So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[tcmtech]

When did I say all the ice melted?
I have mentioned that its geological fact that the sea levels have been up to around 65 feet higher than they are presently but I have yet to say all the ice melted.
However I will agree that much of the ice core records have well known gaps in them because many places did in fact have major melt backs that erased large time lines of those locations at one time or another.

 

[kchriste]

Actually I only used corn because it was referenced in post 108 and went from there. All I did was do a quick online search to see what numbers it had and compared those estimates against what estimates are for typical forest and woodland areas in a relative time and area comparison then posted them. Nothing more.

So in other words, you didn't check your facts. You are forgiven. It could happen to anyone.

Organic based fuels are typically considered carbon neutral because what carbon that went into them while growing comes back out when and if processed.

Yea I know what you mean. My 3/4 ton pickup doesn't use any gas when I go get firewood. Neither does my chainsaw. Amazing isn't it?

That goes along with my comment about moving snow today as well. Snow is basicaly carbon neutral but yet if you still apply the same logic that you did to how crops are processed and that a carbon based fuel is used to do the work of that moving then by your reasoning snow also has a negative carbon impact rating as well being large amounts of fuel get used in the moving of it.

Yes, moving snow with heavy equipment produces CO2. Duh. There is no parallels here. Now you are just playing games to cover up your previous attempts to deceive. BTW, have you found a good place to dive yet? There is a short pier close to here that you can take a long walk on.

 

[tcmtech]

So in other words, you didn't check your facts. You are forgiven. It could happen to anyone.

Well shame on me for being the only one here who didn't back up a quick reference with a text book of other information to back it up. By the way I did mention in that post that other sites also give the same range of numbers for corn as well.

Yea I know what you mean. My 3/4 ton pickup doesn't use any gas when I go get firewood. Neither does my chainsaw. Amazing isn't it?

Yes but scientifically what gets referenced to something as it direct action has to be separated from the indirect as well. Other wise you get the typical nonsensical numbers that the climatologists keep spewing out. By example being you are online do you pay for just the electricity that your computer uses or do you pay for all the electricity that every server, router, and in between connection in the entire world wide internet is using while your on line? Also when you put fuel in your pickup did you pay for every single gallon of fuel and energy that was used to locate, develop, pump, process, and deliver that fuel to the service station you get it from or do you just pay for what your putting in your pickup and chain saw?

There is a short pier close to here that you can take a long walk on.

Well it is winter so that may work just fine! If its a big lake and the ice is solid I may get pretty far too!

 

[Thunderchild]

Prehistoric men made it through all of the temperature ups and downs without indoor climate control. Well, they did have fire and could strip down nekkid without anyone fainting in disbelief so I guess they sorta had primitive climate control

We'll be just fine. Hell, we've got plans to put manned outposts on Mars eventually. And we're griping about a degree or two C increase in mean temperatures? Put it in perspective.

Put this in perspective as well. The extremes in temperature on Earth range from extremely cold, like -50 degrees C or thereabouts in polar regions, to very hot in desert and tropical regions, like upwards of 50 C...approximately a 100 degree span of global extremes. How, for logic's sake, can we be disturbed by a .6 degree shift in mean temperatures in 150 years? That is roughly a half percent change overall. Why are people fooled into believing this is out of the natural cycle? It doesn't add up.

and you can speak for our food supply as well I presume ? if living in climate controlled conditions becomes a must in the future where do you think we will get the power from to run all these airconditioners ?

 

[Thunderchild]

So, you are aware that there was more CO2 in the air, long before mankind started burning stuff.

yea kind of a few million years before man existed ! you know when dinosaurs raomed the earth ?

 

[Pommie]

Woops, wrong thread.

Mike.

 

[ke5frf]

What about ice core samples? Now don't tell me it all melted in the past like TCMTECH tried. We know about Oetzi, the prehistoric man frozen in a glacier for the last 5,300 years and who was discovered in 1991. Or the mammoth named Dima which died apx 40,000 years ago, and did not thaw out and rot away.

What about Ice core samples? They are not temperature proxies. They are an atmospheric CO2 concentration analysis. They do not have ZIP to do with temperature reconstructions. CO2 concentration is not a proxy for temperature...even a climatologist will tell you that. The significance of ice core samples is that there is a theoretical connection IN THE PAST 150 YEARS with increased global temperatures and anthropogenic increases in CO2. However, there IS NO proxy correlation that defines CO2 concentration vs. temperature reconstruction prior to instrument records. It doesn' correlate prior to the 1850s. THAT'S THE ENTIRE ESSENCE OF THE ARGUMENT!

No tree-ring proxies can be depended upon.
CO2 isn't a temperature correlation prior to the 1850s.

