Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[NoOneKnows]

Was reading the kerfluffle with great enjoyment (sadly am financially challenged at the moment and so no scotch to hand)

Just a question to NoK (heh), wasnt wooglin saying you were quoting a record with 2 spliced datasets?
You now have replied with pics of one of them (antarctic ice cores).
But how does it bust the earlier statement? The timelines that wooglin and pari use also seem to be much longer than the ones you show.

A: He used old records and claims that the NASA map used part of Antarctic data and other part from where CO2 was appreciably higher completely forgetting that his records are OLD.
B: He misguides (or is ignorant) the readers by stating that Antarctic Ice Cores do not match the high CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa

'The ice core record shown here is the majority of the record shown in your own graph. Co2 does not end at 400ppm in the actual ice core record, but yours does. Why? Like I said earlier, it's spliced together with a modern data set (Mauna Loa), and that's just misleading.'

The small map gives reference to the risen CO2 (about 340 nearing 1970's-80's-90's {I can't tell}) which are in line with observed data from NASA and other records including the Vostok records themselves.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ate/ice-cores/
A previous post showed Antarctic CO2 levels directly in the air which apparently is invisible to everybody here.

Questions?

[bolo121]

A: He used old records and claims that the NASA map used part of Antarctic data and other part from where CO2 was appreciably higher completely forgetting that his records are OLD.
B: He misguides (or is ignorant) the readers by stating that Antarctic Ice Cores do not match the high CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa

I did visit a bit to the NOAA and some other .gov sites of the US. They also say that the vostok data measures in centuries. Mauna Loa is much higher resolution info from a very small time period. SO gotta give that one to Pari.

The small map gives reference to the risen CO2 (about 340 nearing 1970's-80's-90's {I can't tell}) which are in line with observed data from NASA and other records including the Vostok records themselves.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ate/ice-cores/
A previous post showed Antarctic CO2 levels directly in the air which apparently is invisible to everybody here.

Questions?

This point is also affected by their earlier statements on data blending.
Those guys have been stating their position for many years in this thread with copious data exchanged.
Read pages around 170 ish to now and you will get the idea.

So overall I am back to the audience for this one.
Am sorry I asked, a bit too much arrogant "me know everything you are all stupid deniers" vibe coming across from you.

[Red Team]

Pari, I don't know if in the middle of this melee you noticed my question to you earlier in the thread but I would very much appreciate your input. And for making you set down your scotch, I offer a shot of Beluga Noble as compensation--if Russian Vodka's in your palette.

Pari,

Of course from a "deep time" perspective, given anthropogenic CO2 rising and requisite temperature increases, the Earth and the state of life itself would be, on the whole, perfectly fine. But the question is, would we be fine? It's no coincidence that Homo Sapiens---and also the beginnings of modern civilization just a few hundred thousand years after---evolved and thrived in a period of record low CO2 levels and a correspondingly stable average temperature trend.

[NoOneKnows]

I did visit a bit to the NOAA and some other .gov sites of the US. They also say that the vostok data measures in centuries. Mauna Loa is much higher resolution info from a very small time period. SO gotta give that one to Pari.




This point is also affected by their earlier statements on data blending.
Those guys have been stating their position for many years in this thread with copious data exchanged.
Read pages around 170 ish to now and you will get the idea.

So overall I am back to the audience for this one.
Am sorry I asked, a bit too much arrogant "me know everything you are all stupid deniers" vibe coming across from you.

Immediately to personal attacks and swipes. Nothing substantive. Moving on.

[bolo121]

Immediately to personal attacks and swipes. Nothing substantive. Moving on.

No personal attacks NoK, just wanting you to be aware on how your attitude comes across even to neutrals like myself.
After all you are just a few days and a few posts old here at WAB, wouldn't kill ya to be a bit polite.

[Doktor]

I must have missed the alleged ad hominem. NOK, you are lucky, we got old and softened with time, fee years back, you'd run after the very first exchange.

Take it as it is, you can learn a lot here, and sure you can place your arguments. If they stand, someone will come to your side.

