Global Warming Mapped!

[GostHacked]

Make a note here Shady. This is a red letter day indeed, that you and I would actually agree on something.

I am in Bizzaro world.!!!

[wyly]

Why is it not relevant? because it shows that there was a higher concentration of CO2 and it was warmer during that time? And was not due to fossil fuel burning? It is completely relevant.

higher concentration of CO2 can both follow or drive temp...where temp drives CO2 there is a lag in CO2 rise of about 800yrs... so assuming you are correct if you check 800 yrs prior to the MWP there should have been warmer temperature spike, there weren't it was cooler...so the MWP would appear to be a one-off event, not cyclical and therefore unrelated to this warming... Edited December 13, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

doublepost

Edited December 13, 2010 by wyly

[Shwa]

higher concentration of CO2 can both follow or drive temp...where temp drives CO2 there is a lag in CO2 rise of about 800yrs... so assuming you are correct if you check 800 yrs prior to the MWP there should have been warmer temperature spike, there weren't it was cooler...so the MWP would appear to be a one-off event, not cyclical and therefore unrelated to this warming...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/viau2006/viau2006.html

Now if someone knows how to convert the ARCGIS format to GRASS or GeoExplorer, I would be much obliged... (not for the Global Warming debate, but for something else. But it might be cool for the Global Warming debate nonetheless)

[GostHacked]

higher concentration of CO2 can both follow or drive temp...where temp drives CO2 there is a lag in CO2 rise of about 800yrs... so assuming you are correct if you check 800 yrs earlier there should have been warmer temperature spike, there weren't it was cooler...so the MWP would appear to be a one-off event, not cyclical and therefore unrelated to this warming...

Can you explain the lag of 800 years a little more?

Temperature drives CO2? That seems to fly in the other direction that the IPCC is stating that CO2 is driving temperature up.

Forgive me if your statement is confusing to me.

[Michael Hardner]

Ditto. 800 years ? What ?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, it's not relevant because you say it isn't.

How can a period of warming that encompassed North America, Europe and Asia, not be relevant? Only if you're not really intrested in science. Get lost alarmist.

I had not realize that North America, Europe and Asia consisted of most of the earth... Oh wait they don't. All current evidence is that the MWP wasn't global and even if it was wasn't as warm as today.

Can you explain the lag of 800 years a little more?

Temperature drives CO2? That seems to fly in the other direction that the IPCC is stating that CO2 is driving temperature up.

Forgive me if your statement is confusing to me.

Well there are more mechanisms I'll give you one, something begins heating the earth (could be something like orbital tilt or the heat the sun is giving off), heating melts sea ice, less sun is then reflected and the water heats up, this melts more ice but it also begins to release CO2 from the oceans. It takes awhile but eventually (600-1000 years) CO2 rises and then begins causing more heating, which in turn causes more CO2 to be released in turn in a feedback loop. Eventually the CO2 will take over and become the driver of the temperature and whatever started it stops mattering. The reason it takes so long for CO2 to build up (Per my understanding) is the warming is slower and the natural sources for CO2 aren't as fast as we are.

[GostHacked]

Well there are more mechanisms I'll give you one, something begins heating the earth (could be something like orbital tilt or the heat the sun is giving off), heating melts sea ice, less sun is then reflected and the water heats up, this melts more ice but it also begins to release CO2 from the oceans. It takes awhile but eventually (600-1000 years) CO2 rises and then begins causing more heating, which in turn causes more CO2 to be released in turn in a feedback loop. Eventually the CO2 will take over and become the driver of the temperature and whatever started it stops mattering. The reason it takes so long for CO2 to build up (Per my understanding) is the warming is slower and the natural sources for CO2 aren't as fast as we are.

