Statistical Analysis Debunks Climate Change Naysayers

Originally posted by melatonin
Why are you bringing up the 400million year old CO2 stuff again? That was a time when the earth was rather different than now, to suggest the current situation is in anyway comparable is remiss, that's not to mention the uncertainties with proxies of such periods.

Either CO2 is a major driver of climate, and the geological record should show if it is, or it isnt'...

The evidence shows that it isn't...

Originally posted by melatonin
You were talking about the lag during glacial periods. The lag is followed by over 4000 years of further warming.

Wrong Again.... During the final part of the late Ordovician, after temperatures had been similar to the present, with some warming and cooling events throughout millions of years with almost the same levels of CO2, from about 4,000 to 4,400 ppm, there was a cooling event, an Ice Age which caused the mass extinction of over 65%-85% of all marine life...

Again, you show a lack of knowledge of the geological record...

Yes, it is April's fool and you continue with your pseudo-science BS...

Originally posted by melatonin
So, you pick one unrelated event over a pole to suggest there is stratospheric warming, or what? We were talking about noctilucent clouds and the current trend in cooling of the stratosphere and mesosphere.

We are talking about an event caused by the increase of water vapor levels, NLC, yet this is a cause of warming, the same with CO2. NLC, and CO2 are effects of Climate Change, they are not causes...

Originally posted by melatonin
As I said, whatever mechanism you propose, if it produces mesospheric and stratospheric warming (and this means long-term global trends, not local phasic responses), it isn't important at this point because the data shows otherwise.

Again wrong, because the data shows quite a different picture to what you are claiming... The recent warming began well before CO2 levels were increasing, and there is not one iota of proof that CO2 drives the climate, much less "brings in warming events" because the geological record has shown both cold and warming events with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by melatonin
Which is what I said. The holocene sea-level rise produced a warming wave that is making its way through hundreds of meters of permafrost sediment deep under the ocean. This could be what has caused the production of pingo-like structures.

No, you tried to claim this event is not warming the oceans, you were trying to claim it just produces pingo-like structures...yet the articles say quite different....there is currently dramatic thermal changes in both the Arctic and Antarctic which has nothing to do with the claim of anthropogenic warming or "Global Warming".

Originally posted by melatonin
Warming wave passing through hundreds of meters of permafrost sediments deep under the sea over thousands of years. It produces pingo-like structures which have been releasing methane.

And you forget those warm waves have been causing "dramatic thermal changes in the oceans"......

Go figure, apparently for you everyday is April's fools...

Originally posted by melatonin
Interesting, because in an article published the same day, Wingham gave this information to New Scientist, and another author on the paper gave his opinion...

And this is where uncertainties arise. In Greenland, it is possible that water from melting ice at the surface of the glaciers is boring holes through the ice sheets and lubricating their base. "It is at least possible," says Wingham, that global warming is causing this to happen now more than before.
........................
"Our assessment confirms that just one type of glacier in Antarctica is retreating today – those that are seated in deep submarine basins and flow directly into the oceans," says Shepherd. "These glaciers are vulnerable to small changes in ocean temperature, such as those that have occurred over the 20th century and those predicted for the 21st century. A rise of less than 0.5 °C could have triggered the present imbalance."

www.newscientisttech.com...

Maybe we should let Wingham have the last word:

"In Greenland, we know there is melting associated with the ice loss, but in Antarctica we don't really know why it's happening," said Duncan Wingham, an author of the Science magazine review released today."

Wingham is making another guess as to what is happening there. But if the source of the warming in Antarctica was from the surface we would be seeing more loos of ice at the surface.

We also have these...

Two Large Lakes Discovered Under Antarctic Ice

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 25 January 2006
09:10 pm ET


Antarctica has at least 145 small lakes buried under its ice and one large one called Vostok. Now scientists have found the second and third largest known bodies of subsurface liquid water there.

Exotic ecosystems frozen in time may thrive in the lakes, untouched for 35 million years, scientists said.

Vostok has a surface area of 5,400 square miles. One of the newfound lakes measures 770 square miles in size, or roughly the size of Rhode Island. The other is about 620 square miles.

Both sit under more than 2 miles of ice and are about a half-mile deep based on observed differences in gravity.
.................
The combination of heat from below and a thick layer of insulating ice above keeps the water temperature at the top of both lakes at a balmy 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers say, despite outdoor temperatures that can drop to –112 in winter.

The lakes are bounded by faults, Bell said, and the evidence suggests there is circulation and that they receive flows of nutrients that could support unique ecosystems.

www.livescience.com...

Those warm lakes suggest the warming source is from underneath he glaciers. Appart form the other articles I gave which do state the warming is not due to human activities but to Holocene warming...

I really do wonder why is it that you don't know about these events, or if you do, why you are trying to ignore or dismiss them....

Originally posted by melatonin
So, you have numerous highly unlikely explanations, it's either an ISD, delayed holocene warming, solar variation, cosmic rays etc etc. Not one is able to adequately explain the current situation.

Oh right...unlikely scenarios because "melatonin says so"... and who is forgetting that meanwhile you are trying to claim "noone is able to adequately explain the current situation" you are trying to claim is "all because of mankind"....despite the fact that the data says the oposite to your claim...

Originally posted by melatonin
ISD = likely cooling
Delayed holocene warming = april's fool
Solar variation = stratospheric and mesospheric warming trend (not observed) and no current association.
Cosmic rays = likely cooling

So what does fit the data:

An significant influence of human activity - increasing GHGs and other biosphere effects = warming troposphere, surface & oceans, cooling stratosphere/mesosphere = observations.

Bingo!

You reallly are a piece of work...

I am going to concentrate in one part of your scenario above, because I have been presenting evidence about the others that anyone with some common sense would understand, but you somehow keep trying to dismiss...

You claim Holocene warming is "a joke" .... That's actually one of the best examples of your lack of knowledge of these events... i already gave research which proves even the recent dramatic warming in the arctic has been related to Holocene sea level rise, not to manmade activities, and the warming which has been going on for around 11,500 years....

The following graph, which I have presented plenty of times before, shows what has been happening throughout the Holocene period, which we are still going through....

You claim Holocene warming at this stage is a joke yet the evidence shows it is still going on.

There have been colling and warming events during the past 12,000 years but on the overall there has been a warming associated to the Holocene, not because of "mankind's activities....

