Global Temperatures Skyrocketing (Again)

a reply to: Greven

Grevin

I am referring to the study I posted earlier. It shows that MWP was warmer - please go read it.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Yes actually there was, every living creature engaging in respiration was dumping C02 into the atmosphere during that period.

Yes. And where did that CO2 come from in the first place?
There is something called the carbon cycle. Plants use sunlight and CO2 and turn it into food. Animals eat food and send that CO2 back into the atmosphere, through respiration and decomposition. Plants use that CO2 and along with sunlight, turn it into food...again.

The burning of fossil fuels has disrupted that cycle.

I was providing a smart-@$$ response to jrod's insinuation that there was not tons of C02 in the atmosphere during that time period. If they are going to rail against people as anti-science and never provide an indication or evidence of their own competency (to justify such without resorting to religious level faith in authorities) while they bash others, why should I help them do so?

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I was providing a smart-@$$ response to jrod's insinuation that there was not tons of C02 in the atmosphere during that time period.

I saw no such insinuation. But in any case, I would consider your statement more on the dumbass end of the spectrum.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I was providing a smart-@$$ response to jrod's insinuation that there was not tons of C02 in the atmosphere during that time period.

I saw no such insinuation. But in any case, I would consider your statement more on the dumbass end of the spectrum.

here:

There was a species dumping tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere during the MSP?

Reality check . . .

Also thanks for the personal attack, very mature of you.

-FBB

a reply to: mc_squared

...Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase

That increase only exits as a climate model prediction

can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. ...

... A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement.

The entire amount of global temperature change is less than the measurement error.

The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.

ams.confex.com...

The only "proof" of anthropogenic global warming is the propaganda from the model.

From the bottom link

Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth’s surface so far.

But they passed laws based on AGW anyway.

Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm
2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm
2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps.
www.wsl.ch...

The Alps is not the globe.

Maybe its warmer in the Alps because its colder in the US.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

here:

Which specie (singular, that's what "a" means) was dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as humans do? Don't you think that was the point being made. Before your strawman attempt?

Also thanks for the personal attack, very mature of you.

The comment was directed at your statement, not you.
You said it was a smartass comment, I said it was a dumbass comment.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Wow, feeling the hate. Must be doing something right.

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth.I never insinuated that there was not tons of CO2, already in the atmosphere. What I wrote was there was not a species pumping CO2 into the atmosphere like humans are currently doing.

In fact, primitive Earth wad dominated by CO2 and plants and phytoplankton plankton transformed the atmosphere.

I feel like you do.not want to discuss science or the actual observations instead you are resorting to.personal attacks.

You are asking difficult to impossible questions, demanding complete solutions, ignoring the information provided, ect..

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for tangible evidence that shows AGW is inaccurate.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Maybe its warmer in the Alps because its colder in the US.

But, it isn't colder in the US.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

here:

Which specie (singular, that's what "a" means) was dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as humans do? Don't you think that was the point being made. Before your strawman attempt?

Also thanks for the personal attack, very mature of you.

The comment was directed at your statement, not you.
You said it was a smartass comment, I said it was a dumbass comment.

Sure buddy . . .

Except there was no indication that they wanted it to be at the level of modern day humanity, that was added on top of the baseline of tons of c02. Then YOU added in the carbon cycle.

Further there was not time limit to during the period so you can merely pick from the fossil record the largest population and attribute their c02 for the entirety of the period.

Enjoy.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Except there was no indication that they wanted it to be at the level of modern day humanity, that was added on top of the baseline of tons of c02.

Who wanted what?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Further there was not time limit to during the period so you can merely pick from the fossil record the largest population and attribute their c02 for the entirety of the period.

Again, what?
It's really hard to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the rise in CO2 levels over the past 150 years or so is not from humans?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

This is getting hilarious. I JUST POSTED direct experimental proof of this connection, and here you're jumping on the bandwagon now explaining to me how "there's no proof". Do I need to quote the papers again?

Maybe if I highlight some text for you this time:

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.

