http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/13/climate-change-scienceofclima... Quote:
More at the link.

http://depositphotos.com/3979380/stock-photo-Hand---okay-and-dollar-sign.html

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 4:10pm:


Just like temperature & CO2 donot correlate in our past history and in our present, same with all other IPCC predictions, they've all been shown to be over shooting the mark or they simply just don't correlate.....!!!

Quote:


Well whats it going to be then, two days ago muso was hell bent that the missing heat was in the deep ocean layers, which is what the IPCC where also saying.

Now they tell us in AR5 that most heat is found in the top layers (700 metres).

That's the kinda science the IPCC produce, don't know whether they're Arthur or Marthur, depending upon what day it is.

Quote:


Just a common sense one, remember we where told that by 2013 the arctic would be ice free.......??????

Quote:


Most IPCC predictions have been knocked on the head and your telling me i'm out of wack....??????

Quote:


You mean the fact that we're coming out of a mini ice age has no part at all.....?????

Go figure...............!!!!

Again you're using Mann & Co. Hockey shhhtick methods and models.

Please tell me what happened to the medieval warm period and the mini ice age in that graph you keep posting....???

Somehow Mann & Co. have conveniently omitted them....???

Care to explain ...WHY.......?????

Denying the truth is like kicking rocks bare foot.

There is no correlation between temperature and CO2, never has been in our history.

And right now more than one third of manmade CO2 emissions have gone up into the atmosphere since 1998....yet temperatures aren't rising......???

Where is the correlation...................?????

I know you where using the missing heat has gone into the bottom layers of the ocean (3000 metres).

But the IPCC's AR5 says that most of the heat that went into the ocean is at the top layers (700 metres)

So which is it now muso.....bottom or top.....????

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale

(NO)

,

(11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO)

, It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING !

This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale

(NO)

,

(millions of years)

Graph-3

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately

Oh, wait, daddy says that's for your indoctrinated friends oh fair enough then go and bore them with your year 11 economics books that you never read the first time!! 

Don't feed the troll and check your PMs.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 6:45am:


It's much more than a waste problem. Even if we cut back the waste, we'd still have a problem. If we smoke crack, live in caves and sing kumbaya like 21st century hippies, we'll all go broke.

I've seen what happens to a country when it goes broke. Do you think they worry about luxuries like waste minimisation or biodiversity in such countries?  They do not.  Anything that moves is eaten, waste oil is dumped. They have government environmental departments that do nothing. They don't have the resources. The country needs to be able to bring in renewable energy projects. This costs money.

Death, This is a serious issue.  Some people are probably beyond reason, but for others reading this, your personal snipes about crack smoking don't help the case one bit.
If you want to help save the planet, don't spam with personal attacks. I know that you mean well, but if you continue with this, I will suspend you.

Ajax wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 10:22am:


Well I checked out four of those so far at random. They were all regional studies - Northern Norway, Greenland,  Sweden...

- and one of the authors specofically explained that the study should not be extrapolated on a global scale, contradicting your claim that it was global.

Check the Law Dome ice core temperature proxy data from Antarctica. What does that tell you? 

I'm pretty sure that they are mostly cherry picked regional studies for specific regions that showed warming for this period, and ignoring all others. Look them up yourself and show that  I'm wrong.