If you want the bottom line go to the 54 minute mark and watch from there on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0#t=149

Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013

More Science supporting the theory that manmade CO2 is not responsible for global warming.


Quote:

The highlights of the paper are: ► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w

Posted by gizmo in the other thread, an excellent video to watch if you want the truth, and not some political spin on why the UN has to tax the air we breath.

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

Two things to note, pal CO2 is a tiny proportion of the athmophere. But what is even more important is that human generated CO2 is a small percentage of that tiny proportion. The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise. Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VVG0APmqpBc So that's 550 Gt, on round figures. Human emissions? 26.4 Gt (in 2007).  Less than 5%. Tiny is correct in every sense and from every angle. But let's go back to the New Scientist: How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14. D'oh. No evidence or explanation of how "we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere." To conclude: Human CO2 IS A TINY amount when looked at as a proportion of all CO2  (iself a small part) in the athmosphere and nobody can or has explained how this tiny proportion of a tiny proportion makes all the huge, catastrophic difference. And you know why? Because nobody quite understands how the climate works.

Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour.

On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect.

CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth.

And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!!

Ajax wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 1:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!!

you're a pastiche of a joke : got any links buddy to your messed up joke of a joke logic  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ???

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 9:25pm:

Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 1:05pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!! you're a pastiche of a joke : got any links buddy to your messed up joke of a joke logic  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ???

I know its difficult to understand my furry friend but its the truth.

http://i60.tinypic.com/wmb1o0.png

Ajax wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 1:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!!

That man made bit has been building up exponentially in the atmosphere since about 1750 (about 250 years) and still increasing.

Dnarever wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 1:05pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!! That man made bit has been building up exponentially in the atmosphere since about 1750 (about 250 years) and still increasing.

I agree that a small amount of the CO2 build up is manmade.

But the majority of the CO2 build up is because we're coming out of a mini ice age and the Earth is heating up once more.

http://i62.tinypic.com/10ol8yd.gif

Ajax wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 10:19am:

Dnarever wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 9:59am: Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 1:05pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!! That man made bit has been building up exponentially in the atmosphere since about 1750 (about 250 years) and still increasing. I agree that a small amount of the CO2 build up is manmade. But the majority of the CO2 build up is because we're coming out of a mini ice age and the Earth is heating up once more. http://i62.tinypic.com/10ol8yd.gif

Why isnt the y-axis labelled with appropriate temperatures so everybody can comprehend your little peer reviewed internet drawing?

Where did you get this from? Back of a Corn flakes packet?

Your illness is worsening by the day Batman

Now you have added yet another crack pot maniac in Salby, to your list of deranged lunatic fossil fuel puppets - Greats like the Supreme Dr Sircus, and the Sublime Easterbrook bunny

Well done caped crusader

Well done

http://passiondesgifs.p.a.pic.centerblog.net/0572bad4.jpg

Ajax wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 10:19am:

Dnarever wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 9:59am: Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 1:05pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!! That man made bit has been building up exponentially in the atmosphere since about 1750 (about 250 years) and still increasing. I agree that a small amount of the CO2 build up is manmade. But the majority of the CO2 build up is because we're coming out of a mini ice age and the Earth is heating up once more. http://i62.tinypic.com/10ol8yd.gif

... don't make AJAX angry or he might start talking about rates of change  ::) ::)

Ajax wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 9:25pm: Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 1:05pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!! you're a pastiche of a joke : got any links buddy to your messed up joke of a joke logic  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ??? I know its difficult to understand my furry friend but its the truth. http://i60.tinypic.com/wmb1o0.png

We all know you hate to accept water is in a cycle as opposed to additional CO2 being mechanically injected into the system!

Are you both denying the medieval warm period happened..????

What about the little ice age we're still coming out of.

BRAINWASHED you too are......????

http://i57.tinypic.com/xavq7d.jpg

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Ajax wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 10:19am: Dnarever wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 9:59am: Ajax wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 1:05pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. On Earth water is the cycle and accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases which are also greenhouse gases are so minor hence the name (trace gases) they only contribute to about 1% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. And from all the CO2 only a minor part is manmade....!!! That man made bit has been building up exponentially in the atmosphere since about 1750 (about 250 years) and still increasing. I agree that a small amount of the CO2 build up is manmade. But the majority of the CO2 build up is because we're coming out of a mini ice age and the Earth is heating up once more. http://i62.tinypic.com/10ol8yd.gif ... don't make AJAX angry or he might start talking about rates of change  ::) ::)

Well, perhaps you should then..but actually tell us a number value for the rate..You know..like 1 degree per century, or 0.5 degree per century....can you actually specify the rate?

