No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by melatonin
Again, you produce one localised example (western equatorial pacific) and attempt to extrapolate to global trends. Even if you read the article it still says the oceans are a sink, it just says that it reduced uptake of atmospheric CO2 by 2.5% (that is 2.5% of the 2 billion GtC which is human sourced), says nothing about the oceans being an overall source. All this shows is that you really can't read a scientific article.

Before you jump on my poor proof-reading the '2 billion GtC" should just be '2 GtC' or '2 billion tonnes C".

Thought I'd also point out this little bit you missed in the article you quote-mined from:

The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, whereas colder waters in higher latitudes are sinks of atmospheric CO2. In balance, the global oceans annually take up about 2 billion tons of carbon through sea-air exchange of CO2 gas. This uptake rate corresponds to about 25 percent of carbon emitted to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities. The equatorial Pacific is characterized by high seawater carbon dioxide and nutrient concentrations provided by upwelling, or the bringing up of CO2-rich deep waters to the surface.

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...

Thus the oceans are overall sinks, as is widely known.





[edit on 28-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

No, it does not. It is based on a 1D model of the atmosphere. It uses the same method as Gavin Schmidt does with the NASA-GISS and produces figures that correspond to this model (i.e. within range).

Water vapor absorbs more bands of radiation from the sun than CO2 by more than twice and since water vapor exists in greater amounts in the atmosphere it only obvious which GHG is more important.

Originally posted by melatonin
Mann has a bit more credence than yourself. You even make it out that it was solely Mann who has shown the MWP is not global phenomenon, this suggestion was around well before MHB 1998.

Yeah right, knowing what your bud Mann tried to do and what Mann's associates are trying to claim was nothing right?... just one minor mistake...

What else can we expect from melatonin when he himself has claimed current warming being linked to holocene sea level rise is a joke...among his other claims...

A team of scientist from Austria and Germany located three stalagmites in the Spannagel Cave located around 2,500 m above sea level at the end of the Tux Valley in Tyrol (Austria) close to the Hintertux glacier. The temperature of the cave stays near freezing and the relative humidity in the cave is always at or near 100%. The stalagmites grew at a rate between 17 and 75 millionths of a meter per year and are nearly 10,000 years old.
...............
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!

www.worldclimatereport.com...

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...

Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan
.......................
The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.

www.springerlink.com...

There is more than clear evidence the Roman Warming period occurred also in the Americas.

Nearly 1,700 years ago, devastating tempests associated with sea-level rise destroyed villages of the Calusa Indians on the southwest Florida coast, near present-day Fort Myers, forcing the native fishermen to move inland to relative safety, said UF anthropologist Karen Walker.

Walker's clues to storms, sea-level rise and migration include village remains buried by storm-surge sediment, and other village deposits found at higher elevations than where they should be. In addition, the modest shells and fishbones left behind by the Indians, she said, show ecological correlations between rising sea levels and global warming periods documented in the historical record of ancient Europe.

"As we enter into a modern warming period, which seems to be the case, Florida is likely to experience flooded shorelines and an increase of intense storms," Walker said. "I think that it's not a coincidence that there were major storms recorded at some of the archaeological sites that I study and that those storms happened during the warm Roman Optimum period. I have the storms closely dated to the fourth century AD."

www.napa.ufl.edu...

The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

ff.org...

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise.

During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost.
www.agu.org...

Humm... the arctic "currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes cause by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise"...

And not only are oceans heating more than the atmosphere is heating.

Study: Lake Superior Warming Quickly

(AP) -- Lake Superior has been warming even faster than the climate around it since the late 1970s due to reduced ice cover, according to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Summer surface temperatures on the famously cold lake have increased about 4.5 degrees since 1979, compared with about a 2.7-degree increase in the region's annual average air temperature, the researchers found. The lake's "summer season" is now beginning about two weeks earlier than it did 27 years ago.
................
The study was first published by the American Geophysical Union on March 23.

www.physorg.com...

Again, the statement of a more credible Climate change scientist who has been studying these changes far longer than Mann has..

“If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present,” Akasofu said. He showed ice core data from the Russian Arctic that shows warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660, and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.

Akasofu said scientists who support the manmade greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have only been available in the satellite era since the 1960s and 1970s.

www.gi.alaska.edu...

All the "real evidence" shows that Mann, you and associates are wrong, plain and simple.

You can try playing around with numbers and making your own conclusions but the real evidence is what counts, not imagined proxies and "extrapolated graphs which Mann and associates pull up from their behinds" are going to change the facts.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Oh noes, it's groundhog day again.

