Discussion:
Carbon Dioxide Is Not The Primary Driver Of Global Temperature -- "We Can't Say That CO2 Will Drive Climate. It Surely Never Did In The Past." - Professor Ian Clarke, PhD.
Add Reply
AlleyCat
2019-04-15 00:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What's YOUR PhD. in, bogan?

"We can't say that CO² will drive climate... it certainly never did in the
past." Dr. Ian Clark, PhD. - paleo-climatologist, hydro-geologist,
professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

=====

Al Gore says the relationship between the temperature and CO² is
complicated but he doesn't say what these complications are.

In fact, there was something very important in the ice-core data that
he failed to mention.

Professor Ian Clark is a leading Arctic paleoclimatologist who looks back
into the Earth's temperature record tens of millions of years.

"When we look at the climate on long scales, we're looking for geological
material that actually records climate. If we were to take an ice sample,
for example, we use isotopes to reconstruct temperature but the atmosphere
that is imprisoned in that ice we liberate and then we look at the CO²
content."

Professor Clark and others have indeed discovered, as Al Gore says, a link
between Carbon Dioxide and temperature.

But what Al Gore doesn't say is that the link is the wrong way round.

"So here we're looking at the ice-core record from Vostok, and in the red
we see temperature going up from early time to later time at a very key
interval when we came out of a glaciation. And we see the temperature
going up and then we see the CO² coming up. CO² lags behind that increase.
It's got an 800 year lag so temperature is leading CO² by 800 years."

There have now been several major ice-core surveys, everyone of them shows
the same thing... the temperature rises or falls, and then, after a few
hundred years, Carbon Dioxide follows.

"So obviously, Carbon Dioxide is not the cause of that warming; In fact we
can say that the warming produced the increase in Carbon Dioxide."

"CO² clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, it's a product of
temperature. It's following temperature changes."

https://vimeo.com/223697931

From out of the depths.
--
It's "weather" when the temperatures don't agree with what climate
screechers have to say, and then it's climate change, when it does.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."


Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

Climate Change Scientists Caught Tampering With Data to Show Rising Sea
Levels

"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
2019-04-15 00:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
"We can't say that CO² will drive climate... it certainly never did in the
past." Dr. Ian Clark, PhD. - paleo-climatologist, hydro-geologist,
professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
You were right all along.

It's resource rationing, tied to wealth redistribution. The treaties set
a fossil fuel budget for the year, expressed in terms of CO2. Then it
divides that budget equally amongst all nation by population. This
way the west uses too much so it's got to pay the developing world
for their unused CO2 credits.

This is exactly how it was always spelled out, going back to the 1980s,
and it's been hidden in plain sight ever since...

The really dumb part? It's taking from the poor HERE and giving to
the rich THERE.

Even worse? China isn't honoring it!

China never honored the CFC agreement and it's never honored any
"Carbon" or "Climate" agreement. So the whole thing is dead in the
water anyway.







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184161766088
AlleyCat
2019-04-15 00:47:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 17:07:33 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
says...
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
China never honored the CFC agreement and it's never honored any
"Carbon" or "Climate" agreement. So the whole thing is dead in the
water anyway.
If China doesn't honour the "CFC" agreement, then, why don't
the screechers ever piss, moan, and cry about THEM and the
ozone layer, anymore?

They know they can't get money from China, for their agendas. ;-)

Surely, with 197 countries agreeing to curb use of ozone-damaging
chemicals, the ozone layer should be gaining, not waning, even WITH
China's billion people.

Editor's note:
Curbing damage to Earth's protective ozone layer is widely viewed as one
of the most important successes of the modern environmental era. Earlier
this year, however, a study reported that ozone concentrations in the
lower level of the stratosphere had been falling since the late 1990s (AND
I GAVE UP R12 FREON FOR THAT??) - even though the Montreal Protocol, a
global treaty to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, had been in effect
since 1989.

This raised questions about whether or not human activities could still be
damaging the ozone layer.

It's all speculation, and you know what they say about that?

Assume nothing.

1) What's the prevailing view among atmospheric scientists today about the
state of the ozone layer?

The overall picture is clear: The Montreal Protocol reduced use of ozone-
depleting chemicals and will lead to healing of the ozone layer. This is
an important goal because stratospheric ozone protects us from exposure to
ultraviolet radiation, which can increase the risk of cataracts, skin
cancer and other detrimental effects.

Of course, this forecast would be wrong if nations deviate from their
treaty commitments, or if the scientific community fails to detect
possible emissions of gases that could deplete the ozone layer but are not
covered by the treaty.

2) What could explain the continued decline in ozone in the lower
stratosphere that was reported earlier this year?

Of course, there are still some gaps in our knowledge of the ozone layer,
and these two new reports have spotlighted such gaps.

There are gaps in MOST "scientific" studies, ESPECIALLY if they use
MODELS.