Ajax wrote on May 25^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

Are you both denying the medieval warm period happened..???? What about the little ice age we're still coming out of. BRAINWASHED you too are......???? http://i57.tinypic.com/xavq7d.jpg

where are the temperatures on Lamb's y-axis?

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

Ajax wrote on May 25th, 2015 at 5:55pm: Are you both denying the medieval warm period happened..???? What about the little ice age we're still coming out of. BRAINWASHED you too are......???? http://i57.tinypic.com/xavq7d.jpg where are the temperatures on Lamb's y-axis?

Don't know fur ball he is from the IPCC what did you expect honest John....!!!

http://i61.tinypic.com/op0bj7.gif
Central Greenland surface temperature reconstruction for the last millennium. Adapted from Kobashi et al. (2010).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/

central Greenland surface temperatures hovering around -31 degC

Good one Ajax - your propaganda extracted from crack pot fossil fuel sites has no limit it seems -  ;D

Its like going to the bottom of a Pacific Ocean trench and recording some parameter over a 1000 years and then making global claims.

Well done Ajax - so it's true what they say about you Batman? ;)


http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/smiling-ape.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Poor deluded chimp clutching at straws and name calling to save your hide.

Its over chimp CO2 has never driven Earth's temperature and never will.

Pretty soon people will start demanding that Antropogenic Global Warming be put into the mythology basket where it belongs


Quote:

New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

http://i59.tinypic.com/169kz83.jpg
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/


Quote:

Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/

Medieval warm period warmer than today.
Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

Ajax the clown with a list of random names and geologists

Take the paper by Jenings and Weiner in 1996 for example. Their work focused on a small region in Eastern Greenland.  ;D. And the great Justwan published a book in 2008. WOW - so did Adolf Hitler in the 1930s

let us take a look at some of work of Dansgaard et al in 1975. read carefully ladies and gentlemen. Notice how local predictions and measurements can be OUT OF PHASE with other regions of the earth? One needs to be very careful when making global predictions based upon a few local data points. This is why global measurements of temperature via numerous techniques are used.

But Ajax thinks he can post a list of names with a year next to them, and claim some sort of crack pot consensus :D

Oxygen isotope analysis of anew ice core from the crest of the Greenland ice sheet reveals a climatic record of the past 1,420 years. Climatic changes of medium frequencies are in phase with corresponding changes in Iceland and England, whilst long-term changes at mid Atlantic longitudes are out of phase with Europe and North America. Reconciliation with Norse history suggests a strong climatic impact, and a parallel is drawn to the present critical situation of the human society.

I couldnt find Dr Sircus in that selective list. maybe batcrap edited Dr Sircus out because he panicked? Who knows ladies and gentlemen. What we do know is that Dr Sircus can cure cancer with Baking Soda and magnesium tablets.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Ajax the clown with a list of random names and geologists Take the paper by Jenings and Weiner in 1996 for example. Their work focused on a small region in Eastern Greenland.  ;D. And the great Justwan published a book in 2008. WOW - so did Adolf Hitler in the 1930s let us take a look at some of work of Dansgaard et al in 1975. read carefully ladies and gentlemen. Notice how local predictions and measurements can be OUT OF PHASE with other regions of the earth? One needs to be very careful when making global predictions based upon a few local data points. This is why global measurements of temperature via numerous techniques are used. But Ajax thinks he can post a list of names with a year next to them, and claim some sort of crack pot consensus :D Oxygen isotope analysis of anew ice core from the crest of the Greenland ice sheet reveals a climatic record of the past 1,420 years. Climatic changes of medium frequencies are in phase with corresponding changes in Iceland and England, whilst long-term changes at mid Atlantic longitudes are out of phase with Europe and North America. Reconciliation with Norse history suggests a strong climatic impact, and a parallel is drawn to the present critical situation of the human society.