The holocene had been cooling since about 7500 years ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The MWP and LIA were likely not global phenomena and the current global temperatures are very likely to be warmer than for 1000 years...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you have anything new?

[edit on 29-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Oh noes, it's groundhog day again.

Yeah everytime "melatonin" wants to anwser a post it is groundhog day...

Originally posted by melatonin
The holocene had been cooling since about 7500 years ago.

Yeah your buddies would love the world to believe that huh?...

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise.

www.agu.org...

ooops....the facts rained "melatonin's parade" once again...

Originally posted by melatonin
The MWP and LIA were likely not global phenomena and the current global temperatures are very likely to be warmer than for 1000 years...

Oh sure, they were not global phenomenon...after all, all those Climate Changes only left an imprint in the geological record in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Sargasso sea, China, Japan, Russia, etc, etc... I guess the Moon should have shown the effects of the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA in order for melatonin, Mann, and associates to finally accept those were "global events"......

Originally posted by melatonin
Do you have anything new?

Apparently you do have some new jokes up your sleeve...

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise.

www.agu.org...

ooops....the facts rained "melatonin's parade" once again...

No, that's just you quote-mining again.

That particular study was assessing how pingo-like structures may have formed on the ocean surface, Paull et al. propose a warming wave that has passed through hundreds of meters of frozen deep sea sediment, this was initiated at the end of the last ice-age.

Check the Gerhard graph that you like to post on occassion (p16)...

www.kansasenergy.org...

See where it says "1. warming since beginning of ice-core record. 2. Cooling since 10000 BP."?

It is widely accepted, even in contrarian circles, that the climate had shown overall cooling since a high following the end of the last glacial period, if this warming wave was important to global trends, we would see warming in the proxies - we don't, we see cooling from post-glacial high.

Only by quote-mining can you pretend to show otherwise. But you already know this anyway, you're just being disingenuous.

Oh sure, they were not global phenomenon...after all, all those Climate Changes only left an imprint in the geological record in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Sargasso sea, China, Japan, Russia, etc, etc... I guess the Moon should have shown the effects of the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA in order for melatonin, Mann, and associates to finally accept those were "global events"......

Did you ignore the article from 1994 suggesting the MWP was probably not global? All you have are a few cherrypicked localised proxies, from these you are attempting to extrapolate to global trends.

Multiple studies, from multiple researchers, using mutliple high-resolution proxies, from multiple sites show the big picture - current warming is quite likely greater than anything for at least 1000 years, possibly 2000 years. Even if it wasn't, it would not mean a thing in regards to the cause and predictions of the current trend in warming.

I've already refuted all this stuff Muaddib, you are now just spreading disinformation. And you might like going in circles, but I refuse to do so. Hence, I will just repost my previous refutations of your stuff.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
................
I've already refuted all this stuff Muaddib, you are now just spreading disinformation. And you might like going in circles, but I refuse to do so. Hence, I will just repost my previous refutations of your stuff.

You have not refuted anything at all except more lies and exagerations which Mann, you and associates want the world to believe... Mann and associates already tried once to bury the RWM, MWP and the LIA...

Now once again they are trying to do the same, and give credence to Mann's data by extrapolating "proxies made from guesses" which if we separate show a different picture to what they are trying to claim.

You keep reposting the lies and misinformation you have been trying to spread around here and I'll continue to repost everything which debunks your claims, plain and simple...

BTW, despite the "overall cooling" seen in that graph, it is known and I have excerpted several research which shows there is presently dramatic thermal changes, in the form of warming being caused by the continued holocene sea level rise. The Holocene period has not ended.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, despite the "overall cooling" seen in that graph, it is known and I have excerpted several research which shows there is presently dramatic thermal changes, in the form of warming being caused by the continued holocene sea level rise. The Holocene period has not ended.

Yeah, whatever you say, heh. What you call excerpting is generally called 'quote-mining', a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Don't give up your dayjob, muaddib, scholarly pursuits are not your forte.

Originally posted by melatonin

Yeah, whatever you say, heh. What you call excerpting is generally called 'quote-mining', a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

The sign of 'intellectual dishonesty' "regenmacher" comes from the people who keep trying to vindicate Mann, even though it has been demonstrated that his data is flawed and even the extrapolation of graphs given by Mann and associates, is trying once more to bury the MWP and the LIA when other research from around the world shows that they were warmer than the 20th century warming so far...

Originally posted by melatonin
Don't give up your dayjob, muaddib, scholarly pursuits are not your forte.

ah..so claims the same person who has been trying to vindicate Mann and associates after their repeated attemps at burying facts about Climate Change...