Some of you self-proclaimed skeptics are either exceptionally dense or outright delusional, or both. Either way I don't care - I have better things to do than entertain these psychological issues

Welp...

Thanks for clearing up my confusion folks.

This thread is definitely all about having yet another AGW pissing contest with barely a whisper about El Nino since page 1.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Wow, feeling the hate. Must be doing something right.

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth.I never insinuated that there was not tons of CO2, already in the atmosphere. What I wrote was there was not a species pumping CO2 into the atmosphere like humans are currently doing.

In fact, primitive Earth wad dominated by CO2 and plants and phytoplankton plankton transformed the atmosphere.

I feel like you do.not want to discuss science or the actual observations instead you are resorting to.personal attacks.

You are asking difficult to impossible questions, demanding complete solutions, ignoring the information provided, ect..

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for tangible evidence that shows AGW is inaccurate.

I do want to discuss it, I have asked you on several occasions to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about and you have not once responded with any information about how the science happens.

Those solutions ARE the science, they are based on the observed measurements and are the basis for climate modelling. That is science . . . .

You were getting huffy about George Soros and James Hansen, remember?

-FBB

a reply to: Phage

Yeah . . . no.

You need to go read more carefully or are you actually trying to say that there was not tons of c02 in the atmosphere during that period?

Is that really how you want to waste my, and your, time?

If you want to compare the rate of out put go ahead and do that all you like, I wasn't arguing it. However I wont continue wasting my time with you after seeing how you are really just more interested in attacking folks who don't tow the line as hard as you like.

-FBB

a reply to: CranialSponge

What exactly is there to discuss about it? I fully endorsed it in the OP. You later asked some questions about it which I answered.

This thread is like every other AGW thread - people claiming to just "ask questions" and then getting upset/obtuse/crazy when they get answers they simply don't want to hear.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You need to go read more carefully or are you actually trying to say that there was not tons of c02 in the atmosphere during that period?

Tons. Yes, but not as many tons as there are now..or have been for the past 800,000 years (at least). So what is "that period" you are talking about?

However I wont continue wasting my time with you after seeing how you are really just more interested in attacking folks who don't tow the line as hard as you like.

No. It's more about people spouting nonsense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You need to go read more carefully or are you actually trying to say that there was not tons of c02 in the atmosphere during that period?

Tons. Yes, but not as many tons as there are now..or have been for the past 800,000 years (at least). So what is "that period" you are talking about?

However I wont continue wasting my time with you after seeing how you are really just more interested in attacking folks who don't tow the line as hard as you like.

No. It's more about people spouting nonsense.

Medieval Warming Period

Get with the program.

LoL, you don't even know what you are arguing about but you argue anyway . . .

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Medieval Warming Period

In context with CO2 levels? I don't think you'll find that CO2 levels were as high then as they are now, or that humans were adding much to them. Burning wood mucks up the air but doesn't mess with the CO2 concentration much.


Or are you using the MWP as an argument against current AGW? That wouldn't seem to make much sense. In any case, it would seem that we have the MWP well beaten, globally. Hurray for us.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Medieval Warming Period

In context with CO2 levels? I don't think you'll find that CO2 levels were as high then as they are now, or that humans were adding much to them.

Or are you using the MWP as an argument against current AGW? That wouldn't seem to make much sense. In any case, it would seem that we have it well beaten, globally. Hurray for us.

To remain civil, I will just suggest you go back and reread the exchange very carefully.

-FBB

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Grevin

I am referring to the study I posted earlier. It shows that MWP was warmer - please go read it.

This one, correct?

Perhaps you are misreading it:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."

Drawing conclusions on the Medieval Warm Period from this particular study is rather a stretch, given the slow pace at which these parts of the ocean change. Remember, these are referring to parts of the ocean rather far down. It cooled, "generally," by 2 degrees over 10,000 years (-0.0002 C/yr), until the LIA. Near the surface, it then started warming +0.18 C since around 1950, roughly 1400% faster change in the other direction.

Perhaps you just read what Curry wrote about it? I should mention that quote above is from an author of the paper.