Look at Ukraine-Russia threads, a long standing member is virtually alone there in her argument. Not banned, not silenced, a distinguished members stand next to her, tho they are a minority.
Another member, who was also a mod a time hold that stance, decided to live to her word, went there and we all suffered a terrible loss. We might disagree, but politeness and respect will bring you back respect.

Again, do some reading before jumping to a specific thread, chances are your arguments have been presented.

[NoOneKnows]

I must have missed the alleged ad hominem. NOK, you are lucky, we got old and softened with time, fee years back, you'd run after the very first exchange.

Take it as it is, you can learn a lot here, and sure you can place your arguments. If they stand, someone will come to your side.

Look at Ukraine-Russia threads, a long standing member is virtually alone there in her argument. Not banned, not silenced, a distinguished members stand next to her, tho they are a minority.
Another member, who was also a mod a time hold that stance, decided to live to her word, went there and we all suffered a terrible loss. We might disagree, but politeness and respect will bring you back respect.

Again, do some reading before jumping to a specific thread, chances are your arguments have been presented.

I am seriously missing something here. My first post was a question to OOE which he has yet to answer amongst all that drivel. Then I was jumped by wooglin. I didn't start at him, and only questioned what he posted for want of info but was met with his smug attitude and rather poor comprehension skill. I too am guilty of the attitude in the first exchange, but only because OOE kept dicking around.

I am sorry to bump into the thread. I read the first 10 and last 5 pages before posting. Going through 200 pages isn't an easy task you know. If you can readily recall my arguments, can you please place the counter?

[JAD_333]

Does Woogli get any warnings for his off-topic rants or is it limited to newcomers.

Basically mod decisions are not open to discussion in open forum. But in this case, I'll put it this way: Attack arguments, attack evidence, attack methodology...but do not attack the person (not even in retribution). Carry on.

[Wooglin]

A: He used old records and claims that the NASA map used part of Antarctic data and other part from where CO2 was appreciably higher completely forgetting that his records are OLD.

Once again, you're not paying attention. I am using the same exact data you were using. What part of the NASA citation and the study I linked being the same did you not get? THEY are using that data, along with Mana Loa. Every time you take exception to the study I linked you contradict yourself, and I'm starting to wonder if you're deliberately insincere or just really dense.

Let's review:

Here's the source for your own graph... http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)

Here's the "completely outdated" study I gave you again... http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...re_399_429-436

Petit, J. R. et al. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399, 429-436

Help me out people... is this at all confusing to anyone else??? How can I possibly make this clearer?

B: He misguides (or is ignorant) the readers by stating that Antarctic Ice Cores do not match the high CO2 levels found at Mauna Loa

Once again you're not paying attention. See Pari's post. Try to comprehend it BEFORE forming a response.

The small map gives reference to the risen CO2 (about 340 nearing 1970's-80's-90's {I can't tell}) which are in line with observed data from NASA and other records including the Vostok records themselves.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ate/ice-cores/

The small map does not show Vostok records, which as you already pointed out and repeatedly cry is "old data" that ended in 1950, which according to your graph has never been above 300. So how could it possibly be in line with observation showing 340 or above? Again, a contradiction obvious to everyone else but apparently invisible to you.

A previous post showed Antarctic CO2 levels directly in the air which apparently is invisible to everybody here.

You've already looked foolish once posting a graph without checking it's makeup or sources. Perhaps you should check this time. A source for the second graph would be helpful.

[Wooglin]

No cigar, Col?

Oh and those sammiches will bring Yellow to the table. Got your pad and the guns?

On the topic, Wooglin nailed it again, I only mss ACG, for a complete feeling. NoOne, it's a lengthy thread, read it, mate. Read it again with the links. You are running out of chances with an honest discutant.

Where is ACG? I miss him too. Always a good discussion with him here.

[JAD_333]

....if you're deliberately insincere or just really dense....

You've already looked foolish once posting a graph without checking it's makeup or sources....

Wooglin, a little less provocative, if you please.

[NoOneKnows]

I've decided to ignore Wooglin and his rants. If anyone have anything to contribute, i'm all ears

:parihakapuffsonhisstolencigar: Actually, what he has been trying to explain is that grafting two sets of data is often not a good idea.