Guess it sucks that you can't refute the actual evidence for the MWP, and have to resort to the 'Shooting the Messenger' version of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Ajax the clown with a list of random names and geologists Take the paper by Jenings and Weiner in 1996 for example. Their work focused on a small region in Eastern Greenland.  ;D. And the great Justwan published a book in 2008. WOW - so did Adolf Hitler in the 1930s let us take a look at some of work of Dansgaard et al in 1975. read carefully ladies and gentlemen. Notice how local predictions and measurements can be OUT OF PHASE with other regions of the earth? One needs to be very careful when making global predictions based upon a few local data points. This is why global measurements of temperature via numerous techniques are used. But Ajax thinks he can post a list of names with a year next to them, and claim some sort of crack pot consensus :D Oxygen isotope analysis of anew ice core from the crest of the Greenland ice sheet reveals a climatic record of the past 1,420 years. Climatic changes of medium frequencies are in phase with corresponding changes in Iceland and England, whilst long-term changes at mid Atlantic longitudes are out of phase with Europe and North America. Reconciliation with Norse history suggests a strong climatic impact, and a parallel is drawn to the present critical situation of the human society. Guess it sucks that you can't refute the actual evidence for the MWP, and have to resort to the 'Shooting the Messenger' version of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

I checked 7 of the authors on the list - even though it doesn't provide paper titles, journals, volumes etc. - and their conclusions and work don't match the statement made above their names.

Have you checked the actual work that these researchers have carried out?

For the post to be worth anything at all, it would need to have a very clear statement made, followed by the signatures of every single person that is listed.

And of course its not Ajax's list is it? He cuts and pastes stuff from crack pot web sites and pretends to understand the issues when in reality he is clearly ignorant of the basic principles involved.

(He may be able to fool yourself and other Flat Earth disciples, but some primates do some basic checking Batman ;) You didnt think that you would get away with it did you Ajax? Look what happened to Jethro and Dr Sircus? ;D

http://lateforworkllc.com/wp-content/uploads/monkey-on-computer.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27th, 2015 at 8:08pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Ajax the clown with a list of random names and geologists Take the paper by Jenings and Weiner in 1996 for example. Their work focused on a small region in Eastern Greenland.  ;D. And the great Justwan published a book in 2008. WOW - so did Adolf Hitler in the 1930s let us take a look at some of work of Dansgaard et al in 1975. read carefully ladies and gentlemen. Notice how local predictions and measurements can be OUT OF PHASE with other regions of the earth? One needs to be very careful when making global predictions based upon a few local data points. This is why global measurements of temperature via numerous techniques are used. But Ajax thinks he can post a list of names with a year next to them, and claim some sort of crack pot consensus :D Oxygen isotope analysis of anew ice core from the crest of the Greenland ice sheet reveals a climatic record of the past 1,420 years. Climatic changes of medium frequencies are in phase with corresponding changes in Iceland and England, whilst long-term changes at mid Atlantic longitudes are out of phase with Europe and North America. Reconciliation with Norse history suggests a strong climatic impact, and a parallel is drawn to the present critical situation of the human society. Guess it sucks that you can't refute the actual evidence for the MWP, and have to resort to the 'Shooting the Messenger' version of the ad hominem logical fallacy. I checked 7 of the authors on the list - even though it doesn't provide paper titles, journals, volumes etc. - and their conclusions and work don't match the statement made above their names. Have you checked the actual work that these researchers have carried out? For the post to be worth anything at all, it would need to have a very clear statement made, followed by the signatures of every single person that is listed. And of course its not Ajax's list is it? He cuts and pastes stuff from crack pot web sites and pretends to understand the issues when in reality he is clearly ignorant of the basic principles involved. (He may be able to fool yourself and other Flat Earth disciples, but some primates do some basic checking Batman ;) You didnt think that you would get away with it did you Ajax? Look what happened to Jethro and Dr Sircus? ;D http://lateforworkllc.com/wp-content/uploads/monkey-on-computer.jpg

When you back a bunch of liers like the IPCC what do you expect you red arse chimp.

That list is valid and true, will try find where I got it from.

have a look here hairy nuts


Quote:

More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

better add this one to the list.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/new-paper-finds-medieval-warming-period.html

Ajax wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

Poor deluded chimp clutching at straws and name calling to save your hide. Its over chimp CO2 has never driven Earth's temperature and never will. Pretty soon people will start demanding that Antropogenic Global Warming be put into the mythology basket where it belongs Quote: New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/ http://i59.tinypic.com/169kz83.jpg http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/ [quote]Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/

Medieval warm period warmer than today.
Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012[/quote]
We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::)