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Either CO2 is a major driver of climate, and the geological record should show if it is, or it isnt'...

The evidence shows that it isn't...

No, CO2 can both be a feedback and a cause of warming. This is where your logical fallacy is.

Chickens cause eggs and eggs cause chickens.

No-one is suggesting that CO2 just magically appears and drives all glacial warming over the history of the earth. It is likely that another cause influences the biosphere to produce CO2 (orbital variations, oceans etc), the released CO2 then causes further warming.

Rather simple really but I guess it's hard for some to understand how interactions and feedback occur, especially when you're restricted by binary thinking.

We are talking about an event caused by the increase of water vapor levels, NLC, yet this is a cause of warming, the same with CO2. NLC, and CO2 are effects of Climate Change, they are not causes...

Sheesh, non-sequiturs abound.

CO2 can cause warming, that's why it is a greenhouse gas. Warming does increase water vapour, and CO2 can cause warming. And how do you know that NLCs don't have an effect on climate? If these clouds keep increasing and spreading, they will most likely have a reflective effect.

We don't know enough about mesospheric processes to make any firm conclusions about NLC formation. It could be due to increased water vapour sourced from troposphere, it could be due to more methane entering this area (it oxidises forming water), it could be due to cooling due to GHGs, it could even be your beloved interstellar dust providing CCNs. It is probably a mix of some of these.

But we can link two of these to our activities, methane and CO2.

You claim Holocene warming is "a joke" .... That's actually one of the best examples of your lack of knowledge of these events... i already gave research which proves even the recent dramatic warming in the arctic has been related to Holocene sea level rise, not to manmade activities, and the warming which has been going on for around 11,500 years....

No, I claim that you suggesting that warming 10,000 years ago has caused the rapid warming of the last 40 years or so is a joke.

Lets see a better view of the last 10,000 years or so, here's an approximation of average temperature anomalies over the last 11,000 years from 8 proxies around the world.


en.wikipedia.org...:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

So, you are seriously suggesting that we are seeing a jump in temperatures caused by some mechanism from the end of the glacial period 10,000 years ago?

By what mechanism does this happen? Don't give me rubbish about a warming wave being the cause, this would be a gradual trend over 10,000 years, not a fantastical delayed reaction.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by melatonin]

While this argument took place how many millions of pounds of carbon did we humans contribute to the open atmosphere. We are talking about millions of years of plants, animals and other forms of carbon trapped subterranean now being dug and pumped out to be burned and released. Except for the European sequestration, where do you nay-sayers think all this carbon is going. The trees and plankton aren't eating it that fast. We have millions of acres less forests today than just 100 years ago. Carbon is proven to be a sink for heat. The only reason that people don't think the minuscule rise is a problem is because it hasn't forced them to buy a bigger air conditioner. By the time you need to upgrade the AC, the planet will be failing to support life. The biggest problem now is that even if we ground up all the SUVs into sun shades today, we may already be too late to stop the collapse of the gaian balance. We've seen seven years of drought in the SE-US and spotty years before that.

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by Classified Info
What are the average yearly temperatures of the earth for over the last 100 years or so?

If you can find the actual numbers, how exactly were they obtained?

Oh why, oh why, oh why oh why; can I never ever get answers to these very simple questions?

Why???

The reason people aren't responding to your "simple" question that you imply debunks global warming, is because with five minutes of cursory internet research you could find the answer for yourself.

This Website Is One of the Major Sources Used By Both Sides

Try using google next time. There's a wealth of knowledge available if we aren't to lazy to look for it.

As for the "myth" of man made global warming, I think the "naysayers" use a strange tactic. Nobody on the side of global warming is saying mankind is the only reason global warming exists. The Earth does go through cycles of heating and cooling, but its counterintuitive to say that mankind isn't making it worse. We're contribuitng CO2 to the environment. Yes, in nature, plants contribute CO2 as well, but the point is, we're adding on top of these "natural cycles", and throwing things out of wack. Rather than say "Gee, you know, water particles in the air are much worse, and occur naturally, so there's really no need to do anything". That makes no sense to me. We can cut back on CO2 emissions, and try to prevent the current warming cycle from being a natural event to something that could be catostrophic for the human race.

I really love the conspiracy angle that gets throw at the manmade Global Warming advocates. One of the staples behind any solid conspiracy thoery, is motive. What possible motive is there for every single scientist who has written a peer reviewed paper on the subject to say global warming is happening? What is their motive? Greed? Power? What exactly are they gaining by unanimously saying this is really happening?

Now on the side of the Global Warming Naysayers, we have oil companys, coal companies, big buisness, those who wish to maintain the status quo, etc. Gee, I wonder which side would be more apt to lie, the people who have a track record of dishonesty, or the entire scientific community.



And for those who still stubbonrly claim that humans can't have a long lasting effect on the environment, you need to study your history a bit more. For example the giant desert in Spain, wasn't always a desert.

How About Starting Here

The current landscape was formed primarily in modern times as an inadvertent effect of economic activities. Agricultural expansion, mining, which consumed large amounts of wood, and a demographic explosion destroyed the forests, provoked great erosive processes and totally altered the ecosystems of the zone.

Wow, "throwing things out of wack"... and "Pumping more CO2 than normally the Earth would have"....

The Earth has had up to 16 times the CO2 that exists now and it never became "Venus or Mars'....

In fact the geological record has shown us that temperatures have been similar to the present with CO2 levels at 4,000ppm to 4,400 ppm...yet now it is at 380ppm and some want to claim "the world is going to become Mars or Venus"....

Oh btw, the hundreds of years of cutting down trees has been reversed.

ROME (AP) — Europe and North America have reversed centuries of deforestation and are showing a net increase in wooded areas, while most developing countries continue to cut down their trees, a U.N. agency said Tuesday.

The Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organization said in its biannual report on the State of the World's Forests that economic prosperity and careful forest management had positive effects.

www.livescience.com...

As for the developing nations cutting fdown trees, they were not doing it for "hundreds of years"...

The oceans play a bigger role at absorbing and releasing CO2 than trees. I like trees too, but trees are not the major source of CO2 and oxygen variations on Earth...

Originally posted by melatonin

No, CO2 can both be a feedback and a cause of warming. This is where your logical fallacy is.