Let me explain. In order for CO2 to be accepted as a temperature correlation or proxy, there has to be another DEPENDABLE, valid refrence proxy from which to calibrate it. Until the Climategate fraud was exposed, dendroclimatologists were touting their "tree ring proxies" as valid reconstructions of historic temperatures. Remember, there isn't exactly an abundance of 2000 year old forests in the world that are suitable for proxies of any sort. If I remember correctly there are about 5 major sites that are being used. One proxy is Siberian bristlecone forests (I believe) that were studied by Kieth Briffa of CRU. It was dicovered that a divergence in the record occured after the 1960s. The proxies indicated a decline in temp where the instrument record showed an increase. No explanation for this. A real, legitimate, ethical scientist would conclude that tree rings could no longer be considered a valid proxy. He would not be able to trust ANY of the data prior to the instrument record, because without an instrument record we can't be sure that "divergences" have not happened hundreds of times in the past for no known reason. SIMPLY, the record is not reliable, repeatable, dependable.

The WHOLE CO2 THEORY is based on correlating tree-rings to temperature. Without being able to validate tree-rings, you can't validate CO2 or ice cores because there is nothing to validate it by!!!!!! It is very simple really. So NO, ice cores are NOT a valid proxy, because the whole point of the science is to attempt to validate ice cores by some other proxy that correlates. Without those proxies the entire house of cards falls in upon itself.

One last thing. If you made a graph of mean body fat percentage of the human population, you would see a nice "hockey stick" rise in the 20th century. If records had been kept for the past 2000 years, you'd probably see a pretty "flat" mean up until the past 100 years or so. But fast food and a trend in cultural laziness has created a sharp increase in average human body weight. If you lined up such a hockey stick graph of mean body fat vs. average global temperatures, you might think a causal relationship is occuring (flatulance/methane perhaps?)

Think about it. A lot of "correlations" have occured in the past 150 years that make a nice hockey stick pattern that coincides with temperature increases, but without direct evidence (a historical record) none of them pan out. Neither does tree rings or CO2.

 

[BrownOut]

The repeated assertions that AGW has been debunked are severely overstated. I've looked at all the counter arguments, and none have yet to pan out. I already shown facts that debunk the utterly false notion that the oceans have risen appreciatively in the last 6000 years before recent times. I've also linked data that shows the temperatures in the last few years are warm by historical measures. I've shown the tree ring problem is overblown, and the trees in question are a divergent subset of all trees sampled, and are the only specimen which does not correlate. The majority of tree ring data correlates well with measured temperature, as well as other proxy data. Other data such as ice cores and sediments have also been shown to correlate. So far, I've seen nothing that proves otherwise. As well, I haven't seen a large and/or growing chorus of scientists who have decided to cease believing in the established science. Just repeating these highly questionable notions aren't going to make them true.

Now, there have been questions raised about the "hockey stick" temperature graph, and how the MWP obliterates it. But, as with all the counter arguments I've investigated so far, this one falls apart when examined closely. Look at the graphics on this site. Notice that during the MWP, the GLOBAL temperatures were much cooler than they are today. It's striking to notice that although there was some regional warming, it does not significantly impact the hockey stick graph. It appears to be a case of turbulent regional heating and cooling rather than a global trend. So, as I've discovered to be the case with nearly all the counter arguments, the effectiveness of using this information to counter AGW depends on using incomplete data, and it falls apart when closely examined. This has been a pattern from the start, and once that pattern emerged, it's easy to surmise that's going to be the MO for most of the arguments being made, and can be assumed by anyone reading them.

And the reason it is important to pay attention to AWG should be very easy to understand, and self-explanatory. Suffices to say we aren't prehistoric man anymore, and are very dependent on a global economy as well as a small temperate region of the earth which the vast majority of the world's food is grown. That's why scientists are blowing the warning horn, not for fame or fortune, but because they are concerned for mankind and want to ward off any man-made mass extinction. It is their adopted responsibility to try to make things better for people, just as they have done by eradicating disease, inventing new medicine and medical procedures, developing storm early warning systems, etc. We love science when it saves the life of a loved one, but hate it when we think we might have to change bad habits to make life better for everyone.

 

[Pommie]

The repeated assertions that AGW has been debunked are severely overstated. I've looked at all the counter arguments, and none have yet to pan out. I already shown facts that debunk the utterly false notion that the oceans have risen appreciatively in the last 6000 years before recent times. I've also linked data that shows the temperatures in the last few years are warm by historical measures. I've shown the tree ring problem is overblown, and the trees in question are a divergent subset of all trees sampled, and are the only specimen which does not correlate. The majority of tree ring data correlates well with measured temperature, as well as other proxy data. Other data such as ice cores and sediments have also been shown to correlate. So far, I've seen nothing that proves otherwise. As well, I haven't seen a large and/or growing chorus of scientists who have decided to cease believing in the established science. Just repeating these highly questionable notions aren't going to make them true.

Now, there have been questions raised about the "hockey stick" temperature graph, and how the MWP obliterates it. But, as with all the counter arguments I've investigated so far, this one falls apart when examined closely. Look at the graphics on this site. Notice that during the MWP, the GLOBAL temperatures were much cooler than they are today. It's striking to notice that although there was some regional warming, it does not significantly impact the hockey stick graph. It appears to be a case of turbulent regional heating and cooling rather than a global trend. So, as I've discovered to be the case with nearly all the counter arguments, the effectiveness of using this information to counter AGW depends on using incomplete data, and it falls apart when closely examined. This has been a pattern from the start, and once that pattern emerged, it's easy to surmise that's going to be the MO for most of the arguments being made, and can be assumed by anyone reading them.

And the reason it is important to pay attention to AWG should be very easy to understand, and self-explanatory. Suffices to say we aren't prehistoric man anymore, and are very dependent on a global economy as well as a small temperate region of the earth which the vast majority of the world's food is grown. That's why scientists are blowing the warning horn, not for fame or fortune, but because they are concerned for mankind and want to ward off any man-made mass extinction. It is their adopted responsibility to try to make things better for people, just as they have done by eradicating disease, inventing new medicine and medical procedures, developing storm early warning systems, etc. We love science when it saves the life of a loved one, but hate it when we think we might have to change bad habits to make life better for everyone.

So, are you saying the hockey stick is real and it wasn't a complete fabrication?

Yes/No would be good.

Mike.

 

[ke5frf]

Quoting Brownout..."Now, there have been questions raised about the "hockey stick" temperature graph, and how the MWP obliterates it. But, as with all the counter arguments I've investigated so far, this one falls apart when examined closely. Look at the graphics on this site. Notice that during the MWP, the GLOBAL temperatures were much cooler than they are today"

And exactly how are we arriving at this conclusion, by the debunked, divergent tree-ring proxies? Or the CO2 correlations that depend on tree-ring proxies for validation?

Check the graph on that site. It says it is a "reconstruction" of temperature anomalies. Reconstructed with what? TREE RING PROXIES! LOL Good grief this is getting circular.

 

[ke5frf]

Brownout,

If you like looking at environmental-wacko stuff, check out this website:
**broken link removed**

Its called "Eco-snoop". Your bretheren are now advocating "stalking" innocent people and businesses and snapping photographs of them commiting anti-green "crimes" against humanity like leaving a light on in an unoccupied room. They want you to snap photographs as evidence of their indiscretions and file them on their website.

This cr@p is getting creepy people. Almost Stalinesque. Secret Police, KGB next? Citizen snooping for crimes against the state and ratting out neighbors?

 

[BrownOut]

The data for the graphics comes from tree ring data, which has not been debunked, along with other proxy data that correlates the findings. Some of it comes from NOAA, which as has been previously discussed, is a reliable source for data and uncorrupted by research dollars.

 

[ke5frf]

The data for the graphics comes from tree ring data, which has not been debunked, along with other proxy data that correlates the findings. Some of it comes from NOAA, which as has been previously discussed, is a reliable source for data and uncorrupted by research dollars.

You do not consider 50 years of divergent relationship a "debunking"? Climatologist are now admitting their folly! Real scientists around the world are up in arms about their fraudulant use of unreliable data. All tree rings are good for is age dating and nothing more!

All credibility out the window man. Get the blinders off.

 

[BrownOut]

I've already addressed the divergence, and "Real scientists" are not all up in arms. I've read and linked a few contributions that say otherwise. The divergence problem has been addressed by the scientific community and thier results are widely accepted.

And my credibility is intact, no matter how many times you try to damage it.

 

[ke5frf]

But in the same breath you are saying the hockey stick isn't debunked. How can the divergence be addressed and the hockey stick still defended? Without accurate tree ring proxies, the hockey stick might as well be splinters.

How have you addressed the very REAL debunking of tree ring proxies as a valid correlation? Are you saying that a 50 or 60 year divergence in the data doesn't consitute a problem?

 

[BrownOut]

A probmen? Yes. A debunking? No. Tree ring data, by and large, does correlate well with measured temperature. The divergence becomes pronounced in high lattitude/high altitude trees. Further, paleoclimate studies correlate tree ring data with other proxies to qualify the data. There are challenges, but I've yet to see anything that debunks the findings.