If it takes 600-1000 years to manifest itself, is the current CO2 trend due to something that happened 600-1000 years ago? If so that would instantly debunk any thing promoted by the AGW crowd when they say that current CO2 trends are due to current human activity by burning fossil fuels. So you see why it can be confusing when it is mentioned that the current CO2 trend is due to current human activity when it takes a few centuries to manifest itself.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If it takes 600-1000 years to manifest itself, is the current CO2 trend due to something that happened 600-1000 years ago? If so that would instantly debunk any thing promoted by the AGW crowd when they say that current CO2 trends are due to current human activity by burning fossil fuels. So you see why it can be confusing when it is mentioned that the current CO2 trend is due to current human activity when it takes a few centuries to manifest itself.

The CO2 does the warming doesn't if it was something in the past the earth would have been warming for the past 600-1000 years.

[wyly]

Can you explain the lag of 800 years a little more?

Temperature drives CO2? That seems to fly in the other direction that the IPCC is stating that CO2 is driving temperature up.

Forgive me if your statement is confusing to me.

no it doesn't it can drive as well as follow temp...the lag is connected to the heating of the oceans, warm water holds less CO2 than cold, the oceans are slower to warm and release additional CO2 long after the atmosphere warms, it's averaged at about 800yrs...if the MWP were a cyclical warming we should temps rise before CO2, and it's not there for the MWP....CO2 is also a driver of temp, CO2 increases we are seeing now are ahead of temperature gains the reverse of what would be expected in a cyclical event.. Edited December 13, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

If it takes 600-1000 years to manifest itself, is the current CO2 trend due to something that happened 600-1000 years ago? If so that would instantly debunk any thing promoted by the AGW crowd when they say that current CO2 trends are due to current human activity by burning fossil fuels. So you see why it can be confusing when it is mentioned that the current CO2 trend is due to current human activity when it takes a few centuries to manifest itself.

if it were a cyclical event such as the earth coming closer to the sun causing a rise in temps followed by a rise in CO2(temp drives CO2)...or it could be as a result of a mega-volcano pumping out CO2 for hundreds of years which would also cause a rise in temperature(CO2 drives temp)...in this instance we have humans pumping out enormous amounts of CO2 driving temp, different cause, same result...

[GostHacked]

The CO2 does the warming doesn't if it was something in the past the earth would have been warming for the past 600-1000 years.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. According to many scientists the earth has been warming at about an average of 2 degrees Celcuis per 100 years since the 1600's that brings us up to the average temps we see today.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The earth has been hotter and colder in the past because of ice ages the planet has gone through. We are currently witnessing a warming trend regardless of what we do. If we are that much of a cause then why has the earth gone through this before in the past? Why have there been ice ages and warm ages?

Some explanations are the axis and rotation of the earth in conjunction with our slightly changing orbit over time and the output of the sun which goes through it's own cycles.

Do they not teach this stuff in school anymore??

[Guest TrueMetis]

Some explanations are the axis and rotation of the earth in conjunction with our slightly changing orbit over time and the output of the sun which goes through it's own cycles.

Do they not teach this stuff in school anymore??

None of those things explain the current warming.

FYI people apparently don't know what an ice age is, or that we are still in one. Hence the ice on the poles.

[GostHacked]

None of those things explain the current warming.

FYI people apparently don't know what an ice age is, or that we are still in one. Hence the ice on the poles.

How do people not know what an ice age is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age I guess more to the question, why don't they know?

And again, why would that not be relevant?

[Shady]

I had not realize that North America, Europe and Asia consisted of most of the earth... Oh wait they don't. All current evidence is that the MWP wasn't global

So what if wasn't global? Even current alarmists admit that not everywhere in the world will see tempertures rise. Some will see cooling, others nothing. So why are you holding the MWP to a different standard.

and even if it was wasn't as warm as today.

Really? Where'd you get the data for that period of time?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So what if wasn't global? Even current alarmists admit that not everywhere in the world will see tempertures rise. Some will see cooling, others nothing. So why are you holding the MWP to a different standard.

True but the global average temperature will, and if this was an isolated event you wouldn't see much of a change. I'm holding it to the exact same standard as today's standard.

Really? Where'd you get the data for that period of time?

Dr. Richard Alley.

How do people not know what an ice age is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age I guess more to the question, why don't they know?

And again, why would that not be relevant?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, what is not relevant?