Your logical fallacy lies on believing a small amount of CO2 increases the temperatures, when it has been shown by several research I ahve posted countless of times that during the Roman warming and the Medieval Warming temperatures were much higher than today yet CO2 levels were lower.....

Originally posted by melatonin
Chickens cause eggs and eggs cause chickens.

Except that there is no "chicken/egg" scenario here....

Originally posted by melatonin
No, I claim that you suggesting that warming 10,000 years ago has caused the rapid warming of the last 40 years or so is a joke.

I actually said the Earth has been warming throughout the Holocene period. The current warming is a continuation of the Holocene warming, although yes changes in the temperatures in the oceans take a very long time...

Originally posted by melatonin
Lets see a better view of the last 10,000 years or so, here's an approximation of average temperature anomalies over the last 11,000 years from 8 proxies around the world.

And i have shown in another thread that there are proxies in there that do no corroborate each toher, and none of those corroborates Mann's Hockey Stick Graph either....

Here are a couple of graphs from those same scientists who did those proxies...

Here is Esper's graph by itself.



And here is the graph that Briffa did in 1998.



Superimposing other graphs over Mann's Hockey Stick Graph does not corroborate Mann's flawed/rigged graph...

Originally posted by melatonin
So, you are seriously suggesting that we are seeing a jump in temperatures caused by some mechanism from the end of the glacial period 10,000 years ago?

I am seriously saying, as other scientists have been saying, that the current warming is a continuation of Holocene warming.

Originally posted by melatonin
By what mechanism does this happen? Don't give me rubbish about a warming wave being the cause, this would be a gradual trend over 10,000 years, not a fantastical delayed reaction.

I don't post rubbish, I leave that to you as you keep quoting from Mann through the Real Climate website...

Here is what some real scientists have to say about the current warming...

“I always become suspicious when many scientists agree on some interpretation,” he said.

Now in retirement, the 76-year-old former director of both UAF’s Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center is digging in on a new idea that runs contrary to popular beliefs—that today’s global warming might be more due to the planet’s natural recovery from its last cold period than from our pumping of greenhouse gases into the air. Akasofu recently gave a talk at the International Arctic Research Center in which he presented evidence for how the world has warmed in a steady fashion from well before the Industrial Revolution to the current day.

“If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present,” Akasofu said. He showed ice core data from the Russian Arctic that shows warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660, and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.

Akasofu said scientists who support the manmade greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have only been available in the satellite era since the 1960s and 1970s.

“Young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975,” he said. “All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That’s what I call ‘instant climatology.’ I’m trying to tell young scientists, ‘You can’t study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.’”

Melting glaciers, permafrost, and other signs of warming might be Earth’s natural recovery from a period known as the Little Ice Age, Akasofu said. The Little Ice Age featured several centuries of very cold temperatures. The Thames River and New York Harbor often froze, and Vikings might have abandoned settlements at the time.

www.gi.alaska.edu...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Your logical fallacy lies on believing a small amount of CO2 increases the temperatures, when it has been shown by several research I ahve posted countless of times that during the Roman warming and the Medieval Warming temperatures were much higher than today yet CO2 levels were lower.....

And every time you posted them you were wrong. You do not have the evidence to show that global temperatures were higher during the MWP & RWP than now.

What you have is a few unreliable localised proxies, I can present numerous proxies, from numerous locations, from numerous studies that show this to be a very questionable proposition.

I actually said the Earth has been warming throughout the Holocene period. The current warming is a continuation of the Holocene warming, although yes changes in the temperatures in the oceans take a very long time...

Yeah, of course, it takes 10,000 years for a massive unprecedented warming trend. Interesting when looking at the average 11,000 year proxies that we just don't see this warming throughout the holocene.

And i have shown in another thread that there are proxies in there that do no corroborate each toher, and none of those corroborates Mann's Hockey Stick Graph either....

What'choo on about Willis?

Mann's 1998 study is a 1000 year reconstruction.

Here is what some real scientists have to say about the current warming...

Akafosu is now an ex-scientist.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

And every time you posted them you were wrong. You do not have the evidence to show that global temperatures were higher during the MWP & RWP than now.

Naa, i am not the one who claimed CO2 have never risen like they have during the past 150 years and claimed that CO2 levels increased only about 20ppm...

I am not the one who gives links to Real Climate 80% of the time...

I am not the one who has shown a lack of understanding of many natural events which you want to "blame mankind" for....

Proxies have been wrong before, and proxies dependant on assumptions that CO2 is the main contributor of warming will be wrong tomorrow and 100 years from now...

Originally posted by melatonin
What you have is a few unreliable localised proxies, I can present numerous proxies, from numerous locations, from numerous studies that show this to be a very questionable proposition.

wrong... what I have shown is research from all over the northern hemisphere which debunks the junk science you keep quoting...

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, of course, it takes 10,000 years for a massive unprecedented warming trend. Interesting when looking at the average 11,000 year proxies that we just don't see this warming throughout the holocene.

Well, if you want to keep believing Mann and his colleages yeah, that's what he has claimed, and his research has been discredited even by the IPCC who does not use the Hockey Stick Graph... now they try to claim that extrapolating several different proxies, a few of them which show the contrary to their main claims, that this proves the 20th century is the warmest for thousands of years....

Yet dozens of other research shows them wrong....

Originally posted by melatonin
What'choo on about Willis?

Mann's 1998 study is a 1000 year reconstruction.

And Mann and other scientists have claimed the 20th century is probably the warmest in a lot more than 1,000 years...

So yeah "Willis" what are you talking about?... You don't even know the studies Mann has made?....

Even in the 2003 study Mann and Jones used the Hockey Stick Gaph... again this shows you don't have enough knowledge to debate this topic...

Mann, M.E. and Jones, P.D. 2003. Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL017814.

www.agu.org...

That's part of what Mann has claimed, yet his research has been discredited...

Originally posted by melatonin
Akafosu is now an ex-scientist.

Dr. Akasofu is still a scientist who has spent his entire career studying and doing research in geophysics, the last 9 years he spent being the director of the International Arctic research Center studying Climate Change in the Arctic....