.. therefore you are cutting down a strawman argument  :D :D :D :D :D

rate of warming

Ajax wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

Poor deluded chimp clutching at straws and name calling to save your hide. Its over chimp CO2 has never driven Earth's temperature and never will. Pretty soon people will start demanding that Antropogenic Global Warming be put into the mythology basket where it belongs

You've literally been repeating yourself on a forum for years while the science has failed to shift in your direction. lol.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27th, 2015 at 8:08pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Ajax the clown with a list of random names and geologists Take the paper by Jenings and Weiner in 1996 for example. Their work focused on a small region in Eastern Greenland.  ;D. And the great Justwan published a book in 2008. WOW - so did Adolf Hitler in the 1930s let us take a look at some of work of Dansgaard et al in 1975. read carefully ladies and gentlemen. Notice how local predictions and measurements can be OUT OF PHASE with other regions of the earth? One needs to be very careful when making global predictions based upon a few local data points. This is why global measurements of temperature via numerous techniques are used. But Ajax thinks he can post a list of names with a year next to them, and claim some sort of crack pot consensus :D Oxygen isotope analysis of anew ice core from the crest of the Greenland ice sheet reveals a climatic record of the past 1,420 years. Climatic changes of medium frequencies are in phase with corresponding changes in Iceland and England, whilst long-term changes at mid Atlantic longitudes are out of phase with Europe and North America. Reconciliation with Norse history suggests a strong climatic impact, and a parallel is drawn to the present critical situation of the human society. Guess it sucks that you can't refute the actual evidence for the MWP, and have to resort to the 'Shooting the Messenger' version of the ad hominem logical fallacy. I checked 7 of the authors on the list - even though it doesn't provide paper titles, journals, volumes etc. - and their conclusions and work don't match the statement made above their names. Have you checked the actual work that these researchers have carried out? For the post to be worth anything at all, it would need to have a very clear statement made, followed by the signatures of every single person that is listed. And of course its not Ajax's list is it? He cuts and pastes stuff from crack pot web sites and pretends to understand the issues when in reality he is clearly ignorant of the basic principles involved. (He may be able to fool yourself and other Flat Earth disciples, but some primates do some basic checking Batman ;) You didnt think that you would get away with it did you Ajax? Look what happened to Jethro and Dr Sircus? ;D http://lateforworkllc.com/wp-content/uploads/monkey-on-computer.jpg

Which 7 did you check?

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 12:27am:

rate of warming

You damn dirty ape its there in black and white and you just don't know what to do about it do you.

Worm breath just accept that CO2 doesn't control temperature here on Earth, as a matter of fact CO2 controls SFA here on Earth.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 12:06am:

We never had an industrial revolution before  ::) .. therefore you are cutting down a strawman argument  :D :D :D :D :D

You're doing well Cerberus getting up to the industrial revolution, not bad for a K9 still got a ways to go though... 8-) Keep up the good work, itchy arse..... :D

gnarwar wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 12:58am:

Ajax wrote on May 27th, 2015 at 6:23pm: Poor deluded chimp clutching at straws and name calling to save your hide. Its over chimp CO2 has never driven Earth's temperature and never will. Pretty soon people will start demanding that Antropogenic Global Warming be put into the mythology basket where it belongs You've literally been repeating yourself on a forum for years while the science has failed to shift in your direction. lol.

Well g'day to smacking you too....!!!!!!

The science that is AGW is slowly falling apart.

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 12:27am: rate of warming You damn dirty ape ....

Careful Batman, you're starting to lose it mate

You don't even understand the content in your own posts - that says a lot about what motivates you, you deranged slab of rotting putrid foul stenching weasel excrement

http://cdn.splitsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cryingbatman.jpg

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:51pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 12:06am: We never had an industrial revolution before  ::) .. therefore you are cutting down a strawman argument  :D :D :D :D :D You're doing well Cerberus getting up to the industrial revolution, not bad for a K9 still got a ways to go though... 8-) Keep up the good work, itchy arse..... :D

You didn't even acknowledge the CO2 contribution of the industrial revolution is what has changed when you said CO2 has never driven climate change before  :D :D :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:48pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 12:27am: rate of warming You damn dirty ape its there in black and white and you just don't know what to do about it do you. Worm breath just accept that CO2 doesn't control temperature here on Earth, as a matter of fact CO2 controls SFA here on Earth.

You don't acknowledge that CO2 is less soluble at higher temperatures and when milankovitch cycles raise the temperature of the planet the CO2 that comes out of solution reinforces the greenhouse effect.