The Vostok record covers Millenia, each individual sample covering centuries. Were one able to send instruments back in time and take records from day to day and year to year the way Moana lea and the modern Antarctic do, every part of those Millenia covered in the Vostok cores would also show fluctuations as great and greater than the modern data sets.

In short the Vostok data is heavily smoothed, the modern data is not, being only the tiniest fraction of any point on the full graph. It's not apples and oranges, it's an apple seed vs a containership of bananas.
I understand this is a passion for you and you've been primed that whoever disagrees with the warmest press releases is both stupid and evil. On this site however you've had the great fortune to run across a large number of very educated people across a broad range of discipline. It is a very good place to learn, but there are no safe spaces and we don't care if your feelings are hurt. If you can't handle that.......

I missed this post before.
And with some googling, I've found this

air bubbles trapped by ice are always deemed to be younger than the ice owing to the time lag between snow falling and it being compacted to form ice. In Vostok, the time lag between snow falling and ice trapping air varies between 2000 and 6500 years.

http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice...e-co2-and-ch4/
While earlier I was under the impression that

Fortunately, ice cores preserve annual layers, making it simple to date the ice.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...e-core-basics/
Okay. So, I do understand the point being made. Earlier I was focusing on the contention that Antarctic cannot have as much CO2 as others.
I have one question though - Why is it being assumed by you/others that CO2 levels would be higher and missed by that measurement? While not all ice core datasets have a timescale as large as that of the one measure by Petit et all, a lot of them do go back a fair distance ~10000 years (some even longer) with a much better resolution in time and fill some of the gaps. Also, there is an easy way of checking for carbon spikes (pre-industrialization) - volcanic activity.

[dalem]

Ahh, the last few pages remind me of the heady days of Sputnik, and tanqtonic, when the world trembled at the sound of my posts in this thread. ;)

Hey KnowNothing, go back to the beginning of this thread, and the 6 or 7 others we had rolling before it (older pages linked right on page 1!) and read forward. You'll find most of your arguments, and all of our answers, there. Then when you're done, check out the Sun. You'll find even more answers there.

In the meantime, I'll pass out cigars for everyone, even you. Just got a new batch in from Cigars International, and I can't smoke them ALL by myself, can I?

-dale

[Parihaka]

Pari, I don't know if in the middle of this melee you noticed my question to you earlier in the thread but I would very much appreciate your input. And for making you set down your scotch, I offer a shot of Beluga Noble as compensation--if Russian Vodka's in your palette.

I did miss it I'm sorry. How hot do you expect it to get? We're bang smack either in the middle of or just coming out of (perhaps) an ice age.
Within that ice age we're most of the way through an interglacial. During the last glacial period is where we spread across the globe, minimum plant growth, minimum game and yet we came out of the hottest regions and dominated the entire planet by the time the latest interglacial began. That's both hot and cold areas in both glacial and interglacial.
We are very very very adaptable, hardly surprising considering our evolution. Apart from the usual culling of these types I suspect we'll be fine within the usual perturbations, which are far more extreme than we're currently experiencing.

During cold periods c02 is absorbed, during warm periods co2 is outgassed into the atmosphere. There's a weak link (logarithmic response of temperature to co2 increase) but without the postulated (in)famous secondary forcings it really doesn't matter much at all, except for plant food.
Plant death IIRC becomes wholesale at CO2 levels below 0.002%, we're somewhere around 0.004% at the moment. Of that total CO2 roughly 5% or 0.0000008 is anthropogenic. What level does CO2 have to get in the atmosphere before it's actually toxic to humans directly? I have no idea but I'd suspect it'd have to be a whole lot more than current.

[Parihaka]

Ahh, the last few pages remind me of the heady days of Sputnik, and tanqtonic, when the world trembled at the sound of my posts in this thread. ;)

Hey KnowNothing, go back to the beginning of this thread, and the 6 or 7 others we had rolling before it (older pages linked right on page 1!) and read forward. You'll find most of your arguments, and all of our answers, there. Then when you're done, check out the Sun. You'll find even more answers there.

In the meantime, I'll pass out cigars for everyone, even you. Just got a new batch in from Cigars International, and I can't smoke them ALL by myself, can I?

-dale

Well welcome back.