DATE/PLACE OF BIRTH:
December 4, 1930, Nagano-ken, Japan (US Citizen)

EDUCATION:
B.S. Geophysics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, 1953
M.S. Geophysics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, 1957
Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, 1961

EDUCATION:EXPERIENCE:
Director, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 1998-present
Director, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 1986-1999
Head, Department of Physics, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 1984-86
Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 1983-present
Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1964-1986
Associate Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1962-64
Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1961-62
Research Assistant in Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, 1958-61
Senior Research Assistant, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan, 1953-55
Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research, 1972-74
Associate Editor, Journal of Geomagnetism & Geoelectricity, 1972-present
Editorial Advisory Board, Planetary Space Science, 1969-present
Editorial Advisory Board, Space Science Reviews, 1967-77
Member, Editorial Committee, Space Science Reviews, 1977-present

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:


American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Geophysical Union
Inter-Union Commission on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
International Union of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Phi Kappa Phi Society
Sigma Xi Society
Society of Terrestrial Magnetism and Electricity in Japan
AWARDS AND HONORS:

The Chapman Medal from the Royal Astronomical Society in England, 1976
The Japan Academy Award, 1977
Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, 1977
John Adam Fleming Medal, American Geophysical Union, 1979
Distinguished Alumnus, University of Alaska, 1980
The 1,000 Most-Cited Contemporary Scientists (Current Contents), 1981
Special Lecture for the Emperor of Japan on the aurora, October 3, 1985
First recipient of the Sydney Chapman Chair professorship, University of Alaska, 1985
Member of the International Academy of Aeronautics, Paris, 1986
Fellow of the Arctic Institute of North America, 1987
"Centennial Alumni", National Assoc. of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges, 1987
Japan Foreign Minister's Award for Promoting International Relations and Cultural Exchange between Japan and Alaska, 1993
Japan Posts and Telecommunications Minister Award for Contributions to the US-Japan Joint Project on Environmental Science in Alaska, 1996
Edith R. Bullock Prize for Excellence, 1997
Alaskan of the Year-Denali Award, 1999
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001
Named One of the World?s Most Cited Authors in Space Physics by Current Contents ISI, 2002
Aurora Award, Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2003
The Order of the Sacred Treasure--Gold and Silver Stars, by The Emperor of Japan, 2003
PUBLICATIONS:

Books


Akasofu, S.-I., Polar and Magnetospheric Substorms, D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1968, (also a Russian edition).
Akasofu, S.-I., B. Fogle, and B. Haurwitz, Sydney Chapman, Eighty, published by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Publishing Service of the University of Colorado, 1968.
Akasofu, S.-I. and S. Chapman, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1972, (also a Russian and Chinese edition).
Akasofu, S.-I., The Aurora: A Discharge Phenomenon Surrounding the Earth, (in Japanese), Chuo-koran- sha, Tokyo, Japan.
Akasofu, S.-I., Physics of Magnetospheric Substorms, D. Reidel, Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1977.
Akasofu, S.-I., Aurora Borealis: The Amazing Northern Lights, Alaska Geographic Society, Alaska Northwest Pub. Co., 6, 2, 1979, (also a Japanese edition).
Akasofu, S.-I. (ed.), Dynamics of the Magnetosphere, D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1979.
Akasofu, S.-I. and J.R. Kan (eds.), Physics of Auroral Arc Formation, Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, D.C., 1981.
Akasofu, S.-I. and Y. Kamide (eds.), The Solar Wind and the Earth, Geophys. Astrophys. Monographs, Terra Scientific Pub. Co., Tokyo, Japan, and D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1987.
Akasofu, S.-I., Secrets of the Aurora Borealis, Alaska Geographic Society, Banta Publications Group/Hart Press, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2002.
Akasofu, S.-I. Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2002.

Over 550 Published Articles

www.iarc.uaf.edu...

Let's see...believe Mann and his colleages, alongside Melatonin, who keep trying to validate Man's Hockey Stick Graph, or believe Dr. Akasofu?.....

Tough choice huh?....

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
wrong... what I have shown is research from all over the northern hemisphere which debunks the junk science you keep quoting...

Muaddib, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass. Hint: it doesn't come from an e-mail list...

It feels like groundhog day, so I'll go with the flow.

[groundhog day]........

Was the MWP warmer than now, if so, was it on on a large regional/spatial scale?



These 10 reconstructions from numerous researchers that use multiple high resolution temperature proxies from across larger scale regions (the northern hemisphere) suggest it was not warmer during the MWP, but it was warmer than the LIA.

Was it on a large scale at the same time during the MWP?

Nine Localised temperature proxies from Mann et al (2003)...



These are compared to zero mean for 1961-1990. Red above mean, blue below. This shows that temperature is very variable across regions and time during LIA and MWP periods but 20th century warming is common to most regions.


What can you present? A handful of localised data points from within a 500 year period that show those localised areas were warmer than now.

Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years

Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

From the article...



This shows the fraction (number] of records during a particular timeframe that are above a threshold level of temperature, this uses 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere. A wider region of warming is present during the late 20th then any time in the previous 1200 yrs.

ABE: From Bradley et al (2003)...

Science 17 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz

Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.

...

Large-scale reconstructions of mean annual or summer temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere show a decline in temperatures from 1000 A.D. to the late 19th century, followed by an abrupt rise in temperature (6). Such analyses, when scaled to the same base of reference, show that temperatures from 1000 to 1200 A.D. (or 1100 to 1200 A.D.) were almost the same (or 0.03ºC cooler) as from 1901 to 1970 A.D. (7, 8). The latter period was on average ~0.35ºC cooler than the last 30 years of the 20th century

/edit

Lets see what we find for the southern hemisphere...

The 'little ice age'...

From this cold interval, the SSTA reconstructions capture the 20th century warming until the 1980s, when the coral cores were collected. It is conspicuous that the period from the 1700s to the 1870s was consistently as warm as the early 1980s. The only other Pacific coral Sr/Ca record, from Rarotonga (Fig. 2D) (21), also reconstructs SSTs for the 18th and 19th centuries that are as warm as, or warmer than, the 20th century.

Hendy et al. (2002). Science, 295, 1511+

So, it was actually as warm around australia in the LIA as it was for the average 20th century.

What about the MWP...


Taken from Cobb et al. (2003) Nature, 472, 271+

Seems we find temperatures were relatively cooler in the tropical pacific during the MWP than the LIA. But, like your examples, these SH examples are a few localised temperature proxies that are not real indicative of the global position.