Milankovitch and CO2 work together to increase and decrease the greenhouse effect: feedback mechanisms of the stabilising and destabilising kind are what make a complex system complex!

The kids know this and that is why lomborg got very publicly shamed out of UWA and Tony Abbott and his fascist child hating supporting voters are trying to hide their faces  ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:54pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 12:27am: rate of warming You damn dirty ape its there in black and white and you just don't know what to do about it do you. Worm breath just accept that CO2 doesn't control temperature here on Earth, as a matter of fact CO2 controls SFA here on Earth. You don't acknowledge that CO2 is less soluble at higher temperatures and when milankovitch cycles raise the temperature of the planet the CO2 that comes out of solution reinforces the greenhouse effect. Milankovitch and CO2 work together to increase and decrease the greenhouse effect: feedback mechanisms of the stabilising and destabilising kind are what make a complex system complex! The kids know this and that is why lomborg got very publicly shamed out of UWA and Tony Abbott and his fascist child hating supporting voters are trying to hide their faces  ::)

The 3 main Milankovitch cycles operate over very long time scales (25,000 to 100,000 years)

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432814622/0#0

This explains it very nicely.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 9:54pm: Ajax wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 12:27am: rate of warming You damn dirty ape its there in black and white and you just don't know what to do about it do you. Worm breath just accept that CO2 doesn't control temperature here on Earth, as a matter of fact CO2 controls SFA here on Earth. You don't acknowledge that CO2 is less soluble at higher temperatures and when milankovitch cycles raise the temperature of the planet the CO2 that comes out of solution reinforces the greenhouse effect. Milankovitch and CO2 work together to increase and decrease the greenhouse effect: feedback mechanisms of the stabilising and destabilising kind are what make a complex system complex! The kids know this and that is why lomborg got very publicly shamed out of UWA and Tony Abbott and his fascist child hating supporting voters are trying to hide their faces  ::) The 3 main Milankovitch cycles operate over very long time scales (25,000 to 100,000 years)

The truth remains that CO2 comes in and out of solution to reinforce the temperature regime the Milankovitch cycles forced the planet in to: the initial conditions for want of a better word. The CO2 provides one of the positively reinforcing feedbacks that so in tandem lead to the so called 'chaotic' phase change whether into or out of an ice age as the solubility of the gas CO2(like all?!!?) in water depends on temperature change and reinforces whichever way it goes....

longy and friends say CO2 never started climate change and that is correct: the difference today is that it is leading because it is being mechanically injected into the system- the sufficently defined question is simply, "WHAT IS THE RATE OF CHANGE OF TEMPERATURE WE HAVE INDUCED?"

(did I say that right?)(i'll double check tomorrow  ;D ;D)

This is complexity...

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432814622/0#0 This explains it very nicely.

I'm not watching a 56 minute video: explain it or get fingered  ;D ;D

Brevity is the soul of wit but batman with a crackpipe loves the indirectness of document shock: you have allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrned




::) ::)

(lol, no more bourbon and coke: night fellas  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :D)

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432814622/0#0 This explains it very nicely.

You also claim that Dr Sircus explains things nicely

I think it's clear to everyone in the southern Hemisphere at least that you are incapable of explaining anything "nicely" or otherwise.

And for that alone you should render a written sincere apology.

Why manmade CO2 doesn't really have much impact on net global emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

You don't acknowledge that CO2 is less soluble at higher temperatures and when milankovitch cycles raise the temperature of the planet the CO2 that comes out of solution reinforces the greenhouse effect. Milankovitch and CO2 work together to increase and decrease the greenhouse effect: feedback mechanisms of the stabilising and destabilising kind are what make a complex system complex! The kids know this and that is why lomborg got very publicly shamed out of UWA and Tony Abbott and his fascist child hating supporting voters are trying to hide their faces  ::)

Quote:

[quote] The 3 main Milankovitch cycles operate over very long time scales (25,000 to 100,000 years)

The truth remains that CO2 comes in and out of solution to reinforce the temperature regime the Milankovitch cycles forced the planet in to: the initial conditions for want of a better word. The CO2 provides one of the positively reinforcing feedbacks that so in tandem lead to the so called 'chaotic' phase change whether into or out of an ice age as the solubility of the gas CO2(like all?!!?) in water depends on temperature change and reinforces whichever way it goes....

longy and friends say CO2 never started climate change and that is correct: the difference today is that it is leading because it is being mechanically injected into the system- the sufficently defined question is simply, "WHAT IS THE RATE OF CHANGE OF TEMPERATURE WE HAVE INDUCED?"