It is you who "should be changing your dayjob"... from supporter of Mann and associates to actually looking at the real data, and not depending on guesses which have been proven to be wrong....

en.wikipedia.org...:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

here's the last 400 000 years in an easy to see format.

you can see that the temperature bounces up/down roughly every 100 000 years.

we've been polluting,on a relatively large scale,for around 80 years.

100 000/80 = 1250

if i were a betting man,i'd take 1250 to 1 that we had something to do with the warming.

Originally posted by aylyan
................
you can see that the temperature bounces up/down roughly every 100 000 years.

we've been polluting,on a relatively large scale,for around 80 years.

100 000/80 = 1250

if i were a betting man,i'd take 1250 to 1 that we had something to do with the warming.

Yet you can see in that and other graphs that temperatures and the climate changes regularly, and it has done so countless of times without any help from mankind.

The current warming started around most of the world in 1600, and it has been rising since then. CO2 levels did not begin to rise until 260 years after temperatures had been rising. If anything all the evidence points to the fact that we are in another normal cycle of Climate Change.

Muaddib: I need to clarify something. You say mankind has nothing to do with the present climate change. So, that means that you don't think pollution has any effect on the earth or earth's atmosphere? That would include all the toxic chemicals we've dumped in rivers, oceans and landfills, as well as exhaust fumes from cars and other vehicles? I'm curious as to why you believe that. Can you give me some reasons for your thinking? I'm sincerely interested to know why you think this, I'm not being sarcastic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One name:

Nicola Tesla

Watch both videos, and pay close attention. The man invisioned the tv and internet as well, and was believed to be crazy because of it. Silly scientists, they wont believe anything until they have an ocean where their state used to be.

7 years and counting before we experience massive climate changes, according to the G8.

-Shadow

[edit on 6-5-2007 by Knightshadowz]

Originally posted by forestlady
Muaddib: I need to clarify something. You say mankind has nothing to do with the present climate change. So, that means that you don't think pollution has any effect on the earth or earth's atmosphere? That would include all the toxic chemicals we've dumped in rivers, oceans and landfills, as well as exhaust fumes from cars and other vehicles? I'm curious as to why you believe that. Can you give me some reasons for your thinking? I'm sincerely interested to know why you think this, I'm not being sarcastic.

Because changes have happened to Earth many times without the help of mankind. Because temperatures have been rising for at least 260 years before CO2 levels began increasing, and because the past gological records have shown us that temperatures have been similar in the Earth in the past as they are now, yet CO2 levels were 4,000 to 4,400 ppm, and now they are 380 ppm yet it is being claimed anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause for the present warming.

Also the fact that we are seeing Climate Change in other planets in the solar system, point to the fact that mankind has nothing to do with Climate Change on Earth.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Knightshadowz
................
Silly scientists, they wont believe anything until they have an ocean where their state used to be.

7 years and counting before we experience massive climate changes, according to the G8.

-Shadow

The climate will continue to change, and it will become worse, but not because of mankind. We will see the same effects happening in other planets in our solar system, and we are seeing those changes in other planets even now.

I have been talking about Climate Change in these forums three years before you became a member.

Good Lord, you folks are still going at it? Good.

Here is a tidbit I thought I'd throw in for informational purposes. It speaks for itself, so I have no comments or any need for debate on the material contained therein. The open minded member will at least read the names listed.

Many Scientists Have Changed Position On Global warming

Quote by melatonin who favors a carbon tax..

put money in public coffers. I would hope such money would be fed into developing new more environmentally sound technology.

Since when are tax moneys actually used for what they were intended? eg. the social security tax goes into the general fund. The huge tax increases of both WWI and WWII did not end after the war. A carbon tax would just lead to more wasteful government programs and take money away from you and me.

Originally posted by plumranch
Since when are tax moneys actually used for what they were intended? eg. the social security tax goes into the general fund. The huge tax increases of both WWI and WWII did not end after the war. A carbon tax would just lead to more wasteful government programs and take money away from you and me.

I don't really favour a carbon tax. It's just what I would hope the money would be used for.

What is certain, is that we need to alter the ways in which we use energy. This includes industry and public. I'll leave economists and politicians to decide whether a carbon tax is the way to do this. If money can be pumped into developing new and more effective carbon-free energy technologies, I would be supportive of this. Raise it in any way suitable, but it will take money and resources.

Nuclear...nuclear....nuclear.

It's the only available viable option.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Nuclear...nuclear....nuclear.

It's the only available viable option.

At this point, I think this is true.

I got this off Drudge today...epw.senate.gov... A little more on debunking the global warming theory.