The emperor has no clothes - I'm quite sure most lurkers and readers can see the nakedness of your argument, no matter how you dress it up.



You can keep parroting a few isolated localised proxies but they mean little on large scales. You have no argument, the reconstructions provide multiple localised temperature proxies from across large areas over long periods of time. There are also a number of localised southern hemisphere proxies that refute the notion of global scale warming during MWP, and cooling during the LIA. Finally, we have Osborne & Briffa's analysis of 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere that show a larger region was warmer in the 20th century than during the MWP.

Multiple temperature proxies across more global areas across multiple studies from multiple researchers.

I'll repeat my main point again, multiple temperature proxies across more global areas from multiple researchers.

You have no case for your argument.


...............[/groundhog day]

Mann, M.E. and Jones, P.D. 2003. Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL017814.

www.agu.org...

That's part of what Mann has claimed, yet his research has been discredited...

That's not the study you keep harping on about. That's just another study, this time from Mann, that supports his 1998 study.

Dr. Akasofu is still a scientist who has spent his entire career studying and doing research in geophysics, the last 9 years he spent being the director of Climate Change in the Arctic....

With an expertise in Aurora. I thought you said he has now retired?

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Muaddib, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass. Hint: it doesn't come from an e-mail list...

I think i have proven who doesn't know what the heck they are talking about...

Keep lying melatonin, you are your own worse nightmare...

Originally posted by melatonin
It feels like groundhog day, so I'll go with the flow.

It actually feels i am trying to teach a 5 year old that Santa Claus does not exist meanwhile he is crying and whining about how he saw Santa Claus and his flying raindeer....

Originally posted by melatonin
Was the MWP warmer than now, if so, was it on on a large regional/spatial scale?

These 10 reconstructions from numerous researchers that use multiple high resolution temperature proxies from across larger scale regions (the northern hemisphere) suggest it was not warmer during the MWP, but it was warmer than the LIA.

Really?... Take a closer look at those "10 reconstructions"...if you look at them by themselves you will find that quite a few do not show what you are trying to claim....

BTW...why don't you give the link to the site where those reconstructions can be found?....

don't tell me...they come from the Real Climate website....

Originally posted by melatonin
What can you present? A handful of localised data points from within a 500 year period that show those localised areas were warmer than now.

Right, i forgot... i am trying to debate with Mr. "it is only coincidence" that all the data I presented from the northern hemisphere corroborates that those warming periods, and even the LIA are found not on localized points....but all over the northern hemisphere.....

and of course, Mr. "it's only a coincidence" also does not tell you that presently the warming is not uniform either and there are some areas where there is more warming than on others.... I guess that means Global Warming is a lie... because localized temperatures differ from area to area....

Originally posted by melatonin
With an expertise in Aurora. I thought you said he has now retired?

With an expertise in Terrestrial and Solar Physics... and even if he retired at the beginning of 2007, he is still a scientist who has more credence than the crackpot scientific BS you keep "parroting"...

Gerhard, whose research took place under the auspices of the Kansas Geological Survey and was not funded by industry, points out that the geological record shows that rises in greenhouse gases do not precede rises in temperature. Indeed, CO2 levels actually rose prior to the advent of the Little Ice Age (circa 1400).6 Moreover, CO2, the greenhouse gas most prominently cited as contributing to global warming, represents only about 1/4 of 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas effect, "hardly a device to drive the massive energy system of earth's climate," he says.7

Gerhard's conclusions are supported by findings released Sept. 29 by CO2 researechers Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso. "[E]arth's mean near-surface air temperature is nowhere near the peak level of what it was a million or so years ago," they write. "Neither is it as high as it was during the mid-Holocene [circe 5,000 years ago], which was itself much cooler than all four of the interglacials that preceded it. In fact, it's not even as warm now as it was a mere 900 years ago, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was fully 100 ppm (parts per million) less than it is today..."8 (emphasis in the original)

"Climate is always changing," notes Philip Slott, professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Climate is governed by millions of factors, from the lightest waft of a monarch butterfly's wing, through erupting volcanoes, shifting land surfaces, ocean currents, ocean salinity and atmospheric gases, to shifts in the geometry of the earth, solar cycles, meteors, and meteorites." "The idea of global warming," he continues, "is dangerous precisely because it gives the false impression that we might be able to halt climate change by fiddling with just one or two of the millions of factors involved.9

In Gerhard's view, today's climate debate has been dominated by those embracing the notion of "anthroprocentrism," a mindset that identifies human beings as the source of all things "bad."10 But the earth's climate, and the larger geophysical forces of which it is a part, is a complex, still poorly understood mechanism that does not lend itself to simple explanations. The more we learn, the more we know what we don't know. In the same vein, grandstanding politicians in California and elsewhere, eager to be seen doing the "right" thing, can do much harm if they don't know what they don't know.

www.nationalcenter.org...


[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Let's see again the graphs of data which refutes the claim that mankind is responsible for Cliamte Change...











The following is, again... what Esper's graph would show by itself.



and this is Briffa's graph of 1998.



The following graph shows the difference between Crowley and Lowery's 2000 graph and Jones/Mann's graph which again in that extrapolation of graphs they are trying to give credence to Jones/Mann's graph, but anyone who would look at the graphs one by one would see a much different picture...



BTW, that graph which extrapolates 10 graphs together has 3 graphs which are Mann's. Jones also made some of the other graphs with other researchers. If you separate the graphs you see quite a different picture to what you Mann and Jones among some others want to claim...

Here is a graph of the Temperature anomalies during the Holocene. Take a close look at the trend we are seeing.








[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Since Mann's Hockey Stick graph has been discredited, Mann and associates tried once again to dupe the world by extrapolating 3 of Mann's graphs, 2 of Jones' graph, both of whom found colleages to help them rig that data, one from Esper which showed the MWP was as warm as it is today, a graph by Moberg and associates which shows MWP warmer than today, one from Briffa in 1998 which showed almost no fluctuations and no dramatic rise of temperatures in the 20th century, and a 2000 graph of Briffa which showed quite a different picture to what his 1998 graph showed.

Here is what the 2005 graph by A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko, W. Karlén, and S.-E. Lauritzen looks like by itself..



