[PluggyRug]

Some more interesting stuff...


http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/new-s ... %20Evening

[N_Fiddledog]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Cute chart.

So what caused the warming noted in the red circles and what caused all of the temperature variations noted in the blue circle since man isn't the cause?

I think I can explain it.

First of all, I've seen charts for that period, but the blue zooming up above the others wasn't there.

That one seems to be a variation of what they were calling "Mike's Nature Trick" in the Climategate emails. Basically it seems to be, more or less, "Hide the decline."

They use a proxy record of temps for way back when, but they can't continue it with proxy temps into the present, because if they did those temperatures would decline. So they paste the instrument-measured, land surface temperature record at the end. The previous peaks and valleys in the green are there, because that's what the selected proxies show temps doing. The blue is skyrocketing upwards above the proxy record, because that's what the instrument-measured, land surface record shows when you compare it to their selected proxies. "Apples and oranges are the same if it says what we want it to," you see.

Nevertheless it's like you say. What they can't hide is there's warming and cooling no matter what.

[N_Fiddledog]

As long as we're posting charts though, have you seen this one?



Here again is 38 years of empirical data, this time showing a distinct lack of a relationship between the satellite temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

WUWT: Climate change debate – latest results

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh and when I was in my photobucket I was poking around and found the old one below.

It's interesting, because although I don't know where I got it from back in 2009, it claims to use EPA figures and it responds to Ray's puzzling belief that air quality can only be improved when people stop using fossil fuels and jump on bicycles, because only through limiting CO2 can you control actual pollution, or some such strange suggestion.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Cute chart.

So what caused the warming noted in the red circles and what caused all of the temperature variations noted in the blue circle since man isn't the cause?

And since these variations existed before man-made influences then how is it logical to assert that 'essentially all' of the variations after 1766 are man-made?

Because adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes infrared radiation in a certain spectrum to be re-radiated back towards the earth, thus increasing tropospheric temperatures and decreasing stratospheric temperatures. The amount of CO2 added is more or less in line with the expected temperature rise.

[Zipperfish]

oops--repost. d'oh!

[Zipperfish]

oops--repost

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Nevertheless it's like you say. What they can't hide is there's warming and cooling no matter what.

A scant page ago you were saying nobody was denying that humans caused a change, and now you're back to this. Which--yet again--demonstrates my point about the deniers.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Cute chart.

So what caused the warming noted in the red circles and what caused all of the temperature variations noted in the blue circle since man isn't the cause?

And since these variations existed before man-made influences then how is it logical to assert that 'essentially all' of the variations after 1766 are man-made?

Because adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes infrared radiation in a certain spectrum to be re-radiated back towards the earth, thus increasing tropospheric temperatures and decreasing stratospheric temperatures. The amount of CO2 added is more or less in line with the expected temperature rise.

That doesn't answer my first question of what caused the warming and cooling prior to the advent of industrial civilization.

The second question is how do you delineate the natural variations from human influence with such religious certainty as is exhibited by so many people such as yourself?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Nevertheless it's like you say. What they can't hide is there's warming and cooling no matter what.

A scant page ago you were saying nobody was denying that humans caused a change, and now you're back to this. Which--yet again--demonstrates my point about the deniers.

That's funny, because what I remember specifically saying was:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No one is saying there is no possibility of human caused warming. The argument has always been about how much, whether or not that's a worry, and what can be done about it even if it is.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining Bud.

[N_Fiddledog]

Another argument I would put forward concerning your graph is although you're not supposed to notice or care, it's only measured in 10ths of a degree.

So even if we accept what may be exaggerated land surface measurements or possibly deflated proxy temps put forward we're only talking about 4/10ths of a degree difference between the green peak and the blue.

In which case, so what?

Also. You're claiming you can measure 1000 year differences in global temperature to 4/10ths of a degree.

When I hear stuff like that I get like this...

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Nevertheless it's like you say. What they can't hide is there's warming and cooling no matter what.

A scant page ago you were saying nobody was denying that humans caused a change, and now you're back to this. Which--yet again--demonstrates my point about the deniers.

Go read those comic books I sent to you. Take your mind off of the overall mindlessness for a while.

[BartSimpson]

The Punisher was sooooo...


http://viewcomic.com/the-punisher-max-v1-001/

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

As long as we're posting charts though, have you seen this one?



Here again is 38 years of empirical data, this time showing a distinct lack of a relationship between the satellite temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

WUWT: Climate change debate – latest results

Ran the same numbers as this guy. Don't get a graph like that.

[BartSimpson]

Interesting that actual tree ring data doesn't correspond with the hockey stick.

http://lustiag.pp.fi/Saima/dendrotieto.htm

$1:

A dozen dedicated field and laboratory workers worked over two decades (1985-2007) in the tree-ring lab of SAIMA. They sampled, measured and cross-dated until producing a unique national collection of ring-width data from living Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). They also pioneered lake-bottom (subfossil) sampling in southern Finland and built nearly 1450-year pine chronology for the south-eastern region.

This great data collection is available on this website. If you are planning to use these datasets for research purposes, don't hesitate to contact for more details and assistance.

Best wishes,
Dr. Jouko Meriläinen
The Tree-Ring Data Bank SAIMA

University of Cincinatti has a tree ring chart that also shows cooler temps at the end of the 1990's.



I suppose they need to be 'adjusted' right?