3) If ozone levels in the lower stratosphere have been decreasing for 20
years, why are scientists just detecting that trend now?

Too busy screeching for more money to study why they need more money to
study why it's not getting warm enough to warrant more money for more
"global warming" studies.
--
"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
2019-04-15 02:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible says...
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
China never honored the CFC agreement and it's never honored any
"Carbon" or "Climate" agreement. So the whole thing is dead in the
water anyway.
If China doesn't honour the "CFC" agreement, then, why don't
the screechers ever piss, moan, and cry about THEM and the
ozone layer, anymore?
Because they're well trained, not well informed. There is a difference, as
you know.
Curbing damage to Earth's protective ozone layer is widely viewed as one
of the most important successes of the modern environmental era. Earlier
this year, however, a study reported that ozone concentrations in the
lower level of the stratosphere had been falling since the late 1990s (AND
I GAVE UP R12 FREON FOR THAT??) - even though the Montreal Protocol, a
global treaty to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, had been in effect
since 1989.
They already fingered China as the offender.
This raised questions about whether or not human activities could still be
damaging the ozone layer.
It's any understanding that sulfur as in our fossil fuels is also an offender.

Oo! And China has been lying about it's coal use all along, coal being the
number-one source for such sulfur!

Sulfur DOES cool the planet, by reflecting energy from the sun back out
into space but it also depletes the ozone AND eventually comes back down
in the form of acid rain (Sulfuric Acid).

It's a doozy!

This is one reason why Super Volcanic Eruptions are so devastating to the
planet...
1) What's the prevailing view among atmospheric scientists today about the
state of the ozone layer?
CFCs haven't dropped the way they should, because China is cheating, and
coal use is officially "Steady" but we've all read story after story about how
China under reports coal...
3) If ozone levels in the lower stratosphere have been decreasing for 20
years, why are scientists just detecting that trend now?
I'm guessing that it's closer to a case of rate of depletion. We've been
scrubbing sulfur from our fossil fuels for years -- decades, I think -- and
the CFC treaty has been widely upheld EXCEPT for China, and maybe
some smaller countries. So the damage is still being done but nowhere
near to the extant.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184161766088
k***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 10:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A simple view of the ice core record shows that co2 does not drive temperature. It is normal to promote the fraud by showing the graph at low resolution so that the factual details cannot be easily discerned.

The co2 lags the temperature by about 1000 yrs.

The temperature rises while co2 is falling. This means there is some other pertinent cause for the temperature uptick that is not co2.
The temperature begns its fall while co2 is still rising. Which it continues to do for about 1000yrs after temperature begins to fall.

No affect upon temperature gradient can be shown from rising co2 in any condition.
Natural chemical processes can explain the changing co2 due to changing temperature. But no effect upon temperature from rising co2 can be discerned.

No evidence in the ice cores for the assumption and INVALID assertion that co2 drives temperature.

The fraudulent science of climatology cannot give an accurate analysis of the ice cores. Because accurate and valid science does not support the cash cow and self-arrogated self-importance of the greenie weenies.
AlleyCat
2019-04-15 21:40:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
The co2 lags the temperature by about 1000 yrs.
"They" say 800, but what's 200 freaking years, when Earth is twenty-three
million, five hundred TIMES older than that?

https://vimeo.com/223697931

https://vimeo.com/330613369

Al Gore says the relationship between the temperature and CO² is
complicated but he doesn't say what these complications are.

In fact, there was something very important in the ice-core data that
he failed to mention.

Professor Ian Clark is a leading Arctic paleoclimatologist who looks back
into the Earth's temperature record tens of millions of years.

"When we look at the climate on long scales, we're looking for geological
material that actually records climate. If we were to take an ice sample,
for example, we use isotopes to reconstruct temperature but the atmosphere
that's imprisoned in that ice we liberate and then we look at the CO²
content."

Professor Clark and others have indeed discovered, as Al Gore says, a link
between Carbon Dioxide and temperature.

But what Al Gore doesn't say is that the link is the wrong way round.

"So here we're looking at the ice-core record from Vostok, and in the red
we see temperature going up from early time to later time at a very key
interval when we came out of a glaciation. And we see the temperature
going up and then we see the CO² coming up. CO² lags behind that increase.
It's got an 800 year lag so temperature is leading CO² by 800 years."

There have now been several major ice-core surveys, everyone of them shows
the same thing... the temperature rises or falls, and then, after a few
hundred years, Carbon Dioxide follows.

"So obviously, Carbon Dioxide is not the cause of that warming; In fact we
can say that the warming produced the increase in Carbon Dioxide."

