Nasa says no global warming

this long term temp and CO2 graph has been labeled as unreliable info

since it appears on some Christian website without being credited or footnoted.


OK, I'm not sure who "C.R Sootese and RA Berner" are.

But where is the 'credible' info on this data from the Global Warmers?

Do they have a different graph for LONG TERM (not the measly 650K BC)?


Here is where the graph data comes from....

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf


http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

 

Thanks- I am still interested in what paper/document the graph was prepared for.

Interesting in that the graph is shown by both sides as evidence of argument...


"this long term temp and CO2 graph has been labeled as unreliable info
since it appears on some Christian website without being credited or footnoted."

The graph shows up on many sites but I have not found the source paper.


Even ignoring the CO2 component- the temperature record is remarkable.
You simply have to love those upper and lower constraints & the relatively fast change between them.

If history is any indication- the global temperatures will return to the upper constraint- hell or high water..


From Sottese's site:

"ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE?

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

This chart shows how global climate has changed through time."

 

well two things just off the top of my head, one would be that the time resolution of that graph is really low being its covering a period of 600 million years. Another would be that it doesn't seem to show the snowball earth event, Probably because it happened so fast and of course because it happened right at the 600 million year boundary. What would be interesting would be to overlay the extinction events with the temp and CO2 swings

The graph is part of a paleomap project by C R Scotese

He doesn't really comment on it in his site but its still on the radar and I'm thinking someone somewhere has a detailed review of this work.



the late permian saw one of the largest extinction events to date. As you can see the world of the late permian ( high permian ) is significantly different than our own, the Pangea land mass has yet to disperse and such large land masses significantly effect the paleoclimate. One thing to remember is there are numerous factors ( all of which have been eclipsed by the massive amounts of CO2 and CH4 recently released into the atmosphere ) that mitigate temps in the "normal" climate scenario. We have deviated from that "normal" scenario completely with the advent of the industrial revolution. Unfortunately Scotese didn't include the instrument data on that last bit of his graph or you'd have seen a very very thin spike going absolutely straight up unlike any other on the graph

OH and something else that I just realized, the color graph showing scotese paleomap is a composite, which leads me to question who created the composite and who dreamed up the CO2 component as well as what criteria and resolution its based on, and of course why they failed to go back any further than the drop in CO2 after the snowball earth event. Speaking of which was partly the result of a near complete lack of photosynthesizing plants ( everything was after all completely frozen ) so nothing to metabolize the CO2 and with the oceans/land frozen over nothing to absorb it either and the fact that everything had just died, Anyway I'm kinda seeing a little cherry picking going on, not sure but it would be interesting to know where the composite came from just in case its not Scotese and its just got his name on it.

The black and white one with only temp is clearly on Scotese site. But I don't see the composite anywhere ?

I did find it on this site which might just be its originating point http://www.squidoo.com/globalwarmingMythorFact

I also found this graph which resembles the CO2 component of the composition above, If you notice the uncertainty is really high on this graph ( grey area ) also there are a number of anomalous data sets, kinda looks like more than less of them actually.


I'd be tempted to begin thinking that the uncertainty is sufficiently high to question the value of the composite

 

Not so fast poncho:
The above appraisal assumes that CO2 (and our artificial augmentation), is the defining mechanism for global temperature swings between the two temperature constraints shown; Hot House & Ice House.

Looking at the composite graph- I don't see it:

The temps stayed high at the close of the Devonian into the Carboniferous for some 50 Million years in spite of atmospheric Co2 levels dropping to near present day concentrations.
Note the early Cretaceous: temperature ascending while CO2 descends.
Also-the temps stayed at the upper constraint for 100 million years from the Cretaceous into the Tertiary in spite of a profound drop in atmospheric CO2 through that time frame.

What about the 20 million year long dive into Ice House during the Ordovician at which time the CO2 concentrations were near a all time highs and ten times higher than today's levels.

