Australian Politics Forum - Global Warming's terrifying new maths

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #150 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:47pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association...

It shows a correlation. After about 600-800 years CO2 overtakes temperature. And temperatures fall again because the Earth's orbit shifts. That's the other incredibly clear correlation to that graph, the peaks and troughs of the Milankovitch Cycle.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #151 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 7:18pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

Well to follow your point to its logical conclusion then you must believe that it is a change in temperature that caused us to start digging billions of tonnes of carbon up and burning it to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

So, clearly, that hasn't happened which suggests sometimes things OTHER than slight changes in temperature can cause the initial outgas of CO2 - and if there is one thing we CAN clearly discern from the graph that you posted it is that CO2 amplifies warming.

So unless you ARE suggesting that a temperature change caused us to dig up coal and oil then you have to acknowledge that CO2 rises sometimes do lead temperature changes and that in this instance human activity has been the catalyst for an outgassng of CO2 that will result in significant warming. Either that or you deny the clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and temperature during past climatic changes.

1. To follow your post to it's logical conclusion you're an utter fukwit.

2. Of course there are other things apart from temperature that cause CO2 to be released. The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association...see point 1.

3. Your last paragraph...see point 1.

Your number 2 is a good point.

Think about this

A driver drives the temperature up. This same driver goes away and drives the temperature down.

There is a climb up, a peak, a drop, all looking pretty equal on the up and on the down.

If co2 were to make the up go up higher.

Why then does the down slide copy the up slide. There is a lag in co2 going to its peak (200 - 800 years), but yet we see no lag in cooling whatsoever.

The up and down slopes should be different. We see no lagged cooling. Obviously I have not done calculation and do not have any numbers, but that is just a thought to look at, at a later date.

Back to top

IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #152 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:03pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association...

It shows a correlation. After about 600-800 years CO2 overtakes temperature. And temperatures fall again because the Earth's orbit shifts. That's the other incredibly clear correlation to that graph, the peaks and troughs of the Milankovitch Cycle.

It's an association. And on the longer timescale even this is absent, Cambrian up to 7000ppm, Devonian ave about 3000ppm, Jurassic about 1800ppm, Cretaceous about 1200ppm and all without runaway greenhouse and far from devoid of life.
On average over the last 450,000 years or so CO2 lagged temperature increase by about 800 years.
Sure the Milankovich cycles explain everything if you are willfully blind to the problems with this hypothesis.

Back to top

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #153 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:20pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:03pm:

It's an association. And on the longer timescale even this is absent, Cambrian up to 7000ppm, Devonian ave about 3000ppm, Jurassic about 1800ppm, Cretaceous about 1200ppm and all without runaway greenhouse and far from devoid of life.

That's a strawman. No one of any consequence has claimed that AGW would cause a runaway greenhouse effect and/or leave the planet devoid of life. There is a difference between 'not suitable for human civilisation' and 'devoid of life'.

Quote:

On average over the last 450,000 years or so CO2 lagged temperature increase by about 800 years.
Sure the Milankovich cycles explain everything if you are willfully blind to the problems with this hypothesis.

Problems? Such as?

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #154 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:28pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

The up and down slopes should be different. We see no lagged cooling. Obviously I have not done calculation and do not have any numbers, but that is just a thought to look at, at a later date.

Because clearly you are brighter than the people who have done the calculations and have thought of something brilliant that those dimwits who make it their life's work to understand such things would never have considered. It really is reassuring to have you around! Grin

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #155 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:36pm

Oh, and for the record, there IS a very clear lag in the downside of the Vostock ice core data - temperatures drop suddenly then about 1000 years later, as CO2 begins to get trapped in the cooling oceans, levels decline in correlation with the previous temperature drop.

/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #156 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 10:05pm

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:36pm:

Oh, and for the record, there IS a very clear lag in the downside of the Vostock ice core data - temperatures drop suddenly then about 1000 years later, as CO2 begins to get trapped in the cooling oceans, levels decline in correlation with the previous temperature

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths Reply #157 - Jul 29^th, 2012 at 10:10pm yES, the liberal-voting-silver-spooner-tryhard brigade are beginning to realise that they will have to look their children in the eye one day and admit they voted for short term greed and not their childrens childrens childrens future!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

tonegunman1

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 427

Re: Global Warming's terrifying new maths
Reply #158 - Jul 30^th, 2012 at 9:33am

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:20pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:03pm:

It's an association. And on the longer timescale even this is absent, Cambrian up to 7000ppm, Devonian ave about 3000ppm, Jurassic about 1800ppm, Cretaceous about 1200ppm and all without runaway greenhouse and far from devoid of life.

That's a strawman. No one of any consequence has claimed that AGW would cause a runaway greenhouse effect and/or leave the planet devoid of life. There is a difference between 'not suitable for human civilisation' and 'devoid of life'.

Strawman?...but where oh where is your clear correlation between CO2 and temperature that would have the dinosaurs cooking like KFC chickens?
And your measure of environmental harm is apparently purely anthropogenic...that's interesting.

Quote:

Quote:

On average over the last 450,000 years or so CO2 lagged temperature increase by about 800 years.
Sure the Milankovich cycles explain everything if you are willfully blind to the problems with this hypothesis.

Problems? Such as?

I dunno....little things like magnitude of effects and effects preceding causation.
And otherwise it has all the precision of reading sheep's intestines.
Take 2 different Milankovichites interpreting the same observations. Imbrie has cooling beginning 6K years ago and going for the next 23K years.
While Berger and Loutre have warm climate for the next 50K years.
Quite some little margin of error you have there.
I don't know how people are supposed to compete with such high standards?
But I gave it a shot re tobacco and determined right off the bat that a predisposition to lung cancer causes smoking.
See point 1.

Back to top

IP Logged