So what do you get when you "extrapolate" lies, half truths, some truth and more lies"? More hot air from the "let's blame mankind crowd"....

Mann and colleages already duped the world for several years...and they are trying to dupe the world once again...

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really?... Take a closer look at those "10 reconstructions"...if you look at them by themselves you will find that quite a few do not show what you are trying to claim....

BTW...why don't you give the link to the site where those reconstructions can be found?....

don't tell me...they come from the Real Climate website....

No, they do show what I was trying to claim. The MWP was not as significant as you would like to think.

en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

That's the link you need. It provides the references for all ten reconstructions, based an numerous proxies, from various researchers.

With an expertise in Terrestrial and Solar Physics... and even if he retired at the beginning of 2007, he is still a scientist who has more credence than the crackpot scientific BS you keep "parroting"...

Except that the best Akafosu can come up with on this issue, is a non-peer reviewed article claiming the unlikely proposition that solar activity is related to the current warming trend, compared to the numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies I have presented.

As I said, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass.

Here is a graph of the Temperature anomalies during the Holocene. Take a close look at the trend we are seeing.

Gradual cooling from about 7500 years ago, that shows no indication of continuing warming from the end of the last glaciation, and that the recent warming trend seems quite anomalous?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Here is what the 2005 graph by A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko, W. Karlén, and S.-E. Lauritzen looks like by itself..



So what do you get when you "extrapolate" lies, half truths, some truth and more lies"? More hot air from the "let's blame mankind crowd"....

Where the hell did you get that? That's not the data presented by Moberg et al. (2005), it's readily available on the NASA website...



lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...



[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wow, "throwing things out of wack"... and "Pumping more CO2 than normally the Earth would have"....

The Earth has had up to 16 times the CO2 that exists now and it never became "Venus or Mars'....

In fact the geological record has shown us that temperatures have been similar to the present with CO2 levels at 4,000ppm to 4,400 ppm...yet now it is at 380ppm and some want to claim "the world is going to become Mars or Venus"....

Oh btw, the hundreds of years of cutting down trees has been reversed.

Really? All of the deforestation has been reversed? So there isn't a desert in Spain? Geez, I'm sorry, I thought there was.

Did you even bother to read the link I posted? I figured not, but it's just sad when it's so obvious.

And no one is claiming we're going to turn into Mars or Venus. Again, more vitriol, more wild accusations, more ignorance. Our concern is that global tempuratures will rise only a few degrees, which would be enough to melt a significant portion of the glaciers, causing the sea level to rise, submerging many of the major costal cities in the world. None of us are imagining a Water World type scenario, but we're trying to avoid is death and displacement on the scale of millions, if not billions of people. But I guess profitability and free market commerce are more important to some people than an honest look at the issues.

But if we're feeling so confident in our viewpoints, could those who think that global warming isn't happening, please find us one peer reviewed (i.e. legitimate) scientific study stating that CO2 does not contribute to global warming, or that global warming isn't happening.

Good Luck!

Originally posted by melatonin

No, they do show what I was trying to claim. The MWP was not as significant as you would like to think.

en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

That's the link you need. It provides the references for all ten reconstructions, based an numerous proxies, from various researchers.

...and i have shown what quite a few of those graphs look by themselves...

Not only that, but research done by several different scientists disagree with "Mann and his merry band of crockpot scientists"..

Originally posted by melatonin

Except that the best Akafosu can come up with on this issue, is a non-peer reviewed article claiming the unlikely proposition that solar activity is related to the current warming trend, compared to the numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies I have presented.

Akasofu has published 550 articles, and 10 books... His PhD is in Geophysics and has been researching the Solar-terrestrial physics for over 54 years now.

What does "melatonin have"?.... Nothing, zero, nada except his conviction that "Mann is right after all" despite the fact that Mann's data has been discredited...

Originally posted by melatonin
As I said, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass.

I am not the one to make false claims about science.... such as claiming that a PhD in Geophysics, who has been studying the Solar-Terrestrial physics for 56 years, does not know anything about Climate Change...and still making that claim after knowing Dr. Akasofu has been the director for the International Arctic Research Center, studying Climate Change in the Arctic for the last 9 years....

You are just hurt that the data of your idol Mann has been discredited.

Dr.Akasofu has far more credibility than you, Mann and associates put together...

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Athenion

Really? All of the deforestation has been reversed? So there isn't a desert in Spain? Geez, I'm sorry, I thought there was.

... The climate has been changing all around the world for 4.2 to 4.5 billion years...what is your point?....

Deserts have become forests, forests into deserts, landmasses have sunk into the sea, and seafloors have risen to become landmasses... All part of natural cycles...

The Earth goes through these cycles all the time. The claim that "Earth" must be in balance is just a myth, the only constant on anything, even the climate, is change.

Originally posted by Athenion
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? I figured not, but it's just sad when it's so obvious.

And no one is claiming we're going to turn into Mars or Venus. Again, more vitriol, more wild accusations, more ignorance.

It has been stated by some members in these forums that this is what will happen according to them. Next time you want to try to calim anyone is ignorant, perhaps you should make certain you know what you are talking about...

Originally posted by Athenion
Our concern is that global tempuratures will rise only a few degrees, which would be enough to melt a significant portion of the glaciers, causing the sea level to rise, submerging many of the major costal cities in the world. None of us are imagining a Water World type scenario, but we're trying to avoid is death and displacement on the scale of millions, if not billions of people. But I guess profitability and free market commerce are more important to some people than an honest look at the issues.

And what the heck makes you think you or anyone has the power to stop, or mitigate Climate Change?... Climate Changes have been happening in this planet for far longer than mankind has existed...

Neither you nor anyone else in this planet is going to "mitigate it or stop it"....

Originally posted by Athenion
But if we're feeling so confident in our viewpoints, could those who think that global warming isn't happening, please find us one peer reviewed (i.e. legitimate) scientific study stating that CO2 does not contribute to global warming, or that global warming isn't happening.

Good Luck!

Who is saying Climate Change in the form of warming is not happening?...

There is not one iota of evidence, even in "peer reviewed articles" that proves 100% that the increase in CO2 is what is causing the current warming...

If you want "peer reviewed articles", the research I have posted about the MWP, and the RWM which shows that temperatures were much higher in both of those events more than they are now, meanwhile CO2 levels were lower than they are now, show as a matter of fact that temperatures can raise irrespective of CO2 levels.