Something is setting those upper and lower constraints and triggering the shifts between them.
To my eye it ain't Co2

 

Poncho ? LMAO I've earned a few nicknames in life but I can't say I've heard that one before

Looking at the composite graph- I don't see it:

thats partly because the carbon component of the composite graph is, IMHO, not a very "robust" evaluation of the data. If you look at the original paleocarbon data I posted you can see the number of anomalous data points is pretty darn high, means the confidence level in it is pretty darn low. If you look at the grey area you could draw a line anyway you wanted through it and it would have some probability within the data. The margin of error is accordingly high. IE not a very robust assessment of the paleocarbon climate. This is one reason why our best data sets only go back say 1m years, because it requires a lot of data sets to establish the carbon data with the high level of certainty that is so important to the science. Scotese temp data on the other hand looks pretty good from what I can see so far. But I'd want more time to really dig through it before I make any blanket statements concerning the temp component.

Poncho ? I don't think I even own a poncho

The above appraisal assumes that CO2 (and our artificial augmentation), is the defining mechanism for global temperature swings between the two temperature constraints shown; Hot House & Ice House.

yah, no, I think whoever presented this composite in the first place intended us to make that assumption but it would be incorrect. As has been discussed before there were numerous mitigating factors governing temp as well as CO2, The shape of the continents, the existence of deep ocean currents, the topography of the ocean floor, the level of plant life. Lots of things once upon a time helped define temp. But then humans came along and in ~100 years added 30+% to the atmospheric CO2 and ~150% to the atmospheric methane. The system is now ( and while it continues to try and follow its previous cyclical nature ) struggling to find some kind of equilibrium with its new chemistry. The IPCC estimates that equilibrium will be once it warms up about 3~4°C or about as much as it took to throw the world into an extinction event exactly like the one that occurred in the late permian. Whats really spooky is that the IPCC has a habit of estimating low, so rather than it being end of the 21st century when this occurs its more likely to be say mid century.

My take on it would be that the CO2 component of the composite graph is highly questionable and given that we only have the one data set concerning temp no overall conclusions can really be made here. If there were say ten or fifteen independant studies of each CO2 and temp going back 600m years then that might be a different story but if you look at the CO2 data its chalk full of holes and a majority of the study findings aren't even within the statistical probability.

Something is setting those upper and lower constraints and triggering the shifts between them.
To my eye it ain't Co2

In our best reconstructions, those of say the last million years, there is of course a very clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and temp

Another little darling is that pesky methane, thats what sent the permian into its final throws of extinction, so that 150% increase in methane is kinda the wild card. In the permian it took about a million years to build up enough CO2 to trigger the methane release. Which took another say 40K years. Today we seem to have done the equivalent in CO2 in about 1~2 hundred years, and, methane is already increasing dramatically.

The climate once operated a certain way, now we have so altered the chemistry of the system that its acting in a whole new way. Its struggling to catch up. Not good given how its reacted in the past to lesser forcings of similar components

cheers
B

Poncho ?
how the helld that happen

 

Pancho.

 

I got to hand it to ya poncho- I could not have said it better myself.

The paleocarbon data is at best incomplete. The data we have suggests that atmospheric carbon is gradually decreasing while the earths continues its very uniform march between the two known extremes of temperatures.
To suggest a strong correlation as has often been made: the "Cambrian Hot House" etc.. from such data is not possible at this time.

 

The gubmint says if we don't reduce our carbon footprint aliens are going to come and kill us. Bring them on.

Anybody got a good recipe for alien?

 

Found one. http://video.answers.com/alien-nipple-cocktail-recipe-187246948

 

real danger to mankind is sudden end of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

As we see from graphs going back several hundred million years(as opposed to dishonest use of graphs only going back a measly 650,000) we see that CO2 levels stay firmly pegged at WAY under 1% of atmosphere, and thus aren't a factor in "green house gases".

Yes, there IS a relation between temp and CO2. It is a temp increase, THEN a minor increase in CO2(but always stopping far before it even hits a half a percent).

Once you understand just how effectively green plants grab every last scrap of CO2 out of the air things become a little clearer.

The only CO2 is what drifts up off ground(or sea) level during the previous night when plants aren't using (but actually producing) CO2.


While an increase in CO2 of a whole "30%" from 300ppm to 380ppm or even too 2000ppm is meaningless as far as "green-house effect"......

consider that the reason plants require many times more water for each unit of food they create is their one big problem is they must exchange their inner air at 100% humidity for outside air with less than 1/2 of 1% CO2.

Yes, an increase in CO2 is a great boon to plants for both water conservation and other reasons.

Now consider that our the recently (last 100 years, but mostly last 50 or even last 25) created "wonder crops" that have 3X of more yield have ALL been developed in elevated CO2 levels.

