature article or a reporting of the Nature article from a unbiased reputable source?

I'll tell you why. It's because you are a goddamned liar.

Another thing you said...

"the level of co2 in the atmosphere... follows natural systems and not the co2 being produced by man. "


That is a lie. You are a liar. And a weasel.

1. troll.... the study was in nature magazine... brietbart just reported on it.

2. Liar... Rapid man made global warming? what the hell is that?
your nutter scientists buddies speculate that there could be a tipping point.
but can you show us... using todays best statistical analysis that we are warming outside natural variation... yet alone rapidly due to man made co2? Show us the science that says man made co2 is causing warming...

 

[jem]

look troll === I have shown you many times co2 follows change in temperature up and down. I am aware of no scientist who disputes that fact. its the data.

you are either a lying troll or a moron who can't understand that co2 is the laggard in the data sets.

Your sides scientific speculation is that once the warming gets started co2 augments the warming.

Its a tricky argument. The argument was best made by Shakun in 2012. We discussed that paper here.

But, I repeat no scientists disputes the fact that data shows co2 trails warming.
So stop calling me a liar... you fricken ignorant troll.

------
Troll liar... why not choose breitbart... I read it there first...and they were some of the first... to report it.... and my google search yesterday did not work for finding it directly... today it does...

here is is from the BBC yesterday... you realize the BBC is a big agw nutter group right?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35307800

So why didn't you post the nature article or a reporting of the Nature article from a unbiased reputable source?

I'll tell you why. It's because you are a goddamned liar.

Another thing you said...

"the level of co2 in the atmosphere... follows natural systems and not the co2 being produced by man. "


That is a lie. You are a liar. And a weasel.

 

[jem]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html
Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception

• A. Ganopolski,
• R. Winkelmann
• & H. J. Schellnhuber

• Affiliations
• Contributions
• Corresponding author

Nature

529,

200–203

(14 January 2016)

doi:10.1038/nature16494
Received

08 October 2014
Accepted

19 November 2015
Published online

13 January 2016
Citation

• Reprints

• Rights & permissions

• Article metrics

The past rapid growth of Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets, which terminated warm and stable climate periods, is generally attributed to reduced summer insolation in boreal latitudes1, 2, 3. Yet such summer insolation is near to its minimum at present4, and there are no signs of a new ice age5. This challenges our understanding of the mechanisms driving glacial cycles and our ability to predict the next glacial inception6. Here we propose a critical functional relationship between boreal summer insolation and global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, which explains the beginning of the past eight glacial cycles and might anticipate future periods of glacial inception. Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The missed inception can be accounted for by the combined effect of relatively high late-Holocene CO2 concentrations and the low orbital eccentricity of the Earth7. Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years8, 9. Our simulations demonstrate that under natural conditions alone the Earth system would be expected to remain in the present delicately balanced interglacial climate state, steering clear of both large-scale glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere and its complete deglaciation, for an unusually long time.

 

[futurecurrents]

So jem, you are weaseling out again. Stop throwing up smoke screens. I would like for you to admit that are/were wrong when you wrote this lie. I mean what you said here is equivalent to saying up is down or black is white or conservatives are smart.


"the level of co2 in the atmosphere... follows natural systems and not the co2 being produced by man. "


^See this, it's wrong and you said it.

 

[jem]

I see you posted the link first... and I see your interesting take about it being the opposite of what we were thinking.....

An interesting idea worth exploring if I thought these models were more that optimizing rules on past data to fit one's own desired trading outlook... I mean co2 speculations.

Q
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html

Nature | Letter


日本語要約

Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception

A. Ganopolski1, R. Winkelmann1, 2, H. J. Schellnhuber1, 3,

UQ


What's the difference between a Letter and an Article published as a Paper by Nature ? It seems two separate categories.

I don't know.

BTW:


Q

Yes, we are avoiding an Ice Age, but this has been obvious for years
Posted by Greg Laden on January 14, 2016

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...-ice-age-but-this-has-been-obvious-for-years/

So, when media report that this study suggests that anthropogenic global warming has put off an ice age, they are talking about shifting a 50,000 year delay to the next ice age (without human effects) to a 100,000 year delay. This would be a new idea, because we were thinking that we had put off an ice age that was just about to happen (over the next centuries). So, the paper actually says nearly the exact opposite of what the press says it says. How could this happen? Can’t imagine…

The Paper:

Ganopolski, A. R. Winkelmann,& H. J. Schellnhuber. 2016. Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception. Nature 529, 200–203 (14 January 2016) doi:10.1038/nature16494.

UQ

 

[jem]

If you could show a peer reviewed article or even the data and the analysis... .. (not some warped perspective graph) that co2 leads temps you would have a nobel prize... you troll.

I have already produced the charts from one of the peer reviewed papers which shows I have been telling the truth...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658



so go ahead post your peer reviewed science or even any at all that shows Co2 leads temperature.

if you don't it will prove conclusively for all here to see that you are the liar here.

So jem, you are weaseling out again. Stop throwing up smoke screens. I would like for you to admit that are/were wrong when you wrote this lie. I mean what you said here is equivalent to saying up is down or black is white or conservatives are smart.


"the level of co2 in the atmosphere... follows natural systems and not the co2 being produced by man. "

 

[OddTrader]

I see you posted the link first... and I see your interesting take about it being the opposite of what we were thinking.....

An interesting idea worth exploring if I thought these models were more that optimizing rules on past data to fit one's own desired trading outlook... I mean co2 speculations.

Maybe I am wrong here:

It seems people cannot see the underlying logic of the article would be that either way of speculating whether CO2 has been causing AGW is, according to the article, to conform affirmatively and agree , either positively or negatively, that CO2 is Actually an important factor affecting climate!!!

 

[ETcallhome]

Maybe I am wrong here:

It seems people cannot see the underlying logic of the article would be that either way of speculating whether CO2 has been causing AGW is, according to the article, to conform affirmatively and agree , either positively or negatively, that CO2 is Actually an important factor affecting climate!!!

co2 can't make us too warm, but it can keep us from being too cold. See? What could be more logical?

 

[OddTrader]

co2 can't make us too warm, but it can keep us from being too cold. See? What could be more logical?

Then we would need scientific proofs/investigations to prove both, that not only that CO2 cannot make us too warm, but also CO2 can keep us from being too cold!

 

[jem]

that may be the goal of the article.. but when they admit they used models to come to their conclusions... we have to discount what they say... pending a review of how their model does on real data going forward.

Being that they are talking about glacial time frames... I doubt there is anyway to confirm their model in our lifetimes.

What we do know about the models these scientists are producing so far... is that all the models which were saying that increasing co2 causes significant warming have been failing on real time data.
The only ones which were not wrong were the ones which showed that temperature was not significantly influenced by co2 such a a model made by Russian scientists.

Maybe I am wrong here:

It seems people cannot see the underlying logic of the article would be that either way of speculating whether CO2 has been causing AGW is, according to the article, to conform affirmatively and agree , either positively or negatively, that CO2 is Actually an important factor affecting climate!!!