[Shady]

True but the global average temperature will

You don't think the global average temperature during the MWP increased? How do significant warmer temps in North America, Europe and Asia not effect the overall global average?

[GostHacked]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, what is not relevant?

/facepalm .... how would an ice ace, the last ice age and all previous ice ages and concurrent warming trends not be relevant to the current trends in the temps rising.

<sarcasm> But Gosthacked, why would THAT be relevant? </sarcasm>

/facepalm

[Shady]

That deserves a double facepalm!

Double Facepalm

When the fail is so strong, one facepalm isn't enough.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Shady

[Guest TrueMetis]

You don't think the global average temperature during the MWP increased? How do significant warmer temps in North America, Europe and Asia not effect the overall global average?

I know this may be hard for you but try reading the whole thing.

/facepalm .... how would an ice ace, the last ice age and all previous ice ages and concurrent warming trends not be relevant to the current trends in the temps rising.

<sarcasm> But Gosthacked, why would THAT be relevant? </sarcasm>

/facepalm

I never said that the last ice ages were irrelevant. So what the hell are you talking about?

[GostHacked]

I never said that the last ice ages were irrelevant. So what the hell are you talking about?

Well you still have not explained the 800 year lag thing very well. Because if stuff is happening now according to your statement that we won't see effects for a few hundred years .. can you clear that up?

[wyly]

Well you still have not explained the 800 year lag thing very well. Because if stuff is happening now according to your statement that we won't see effects for a few hundred years .. can you clear that up?

I think I summed it up reasonably well, you're just not trying...if you need more help go here Edited December 14, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

Well you still have not explained the 800 year lag thing very well. Because if stuff is happening now according to your statement that we won't see effects for a few hundred years .. can you clear that up?

why should he/they bother... you had a couple of guys taking the time & effort to respond to you... without any added snarc/confrontation/put-down. And you proceeded to shit upon one of them for no reason whatsoever - 'facepalm'... really? I see you still haven't explained yourself over the 'irrelevant' point of departure you took. Surely, if it was worth a 'facepalm'... a 'double facepalm' no less, someone might have the wherewithal to actually address the question asking clarification on the 'irrelevant' point.

but, like I said, why should he/they bother... I held your hand, over 2 threads, with your incessant nattering and inability to grasp even a basic understanding of carbon isotope variants. In spite of you playing the concern troll, somewhat ably, your real true denier self eventually surfaced... so, again, why should anyone bother to try and provide you anything, under your false guise of presuming to provide you information to increase your knowledge and understanding... when you simply ignore/denigrate it and throw shit back? Given your antics, if you can't make your own arguments and provide a supporting foundation to those arguments, why should anyone bother to give you the time of day... it's one thing to challenge an argument from a point of differing opinion/substance; it's quite another thing to challenge an argument from a point of unknowing/ignorance - as is your way.

[Keepitsimple]

Well, they sure appear to be correlated to increases in co2 so that would be kind of an unusual coincidence don't you think ?

How so? Take a look at the complete record and you'll see that every decade from 1880 right up to 1980 show little or no warming - maybe even a tiny bit of cooling (look at all the blue and white). At the same time, CO2 went from 280PPM to 340 or 350PPM - why didn't the temperature start to rise until 1980 if there is such a strong correlation with CO2? Some people say that the older records have been adjusted and homogenized to make it look cooler so that recent temperatures appear warmer.....but just look at the graphs and explain that "anomole" if you can.

Link to all decades: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php?all=y

Edited December 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

How so? Take a look at the complete record and you'll see that every decade from 1880 right up to 1980 show little or no warming - maybe even a tiny bit of cooling (look at all the blue and white). At the same time, CO2 went from 280PPM to 340 or 350PPM - why didn't the temperature start to rise until 1980 if there is such a strong correlation with CO2? Some people say that the older records have been adjusted and homogenized to make it look cooler so that recent temperatures appear warmer.....but just look at the graphs and explain that "anomole" if you can.

Link to all decades: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php?all=y

I suspect those are cumulative changes. I have posted the temperature graph already - here it is again:

Wiki page