 

[ke5frf]

No they don't, and haven't for 50 years. Science doesn't work on "by and large". "By and large" isn't good enough. "By and large" the whole thing is debunked when one variable doesn't fit. BTW, most of the old growth trees that are used in proxies are "high lattitude/altitude areas". 1000 year old trees don't tend to grow in the tropics. D-E-B-U-N-K-E-D

 

[tcmtech]

I have lived on our family farm all my life and I have helped plant thousands of seedlings here over the years.
If anyone thinks that tree rings represent anything other than what immediate surrounding conditions that particular tree grew in they come out here and I and my family can point out countless numbers of the same species of trees that where planted on the same days years ago that now have 5:1 or greater differences in hight and mass in less than a 100 foot distance in just ordinary shelter belt tree rows.

You can even take all the core samples you like and have any legitimate biology lab test and confirm that those trees are exactly the same ages too!

Ask your local soil conservation and arborist agency guys about stuff like that as well. They have countless examples and piles of data that will how just a slight variation in a soil or available water or even sunlight can greatly affect the natural rate of growth from one tree to the next in distances of only tens of feet or even less.

Available light and soil nutrients and water play a vastly larger role in how fast or slow trees grow in comparison to available CO2.

 

[HarveyH42]

I have lived on our family farm all my life and I have helped plant thousands of seedlings here over the years.
If anyone thinks that tree rings represent anything other than what immediate surrounding conditions that particular tree grew in they come out here and I and my family can point out countless numbers of the same species of trees that where planted on the same days years ago that now have 5:1 or greater differences in hight and mass in less than a 100 foot distance in just ordinary shelter belt tree rows.

You can even take all the core samples you like and have any legitimate biology lab test and confirm that those trees are exactly the same ages too!

Ask your local soil conservation and arborist agency guys about stuff like that as well. They have countless examples and piles of data that will how just a slight variation in a soil or available water or even sunlight can greatly affect the natural rate of growth from one tree to the next in distances of only tens of feet or even less.

Available light and soil nutrients and water play a vastly larger role in how fast or slow trees grow in comparison to available CO2.

I never did understand how tree rings got brought into this mess. It's been 25 years or so, since I was surrounded by forests, so thought maybe there were some new forestry findings or something. All I found on the web, was pretty much the same as when I was growing up out west. The annual rings can tell you the age of the tree, and how favorable the growing condition were each year. Sometimes you can make a guess about what events took place, that might of influenced the growth, but nothing like temperature or CO2 levels.

The Ice Core Samples, the major piece of the puzzle... Tiny trapped bubbles of gas, how did they get there? How is it an absolute certainty that each year, the gas was trap in the same manner, or that some gases managed to escape or dissipate. Maybe it's just the leftovers, only a small part of what was once there. Does ice really form a perfect seal, nothing can get in or out, once the water is frozen? What about the weight and pressure of tons of ice? Did they dig a mile deep hole, freeze it, and see if the got similar results? Doubt it, they got the core samples, and guessing about what it means. Weren't the core samples originally intended to study biology? So much to just take on faith, which is pretty shaky at this point.

The global temperature, is an average, meaning it's going to get hotter for some, cooler for others, stay about the same for most, and it's going to take a few generations before any of the doomsday prediction might come up, which is pretty much a given anyway. We've all been through some rough climate changes in our lives, probably see a few more. We've got plenty of time to plan ahead, shift things around. Mankind survived in the past, because we moved to more favorable land. Who knows, maybe some of those under developed, third world countries will become the best places to live, and our rich and luxury countries will become poor and basically useless. If the economics are going to shift, shouldn't we be working to build up some of the less developed areas. Since we are going to be moving around (if we want to survive), should we make peace, and work together? The Green team wants us to change our lifestyle, so everything else stays the same. This planet has never stop moving, or even slowed down. There have a lot of people, who had to relocate because of flooding, hurricanes, tidal waves, volcanoes, drought. Nothing to do with CO2, or the impending Warming, just the way it is. Nobody wants to give up their cozy castle, but eventually the stones start to fall...

 

[Sceadwian]

Brownout, if everything stated so far is true and there is divergence in tree ring data as stated even in some species, are there any known reason for the divergence from the overall data? Because if they can't find a reason for it then all the data gathered is immediatly suspect until the causes can be determined. Also it generally calls the reliability of tree ring data into question because if there is a divergence for one reason, especially if it's not known then there could also be divergences for other reasons of which we are not aware of and the entire dataset used may itself be a divergence from reality. Until all of those questions about the reliabilty of the data have been answered basic common since says you should invoke Occams Razor and immediatly question their own data and verify it's reliability. Scientists can not afford to say "Oh don't worry that's just one fluke reading" without investigating it thourghly.