How much of their success is due to elevated CO2? Not sure, and I've never heard of anyone studying that aspect.

But it is a no-brainer that all of mankind's dry farmed staple crops (yes, rice is "dry farmed" after the initial planting) would suddenly be wanting 1/3 to 1/2 times more water as they will need to drastically increase the amount of air exchange if CO2 levels drop by that amount. At best, we would suddenly have extremely meager crops, but more likely "total failure" of most crops, except those lucky to be sewn where rainfall just happened to be heavy that year. I'm guessing recent "high-CO2" has a lot to do with success of just about every other "wonder crop", even those able to be fully irrigated, because CO2 is used by high-grade indoor marijuana farmers, and their results are carefully documented. IIRC, plants can benefit from up to 20X normal CO2....even with hydroponics and unlimited water.

Plants stop growing at around 200ppm.


How long would it take for green plants most required nutrient to drasitally plumment to 2/3 of its current level if fossil fuel carbon emissions suddenly ended (like if the relatively few major extraction operations were suddenly shutdown by wars or "One World Govt")?

Given how well green plants grab all but a tiny percentage of CO2, I'm guessing days, not weeks, but at any rate a whole lot faster than new low-CO2 tolerate "super crops" could be created. Sure, their might be a little help when billions of people release carbon held in their furniture and nearby trees to replace NG for cooking and heating, but how long will that last?


While I hate to use "ad hominem" attacks, lets remember that prior to becoming the self appointed "carbon Czar", Al Gore set the all time world's record for taking money from Defense Contractors. Why the hell would weapons makers give so much money to a guy from a hick state like TN? That is where they make nuclear bombs. So before he became "green", Al Gore's major influence (going back to his Senator father at least) was Dr. Strangelove-seque.

Not that I disagree that massive population reductions could be a good thing, but fact is even a 10X increase in current CO2 levels wont have an effect on "greenhouse effect". Water vapor(clouds) is what matters.

What large increase in CO2 will do (guaranteed) is have plants growing in all sorts of places that were previously too dry, along with (also guaranteed) increase in over-population of Third World substance farmers.

 

wow

your really struggling with this subject

we've been over all these inaccuracies before but just for fun I'll do it one more time just in case any of the readers are confused by that last

 

any studies on how any of our fairly recent dry-farmed "super crops" do

under 300ppm of 200 years ago compared with the 380ppm they were breed or GMOed under given same minimal(and limiting) water?

IIRC, grain crops during semi-drought will "play defense" and try to go through reproductive cycle, but with extremely reduced number and size of seed.

The seed is the food part we harvest.


Given the fairly dramatic benefits to indoor farmed MJ, I'd also be interested in the affects of 300ppm or less of CO2 on any of the also very recent non-grain food plant strains, from lettuce to apples and oranges. Only a very small amount of food today comes from "Heirloom" plants (if those are really Heirloom) and I've noticed the hybrid tomato plants I grow far outstrip the Heirlooms in production and general robustness. I try to tell myself the Heirlooms taste better but blind tests on others are inconclusive at best.

Figure even completely 'natural' grasses used for grazing also constantly go through Natural Selection (grass does that pretty fast, IIRC) and have been doing so in quickly increasing CO2 over the last 150 years.


Again, any studies done on any of our new food plants in 1800 and earlier very low CO2 levels? Links please.

 

I would be happy to help you understand this subject a little better but if you could please go and actually read up a little on the relevant issues it would make our conversation much more productive

The simple facts are that CO2 and CH4 are the predominant GHG. Increases in these gasses in relation to the atmospheric norm of the time has been associated with all mass extinction events

cheers
B

 

sorry but the classic denier argument of, Its plant food, simply doesn't wash.

 

This one is interesting, for I assume it was before all the land masses dispersed to the Northern hemisphere...

Anyone who has observed met data will know that land masses cool rapidly over-night, but with most of the landmass over the tropics (equatorial) the average temperature would remain quite warm (think of the tropical waters now - hold around 30degrees Celsius (86 deg Fahrenheit)...

Using that logic and understanding, and the current landmass distribution, it would be reasonable to expect the northern hemisphere to be significantly cooler, especially in the northern winter... That the n polar icecap is MELTING is evidence of a recent trend to warming...