"CO² clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, it's a product of
temperature. It's following temperature changes."
--
"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-15 21:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Post by k***@gmail.com
The co2 lags the temperature by about 1000 yrs.
"They" say 800, but what's 200 freaking years, when Earth is twenty-three
million, five hundred TIMES older than that?
https://vimeo.com/223697931
https://vimeo.com/330613369
Al Gore says the relationship between the temperature and CO² is
complicated but he doesn't say what these complications are.
In fact, there was something very important in the ice-core data that
he failed to mention.
Professor Ian Clark is a leading Arctic paleoclimatologist who looks back
into the Earth's temperature record tens of millions of years.
"When we look at the climate on long scales, we're looking for geological
material that actually records climate. If we were to take an ice sample,
for example, we use isotopes to reconstruct temperature but the atmosphere
that's imprisoned in that ice we liberate and then we look at the CO²
content."
Professor Clark and others have indeed discovered, as Al Gore says, a link
between Carbon Dioxide and temperature.
But what Al Gore doesn't say is that the link is the wrong way round.
"So here we're looking at the ice-core record from Vostok, and in the red
we see temperature going up from early time to later time at a very key
interval when we came out of a glaciation. And we see the temperature
going up and then we see the CO² coming up. CO² lags behind that increase.
It's got an 800 year lag so temperature is leading CO² by 800 years."
There have now been several major ice-core surveys, everyone of them shows
the same thing... the temperature rises or falls, and then, after a few
hundred years, Carbon Dioxide follows.
"So obviously, Carbon Dioxide is not the cause of that warming; In fact we
can say that the warming produced the increase in Carbon Dioxide."
"CO² clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, it's a product of
temperature. It's following temperature changes."
--
"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI
so lets see, if you all claim co2 fertilization is a good thing, and the greening of the planet has been observed, perhaps the lag in the ice core is a demonstration of how the system tried to uptake more co2 but once overwhelmed temps increased?
R Kym Horsell
2019-04-15 23:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
"CO^2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, it's a product of
temperature. It's following temperature changes."
"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI
so lets see, if you all claim co2 fertilization is a good thing, and the greening of the planet has been observed, perhaps the lag in the ice core is a demonstration of how the system tried to uptake more co2 but once overwhelmed temps increased?
Natchurally when there are 2 things that each vary back and forth
over time hillbillies will pick "A follows B" when clearly
"A follows B" and also "B follows A".

It's like they see a merry-go-round and figga the White horse is following
the Black horse around, rather than seeing also the Black horse
is following the White horse.

To make the sityashun even more laughable no hillbily incl hillbilly
statisticians(*) take into account the accuracy of the *dates* for the
different gas samples, let alone the accuracy of the final temp/atm estimate.

(*) Someone that thinks if a 95% confidence interval contains zero
then the trend was 95% likely zero.

The further down you dig in these ice cores the less certain you are of
exactly how far back you are looking. It's all very fine for the top 20 m
when you can count the annual snow layers like they were tree rings.

But down 2 or 3 km the date is estimated from a model given the depth
and the depth has an error given gases can seep up and down in the ice column
over 100s of 1000s of years.

If anyone "sees" (because these things seem allays be "by eye" rather than
any known statistical procedures) a difference up to 1000y they are
looking at noise.

Finally, if we DO use a statistical procedure to compare CO2 against
deuterium-estimated local temps we find the following with different "lags"
on the CO2 values:

CO2 -> temp
lag R2
0 .888
100y .878
200y .837
300y .805
400 .795
500 .763
600 .740
700 .706
800 .688
900 .609
1000 .597

Which demonstrates any larger lag between 100 and 1000y is a poorer model
explaining temperature than a 0-lag model.
IOW when CO2 has changed in the past the most likely model is
an "instant" (within 100y) change in local (and therefore we presume global)
temperatures.

OTOH if we look at how temperature relates to CO2 (i.e. making CO2 the
dependent variable in a regression):

temp -> CO2
lag R2
0 .900
100 .839
200 .763
300 .694
400 .631
500 .517
600 .474
700 .430
800 .378
900 .299
1000 .186

Which again shows there is not likely much delay between change of temp
and any associated change of CO2 and, moreover, the explanation power of
"CO2 relating to later temp change" versus "temp change relating to CO2
change" with any nonzero lag are all higher pointing at the major causation
over any length of time going from CO2 -> temp rather than temp -> CO2.

Which we generously can interpret as changes in CO2 "cause" changes
in global temp and changing temps "cause" a change in atm CO2 but
the latter are weaker than the former and later changes are weaker
than sooner changes.
--
GPS information is coming down at 50 bits per second. It takes
several seconds to complete an acquisition. So, it is impossible to
update your position 5 times a second in your fantasy.
[10Hz uninterpolated position updates are available for aircraft nav aps c2010].
-- Koobee Wublee, 5/2/11 8:24 PM
Bret Cahill
2019-04-15 00:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
.

.

.

.
R Kym Horsell
2019-04-15 01:03:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
.
.
.
.
Days long gone rkh had more mentions on that interweb than Pres B Obama. (Sniff).

--
That innernet is hidin DA TRUTH about chemtrails and vaxynashuns!
Ring yor repysentativ now!!
Loading...