The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

I can give you references to books if you want.

Reference
Tiljander, M., Saarnisto, M., Ojala, A.E.K. and Saarinen, T. 2003. A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttajarvi, central Finland. Boreas 26: 566-577.

Description
Winter temperatures were inferred from analyses of varve thickness, relative X-ray density, pollen and diatom profiles and organic matter loss-on-ignition data obtained from annually-laminated sediments of Lake Korttajarvi (62°20'N, 25°41'E) in central Finland.

The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 980 and 1250 and was as much as 2°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.

Central Scandinavian Mountains, Sweden

Reference
Linderholm, H.W. and Gunnarson, B.E. 2005. Summer temperature variability in central Scandinavia during the last 3600 years. Geografiska Annaler 87A: 231-241.

Description
Summer temperatures were inferred from a tree-ring width chronology derived from living and subfossil Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris L.) sampled close to the present tree-line in the central Scandinavian Mountains (63°10'N, 12°25'-13°35'E) spanning the time period from 2893 BC to AD 2002.

Between AD 900 and 1000, summer temperature anomalies were as much as 1.5°C warmer than the 1961-1990 base period.

Late holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at whitewing
3 mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA
4 Constance I. Millar a,⁎, John C. King b, Robert D. Westfall a, Harry A. Alden c, Diane L. Delany

Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry to be significantly warmer (+3.2°C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (−24 mm annual precipitation) than present, resembling values projected for California in the next 70–100 yr.
© 2006 Published by University of Washington.

www.fs.fed.us...

The results show high climate variability and contrasting
SSTs between the North-Iceland Shelf and the
Vring Plateau for the last eight centuries. Between
1250 and 1400 AD, i.e. at the end of the Medieval
Warm Period (MWP), the Vring Plateau experienced
warm SSTs preceding an abrupt temperature cooling
of 1.5C within a decade that lead to the Little Ice Age.
At the same time, North-Iceland Shelf was warmer than
present during the MWP, but was followed by an even
warmer period between 1400 and 1650 AD. Surface conditions
improved over the Vring Plateau after 1600 AD,
while SSTs cooled on the North-Iceland Shelf. These
results thereby indicate that during a strengthening of
the NwAC, the East Icelandic Current is also strengthened
and/or the Irminger Current became weaker. This
climatic antiphase relation documented between these
two areas suggests an atmospheric circulation pattern
similar to the recent North Atlantic Oscillation, however
with centuries duration.

start.org...

I have already shown research which corroborates what I have been saying. The MWP, and even the RWM were global events which were recorded not only in some localized areas like some want to claim but all over the globe.

This is another example of the Climate Changes that happened in the Argentine plains, which also shows the RMW, the MWP and the LIA.

Climatic variations in the Argentine plains during the last 18,000 years

Martin H. Iriondoa and Norberto O. Garciab

a CONICET, Casilla de Correo 487, 3100, Parana, Argentina
b Fac. de Ing. y Recursos Hidricos, UNL, Casilla de Correo 495, 3000, Santa Fe, Argentina

Received 28 January 1992; accepted 25 May 1992. ; Available online 14 April 2003.


Abstract
The last deglacial hemicycle was characterized by a general increase in temperature and precipitation in the region, with a few significant departures from this general trend. The present NE-SW climatic gradient was maintained throughout the entire period, except in the Upper Holocene. The following sequence of events is apparent if the present climate is taken as a reference base:

1. (a) 18,000–8500 yr B.P.: Arid and cool, with aeolian sand ad loess deposition. Patagonian fauna. Climatic isolines (temperature, precipitation, etc.) were located some 750 km northeast of their present positions.

2. (b) 8500-3500 yr B.P.: Humid subtropical, with Brazilian fauna. Pedogenesis and fluvial dynamics. Climatic limits migrated about 800/900 km southwest of their former positions.

3. (c) 3500-1000 yr B.P.: Dry subtropical; aeolian dynamics. The normal latitudinal climatic gradient was interrupted by the occurrence of an anticyclonic centre, which stabilized the climate over an area of some 1,600,000 km2.

4. (d) 1000 yr B.P.-Little Ice Age: Climate was similar to the present one over much of the plains, but the northeastern extremity was warmer.

5. (e) Little Ice Age: Climatic deterioration in the southern belt was characterized by generalized aeolian activity and migration of isolines more than 150 km to the northeast in that area.

6. (f) Present climate: 19th and 20th centuries. Subtropical, humid in the east and dry in the west.

Link

Seppa, H. and Birks, H.J.B. 2002. Holocene climate reconstructions from the Fennoscandian tree-line area based on pollen data from Toskaljavri. Quaternary Research 57: .
Description
July mean temperatures were reconstructed from a pollen profile of the sediments of Toskaljavri (69¡12'N, 21¡28'E), a tree-line lake in the continental sector of northern Fenoscandia. The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 600 and 1000 and was 0.8C warmer than the Current Warm Period.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

I can show you dozens of research which show a different picture to what melatonin, and some other people around here are trying to claim.

The RWM, the MWP and the LIA were events that happened all over the world, and not just in "localized areas" like some want to claim, because they know that once people understand this, they will learn that the climate changes irrespective of CO2 levels.

Not only does CO2 levels lag temperature, but there have been times in past Climate Changes that temperatures have been higher and CO2 levels have been lower, and at other times CO2 levels were much higher than today, and temperatures were not much different than today.

Even during the recent warming, temperatures were increasing starting in 1600, and CO2 levels did not increase until 260 years later.

Originally posted by Muaddib
... The climate has been changing all around the world for 4.2 to 4.5 billion years...what is your point?....

my point is that humans can have long lasting and detrimental effects on the environment. The desert in Spain was created by man, not by natural cycles. It was a result of deforestation. You claim man can't effect the environment, I say history shows us otherwise. Or perhaps those who live near Chernobyl would agree with you.

Originally posted by Muaddib
And what the heck makes you think you or anyone has the power to stop, or mitigate Climate Change?... Climate Changes have been happening in this planet for far longer than mankind has existed...

Neither you nor anyone else in this planet is going to "mitigate it or stop it"....