(did I say that right?)(i'll double check tomorrow  ;D ;D)

This is complexity...

[/quote]

Yes, you did, and you didn't cut and paste a thing.  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

I'm impressed.

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

Why manmade CO2 doesn't really have much impact on net global emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I

Ajax still denies that CO2 dictates how much water vapour there is!


Let's all join in another billion word circle jerk because crack smokers and sons incorporated demands it  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 1:18am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 11:26am: Why manmade CO2 doesn't really have much impact on net global emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I Ajax still denies that CO2 dictates how much water vapour there is! Let's all join in another billion word circle jerk because crack smokers and sons incorporated demands it  ;D

CO2 contributes but it doesn't dictate.......!!!!!!!

The only place it dictates is in the IPCC computer climate models.

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 1:18am: Ajax wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 11:26am: Why manmade CO2 doesn't really have much impact on net global emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I Ajax still denies that CO2 dictates how much water vapour there is! Let's all join in another billion word circle jerk because crack smokers and sons incorporated demands it  ;D CO2 contributes but it doesn't dictate.......!!!!!!! The only place it dictates is in the IPCC computer climate models.

Ajax can't be serious  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
;D ;D

:o :o :o but of course he is because he smokes crack and votes liberal  :D :D

Quote:

CO2 contributes but it doesn't dictate.......!!!!!!! The only place it dictates is in the IPCC computer climate models.

You better believe it dog breath...!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour.

By how much does the human CO2 increase the overall water vapour in the atmosphere? This is the crucial question and you, very importantly., do not know the answer, not even approximately.

Soren wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:39pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. By how much does the human CO2 increase the overall water vapour in the atmosphere? This is the crucial question and you, very importantly., do not know the answer, not even approximately.

What is crucial is that you have conceded the relationship exists  ;) ;)

Ajax wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 2:47pm:

Quote: CO2 contributes but it doesn't dictate.......!!!!!!! The only place it dictates is in the IPCC computer climate models. You better believe it dog breath...!!

Ajax has nada but hate for the kiddies  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2015 at 3:39pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. By how much does the human CO2 increase the overall water vapour in the atmosphere? This is the crucial question and you, very importantly., do not know the answer, not even approximately. What is crucial is that you have conceded the relationship exists  ;) ;)

Yeah, the relationship is like my pissing into Sydney Harbour will raise the harbour's temperature. 

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

Yeah, the relationship is like my pissing into Sydney Harbour will raise the harbour's temperature.

And the water level. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:14pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Yeah, the relationship is like my pissing into Sydney Harbour will raise the harbour's temperature. And the water level. ;)

And then blaming it for frogs mating a week late in a forest in Cambodia.

Ya know it makes sense... :D :D

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 14th, 2015 at 9:34am: Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2015 at 3:39pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 12:13pm: Water is in a cycle: additional CO2, however, is being mechanically injected into the system increasing water vapour. By how much does the human CO2 increase the overall water vapour in the atmosphere? This is the crucial question and you, very importantly., do not know the answer, not even approximately. What is crucial is that you have conceded the relationship exists  ;) ;) Yeah, the relationship is like my pissing into Sydney Harbour will raise the harbour's temperature.

soren is offering a quantified argument  ::) ::)

soren is god of course and knows shite from shite because he sounds like he does  ::) ::) ::) ::)

hey man lets all vote for copper internet and tell all the kids in a nasty accent to let the adults talk and shite and do stupid clicks after every second half sentence hay kaffa  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

hey bro, you own a fast food chicken franchise or something ay ???

you cook with the herbs of the people you despise or something  :o :o :o :o :o

yeh go nazis forever  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:14pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Yeah, the relationship is like my pissing into Sydney Harbour will raise the harbour's temperature. And the water level. ;)

lee loves fascist front bottom

Rider wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

lee wrote on Jun 14th, 2015 at 5:14pm: Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Yeah, the relationship is like my pissing into Sydney Harbour will raise the harbour's temperature. And the water level. ;) And then blaming it for frogs mating a week late in a forest in Cambodia. Ya know it makes sense... :D :D

rider is pretending copper internet isn't a global joke  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 11:46pm:

lee loves fascist nice person

Where did you get the idea I loved you?

Where is Dr Chimp when you need him?