DescentBB

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:So the whole core concept of carbon credits and controlling the earths temperature by controlling CO2 is in reality a carnies shell game. The earth was warming before there ever was a increase in CO2. This is cyclic in nature and the latest findings ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... 0.abstract ) show a gap of about 200 years.

...do you even read your own goddamn links? Right there in black and white in the abstract, emphasis mine:

However, temperature can influence atmospheric CO2 as well as be influenced by it.

And from the last sentence of the abstract:

We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

So yeah, you're just a troll at this point. Quit while you're behind.

The only troll is your lack of curiosity of what the actual whole article is about. The abstract is NOT what you posted. the real last sentence is:

"Modeling studies using coupled carbon cycle–climate models will be needed to fully explore the implications of this synchronous change of AT and aCO2 during TI in order to improve our understanding of natural climate change mechanisms."

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/fil ... et-co2.pdf

In short, they don't know and the models they may have now are junk models. Enjoy your lack of comprehension and try to cover up by accusing me of being a troll.

You. Did. Not. Read.

No, seriously, this is just embarassing for you. That very sentence I quoted is word-for-word from the abstract of the article that you yourself linked. (Protip: the abstract is that paragraph at the beginning that summarizes the contents of the journal article. It's also the only bit that you generally get to see for free while the rest of the article is locked behind a shitty paywall.) But we hardly need to stop there: I proceed to read through the entire article, and the gist of it is that the authors were re-evaluating the data suggesting a lag of increased CO2 levels behind temperature changes, and found that through improved methodology that lag essentially vanished. In other words, just as I posted above, increased atmospheric CO2 goes hand-in-hand with higher temperatures, instead of being a distant result of said temperatures.

Seriously, just stop.

TG your selective understanding of the paper (which I doubt you read) is best summed up by the last sentence which you seem to ignore:


"Modeling studies using coupled carbon cycle–climate models will be needed to fully explore the implications of this synchronous change of AT and aCO2 during TI in order to improve our understanding of natural climate change mechanisms."

In short they yet to understand what is happening with natural climate change but everyone like you, vision, and slick are OK with changing our and the worlds economy on incomplete science.

woodchip wrote:TG your selective understanding of the paper (which I doubt you read) is best summed up by the last sentence which you seem to ignore:


"Modeling studies using coupled carbon cycle–climate models will be needed to fully explore the implications of this synchronous change of AT and aCO2 during TI in order to improve our understanding of natural climate change mechanisms."

In short they yet to understand what is happening with natural climate change but everyone like you, vision, and slick are OK with changing our and the worlds economy on incomplete science.

Wow. No words can describe this epically huge strawman. Holy ★■◆●.

Do you even know what a strawman is.? If you can't reply with more than mystical semantical dance steps, then please don't take up space.

woodchip wrote:"Modeling studies using coupled carbon cycle–climate models will be needed to fully explore the implications of this synchronous change of AT and aCO2 during TI in order to improve our understanding of natural climate change mechanisms."

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what that sentence means.

What part of "understanding natural climate change" do you not understand?

woodchip wrote:What part of "understanding natural climate change" do you not understand?

One question, did you actually read the study you posted?

Yes, did you?

Okay, guys, drop the pot-shots and stick to the topic.

----

Here's the problem, woodchip. Neither one of the quotes from the article support your premise that "earth was warming before there ever was a increase in CO2".

"We find no significant asynchrony..." contradicts your statement, and "Modeling studies using coupled carbon cycle–climate models will be needed..." is inconclusive.

Is there something else in the article that you're pointing to, to support your position?

Also from the paper:

"Modeling studies using coupled carbon cycle–climate models will be needed to fully explore the implications of this synchronous change of AT and aCO2 during TI in order to improve our understanding of natural climate change mechanisms."

Doesn't sound like we understand what is going on...at all. It would appear our understanding is somewhat lacking and I don't get Foil, where you might think the CO2/temp relationship is conclusively proven.

The paper is littered with maybe's and could be's which do not indicate positive knowledge:

During TIII, the change in dust oc-curs earlier than the change in ice isotope at both EDC and Vostok (figs. S7 and S8), whereas these two records are approximately in phase during TI (fig. S8). This could explain why the Vostokd 40 Ar record is in advance with respect to the aCO2 record, without contradicting our finding of syn-chronous changes in aCO2 and AT.

Or

Our chronology and the resulting aCO2-AT phasing strengthens the hypothesis that there was a close coupling between aCO2 and AT on both orbital and millennial time scales. The aCO2 rise could contribute to much of the AT change dur-ing TI

There are more so consequently I wouldn't bet the farm on such such a speculative paper.

In any science paper, the word 'could' is used to indicate a possible explanation. Not "we don't understand".

woodchip wrote:Yes, did you?

Yes. And it does not support what you think it supports. I could explain it to you but my explanation might be longer than the study and you are clearly determined to not understand or believe anything that contradicts your worldview, so I'm not sure I should bother.

Edit: I might be able to summarize it in a couple paragraphs, I'll come back to this when I have time.

woodchip wrote:...I wouldn't bet the farm on such such a speculative paper.

So you're dismissing the ideas proposed by the paper you cited for support a page or so ago?

I don't follow your logic here.