Gee, I guess you're right. If something bad is going to happen, instead of trying to prevent it, or help the people who will be victimized by it, we should just bury our heads in the sand, and mock and insult those who at least want to make the effort to avoid such widespread destruction. That's a really productive attitude.

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is not one iota of evidence, even in "peer reviewed articles" that proves 100% that the increase in CO2 is what is causing the current warming...

I never said it was the sole cause. I said it was a contribuiting factor. I guess that's to hard for some to understand, those who would rather see the world in extremes of black and white.

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you want "peer reviewed articles", the research I have posted about the MWP, and the RWM which shows that temperatures were much higher in both of those events more than they are now, meanwhile CO2 levels were lower than they are now, show as a matter of fact that temperatures can raise irrespective of CO2 levels.

I thank you for the websites, which were interesting, and I'll be sure to check out these books you've referenced, but once again, you're dancing around the issue. i didn't ask for evidence of a time when the tempurature was high but CO2 levels were low. The environmental system is complex, and there are many contributing factors to global temperature, one of which is CO2. But showing a time period where CO2 was low, and tempurature was high due to the many other factors in global temperature in no way proves that CO2 has no effect on global temperatures, neither do any of the papers you linked to.

That's like saying when I was six, and I got sick from the chicken pox, it wasn't caused by the flu, therefore, everytime I get sick, it can't have been caused by the flu. It's terribly flawed logic. When there are so many variables in what causes global warming, you can't blame just one single cause. The reason we harp on about CO2 emissions is because it is one of the many variables we humans can directly effect, and hopefully make a bad situation slightly less bad.

So once again, so I'm clear, I'd like you to provide a peer reviewed scientific paper showing that there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperature. You're not going to be able to find one, because it doesn't exist, but keep dancing around the subject,

I'm sure you're fooling someone somewhere by listing some studies that show one thing, and drawing a conclusion completely different from and unrelated to those the scientists who wrote them stated, and then hope that no one actually reads the links you post.

Originally posted by Athenion
my point is that humans can have long lasting and detrimental effects on the environment. The desert in Spain was created by man, not by natural cycles. It was a result of deforestation. You claim man can't effect the environment, I say history shows us otherwise. Or perhaps those who live near Chernobyl would agree with you.

The "desertification of parts of Spain is being cause by the spread of the desert from North Africa into Spain... Mankind has nothing to do with it, it is part of a natural process, and nomatter how much you or anyone else wants to stop it it is going to continue as long as Climate Change continues happening.

People have also tried to blame manking for the "Dust Bowl" that happened in the States and in Canada, but research I excerpted and linked to here shows that those changes have not one thing to do with mankind.

People nowadays are very quick to point a finger at mankind when the Earth has been going through these changes well all on it's own for 4.2 to 4.5 billion years...

Originally posted by Athenion
Gee, I guess you're right. If something bad is going to happen, instead of trying to prevent it, or help the people who will be victimized by it, we should just bury our heads in the sand, and mock and insult those who at least want to make the effort to avoid such widespread destruction. That's a really productive attitude.

I never said that, but combating pollution is not going to stop Climate Change and that's a fact some people don't want to accept and want to believe they can control the Earth and it's climate...

Well, sorry to tell you that we can't. The major factors that control the climate are out of mankind's hand and there is not one thing we can do to stop it.

The only thing that we can do is prepare for the changes. I am not saying either to go ahead and destroy the environment, but after all that it has been done to plant new trees in Europe and in the U.S. still Climate Change is happening. No matter how many trees we plant, and even if everyone stopped using their cars, their ACs, their heaters during winter, and all factories stopped producing Climate Change will continue it's course.

BTW, if anyone was "mocking and insulting" anyone else around here it was you... Making false accusation, and then claiming you are the victim doesn't change the fact that it was you making the "insulting and mocking".

If you don't like such responses, then don't start by making false accusations and insulting or mocking anyone else...

Originally posted by Athenion
I never said it was the sole cause. I said it was a contribuiting factor. I guess that's to hard for some to understand, those who would rather see the world in extremes of black and white.

Weren't you trying to blame mankind for the spreading of the deser5ts from North Africa into Spain?...

i guess believing that "mankind is at fault is not seeing the world in extremes"?.... Despite the fact that such climatic changes have been happening for billions of years and for most of that time mankind was not around....

Originally posted by Athenion
But showing a time period where CO2 was low, and tempurature was high due to the many other factors in global temperature in no way proves that CO2 has no effect on global temperatures, neither do any of the papers you linked to.

Really?... I though that CO2 was an evil greenhouse gas which is causing Global Warming... if that was true then CO2 should have been higher when temperatures have been higher in the past....yet they are not...

Just because mankind has been releasing a small amount of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, doesn't mean it is mankind's fault that Climate Change/Global Warming is happening...

Originally posted by Athenion
That's like saying when I was six, and I got sick from the chicken pox, it wasn't caused by the flu, therefore, everytime I get sick, it can't have been caused by the flu. It's terribly flawed logic.

......You should really try to find some better analogies when you are trying to make a point.....

Originally posted by Athenion
So once again, so I'm clear, I'd like you to provide a peer reviewed scientific paper showing that there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperature. You're not going to be able to find one, because it doesn't exist, but keep dancing around the subject,

i just gave several research excerpts which actually state there were warmer times in the past yet CO2 levels were lower than today...
Let's see what else... that and the fact that temperatures were increasing since the early 1600s and CO2 levels did not increase until 260 years later... Plus the fact that for example the Sun's output has increased during the past 60 years more than during the last 8,000 years... The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has not been as weak as it is now for more than 770,000 years.... The fact that we are seeing Climate Change/warming in other planets in the solar system...

Oh but wait, it is mankind. Who cares if all of the above is happening? Some people just want to claim mankind did it so we can stop it....

Originally posted by Athenion
I'm sure you're fooling someone somewhere by listing some studies that show one thing, and drawing a conclusion completely different from and unrelated to those the scientists who wrote them stated, and then hope that no one actually reads the links you post.

Really? and what is this "enlightening information" that I am trying to fool anyone with?..... I said "there were times in the past that temperatures were warmer than today and CO2 levels were lower.... is that not true?...

Tell you what... gives us just one peer reviewed article that says with 100% certainty that says anthropogenic CO2 has caused the current warming...

If anyone is lying and trying to fool anyone is you and your messed up analogies which don't prove anything at all...