re: More proof that global warming is bullshite, Penguins are dying due to excessive ice

quote:

---

Liberals don't touch conservatives, they touch little children and women in their employ.

---

Just sayin

quote:

---

Lol you think that dumbass “last two years of this 50 year chart” was an attack? It was so bad I thought it was a false flag guy pretending to be a crazy poster.

---

Hey dawgshit26, is a that all you have is...I'm smarter than you BS. I give zero fricks about your stupid arse charts, graphs or whatever you have to try and back up you and the rest of the stupid fricks on here that still buy into this beyond ridiculous BS. Sorry you're such a stupid sucker that missed the point of no return on this dumbass shite. You fricks have NOTHING close to solid data. You are a joke...got that dawgshit26...a fricking joke. All your posts are dumb as frick...your I'm smarter than you/ you're dumb shtick is gay as you are. You are a loser...period. Carry on...loserPOS

quote:

---

Hey dawgshit26, is a that all you have is...I'm smarter than you BS. I give zero fricks about your stupid arse charts, graphs or whatever you have to try and back up you and the rest of the stupid fricks on here that still buy into this beyond ridiculous BS. Sorry you're such a stupid sucker that missed the point of no return on this dumbass shite. You fricks have NOTHING close to solid data. You are a joke...got that dawgshit26...a fricking joke. All your posts are dumb as frick...your I'm smarter than you/ you're dumb shtick is gay as you are. You are a loser...period. Carry on...loserPOS

---

In the words of Trumpkins: melt, bitch

quote:

---

All the work that my group has done has shown that CO2 in the atmosphere TRAILS planet warming

It's almost as if the planet has a built in mechanism to heal itself

Go figure

---

Your group? What group is this? And where can I find your peer-reviewed papers on this?

The scientific community is going to be blown away that you have proved the foundations of atmospheric science are wrong. That GHG's in atmospheres don't actually trap long wave radiation and heat planetary surfaces. It should be interesting for you to specify the exact process and the hows of what does fill the void since GHG's don't do what all observable science has shown them to do?

You are on the path to a Nobel prize, not sure what you are doing on TD with such ground-breaking work.

quote:

---

The scientific community is going to be blown away that you have proved the foundations of atmospheric science are wrong

---

Wow, you really don't know what youre talking about. But that's to be expected from someone who googles and pastes, I guess

J. B. Pedro, S. O. Rasmussen, and T. D. van Ommen

quote:

---

Abstract. Antarctic ice cores provide clear evidence of a close coupling between variations in Antarctic temperature and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 during the glacial/interglacial cycles of at least the past 800-thousand years. Precise information on the relative timing of the temperature and CO2 changes can assist in refining our understanding of the physical processes involved in this coupling. Here, we focus on the last deglaciation, 19 000 to 11 000 yr before present, during which CO2 concentrations increased by ~80 parts per million by volume and Antarctic temperature increased by ~10 °C. Utilising a recently developed proxy for regional Antarctic temperature, derived from five near-coastal ice cores and two ice core CO2 records with high dating precision, we show that the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded. This result, consistent for both CO2 records, implies a faster coupling between temperature and CO2 than previous estimates, which had permitted up to millennial-scale lags.

---

Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, and Jan-Erik Solheim

quote:

---

Abstract

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

---

J. R. Petit1, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud1, N. I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola1, I. Basile1, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte1, V. M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand1, V. Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius1, L. PÉpin, C. Ritz1, E. Saltzman & M. Stievenard

quote:

---

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record.

---

Manfred Mudelsee

quote:

---

Abstract

The phase relations (leads/lags) among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume are key to understanding the causes of glacial}interglacial G-IG climate transitions. Comparing the CO2 record with other proxy variables from the Vostok ice core and stacked marine oxygen isotope records, allows the phase relations among these variables, over the last four G-IG cycles, to be estimated. Lagged, generalized least-squares regression provides an efficient and precise technique for this estimation. Bootstrap resampling allows account to be taken of measurement and timescale errors. Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3 +/- 1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.7 +/- 1.3 ka.

---

Well we know the trump accusations were horse shite, so....

quote:

---

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

---

You don't seem to realize what you are posting. Like usual.

This was your assertion:

quote:

---

All the work that my group has done has shown that CO2 in the atmosphere TRAILS planet warming

---

Inferring an absolute. That is just not true.

Now, do you acknowledge how the greenhouse effect works? Or are you going to stick to claiming CO2 can not drive warming?

And again, who is your group and where is your research? Just yesterday you couldn't understand how to read graphs and determine trends, today we are to believe you are some sort of climate scientist that has done work in the field? The anonymity of internet really does allow people to pretend to be whatever they want.

quote:

---

It's almost as if the planet has a built in mechanism to heal itself

---

Also, tell me more about this nonsense. You gonna link me to some GAIA websites?

quote:

---

Did he do that?
If he did claim CO2 at any concentration or pressure cannot drive perceptible warming, he'd be wrong.
I don't see where he said that though.

---

Lets see him answer.

quote:

---

OTOH, this post referencing "nonsense" implies a lack of familiarity with both the current ice age, and with Henry's Law.

---

These are your all's alts aren't they?
LINK

LINK

But by all means, please continue your thoughts. Lay out for me point by point this argument that the Earth has a built in mechanism that "heals" itself. Implying some sort of synergistic self regulation toward some sort of homeostasis. I'm really curious to know what this homeostasis is, how the earth knows it is out of whack, and what specific process re-alligns itself back into that homeostasis?

quote:

---

OTOH, this post referencing "nonsense" implies a lack of familiarity with both the current ice age, and with Henry's Law.


These are your all's alts aren't they?

---

Are they?

Let's see.
Here is the data:



You're the guy claiming the Earth, rather than the sun, is responsible for cyclical 0.1Ma swings in terrestrial temperature.
But given that claim, you must believe "It's almost as if the planet has a built in mechanism to heal itself."

Right?

Goodness, you're looking at 800,000yrs of data to that effect. If not a mystical self-healing in your estimation, what then consistently drives CO2 down from its peaks?

quote:

---

You're the guy claiming the Earth, rather than the sun, is responsible for cyclical 0.1Ma swings in terrestrial temperature.
But given that claim, you must believe "It's almost as if the planet has a built in mechanism to heal itself."

Right?

Goodness, you're looking at 800,000yrs of data to that effect. If not a mystical self-healing in your estimation, what then consistently drives CO2 down from its peaks?

---

You realize the earth is 4.54 billion years old and you are using 800,000 years to make your little "Not GAIA" theory right?

Different periods of the Earth's history have different causations for their shifts. I mean we had millions of years of this planet where there was no ice(ironically also coinciding with the period we had the highest concentration of potent GHG's), and than millions where we were a snowball earth. In terms of the cosmic history of our planet you are looking at a mere speck in time. However, nothing is in question about the underlying foundation of atmospheric science(unless you want to try and challenge it?), the more GHG's present in an atmosphere the more outgoing heat gets trapped. This is a very basic process. Why do you think Venus is so hot it can melt lead despite less sun actually penetrating its clouds than Earth? Because it has an enormous greenhouse gas effect. Which traps so much heat that the planet is actually hotter than Mercury despite being further out from the sun.

But the implication that "the Earth heals itself" suggests A.) some sort of synergistic self-regulation toward a homeostasis, and B.) that you know this is the case and know how this process works, and what this homeostasis place the Earth has is. So please, explain it out point by point. You continue to leave out the most important part of your argument. You have made a hypothesis: The earth self-regulates itself to a state of homeostasis, yet you have not explained the step by step process in how this happens.