Skeptics seem to be focussed on fudging data to show that we can beltch out a few billion tonnes of c02 every year and it will have no effect.

Even the simpliest of minds, must wonder what is happening to that co2. Where is it going, and what is it doing.

It must be impossible to believe that we can continue to beltch out that much, exponentially increasing, ad infinitum, and not cause any changes ?

Even if you can convince yourself the world is not warming ( it is) but is the sea not getting more carbonic ?  Is sealife producing smaller shells ?, impacting the food chain. ?  Are the hundreds of other consequences not concerning you ?

Meanwhile the gullible gerties agree with the proved fudged figures from the scaremongering global warmists.
Like the famous Hockey stick which the global warmists lied and created the data to fool the gerties.
Oh and the hockey stick was the worst that the scaremongerers could conjure up, yet it is nothing to worry about when compared to our earlier history!





You know, when you are trying to convince the world of 'something' it is not a good idea not to lie about the data like the global warmist Michael Mann did.
If you're right about something then there's no need to fudge or conjure up the data or straight out lie like Michael Mann did.
And now that Michael Mann has been exposed for lieing about scientific data then whatever credibility he once had is now all gone.

blah blah blah!


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

No comment from the Conservative "think" tankers - Maqqa, Cods, LW & associates.

I'll take that as confirmation that the Conservative/Liberal Economic managers myth, is dead & buried!!!

You will also find that the global warmists will claim that the Arctic is melting due to global warming.
What the global warmists won't tell you is that the global warmists initially claimed that the Arctic was getting bigger due to global warming. They even had a model to prove it, but then the global warmists discovered that teh ARctic was actually melting, so the global warmists changed their model and viola that now proves that global warming is causing the Arctic to melt.

So let's apply that revised global warming model to the Antartic!

Also the global warmists won't tell you that the Antartic growing. And the Antartic is 2-3 times the size of the Arctic.
So the Arctic is shrinking but the Antartic is growing - both must be due to global warming!!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:47pm:


I love how proxy temperatures are fine when they think it supports their case but unreliable when it doesn't!

But, the argument is bunk anyway:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles.jpg
Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

Quote: