Positive effects of Global Warming?

We are still at Q2

Q2.2

Are these statements in the article


1. late
2. Ordovician
3. glaciation

4. high (14X) CO2 levels

a)accepted as true
b)accepted as false
c)not accepted and do not matter?


Q2.3


1. late
2. Ordovician
3. glaciation

4. high (14X) CO2 levels


Please confirm that understand you correctly. Going one at a time, confirm that X14 CO2 level is not used in the article as data, it is not data.

 

No, they should be examined closely. Let's examine this one closely.

The CO2 level in this simulation was not a measurement, it was an input, i.e., an assumption, based on the data of Yapp & Poths. The authors said so themselves. Were they lying?

 

A word is not a statement. A word by itself is neither true nor false. Try again.

Yes that word is used. It comes right after the phrase "may have been".

One of these days, you might learn the difference between a word and a statement.

 

Q1. 2.1.

Do I understand you correctly?
If it is simulation it should not be dismissed. It should be accepted for examination by you.
Am I correct?

 

Right. One of the things we should examine is if this simulation simulated CO2 levels. It didn't. CO2 levels were an input, not an output.

 

Trying again...

1. Please confirm that

4. high (14X) CO2 levels
-is not a statement
-is not data.

-it is a word

Please confirm that you are not keep on spinning semantics instead of answering Qs.

Did I ask you to confirm if these words?
Did I ask you to confirm if they were used?
What did I ask you to confirm?

Please, confirm that I understand you correctly.
Please, confirm that you really think that I don't know the difference between a word and a statement in the context of the conversation; that it is your perception of me as of your opponent in this conversation.

 

Please explain to me why should we examine if this simulation simulated CO2 levels if the Abstract clearly in plain English says that CO2 levels are an input?

I am puzzled, the name of the article clearly states that the CO2 level is an input... what is to examine here? if it lies and and they are not?

 

Not a statement, not data, and not a word.

Look in the mirror. You're the one relying on semantic arguments, not me.

I have no idea whether you understand me correctly or not. But I suspect not, because you keep asking inane questions.

 

Because it means that in the context of our bet, this paper doesn't qualify. It's a paper about the Ordovician, but it contains no original data about the Ordovician.

What is to examine is if there is any actual geological data in the paper. There isn't, so we can move on.

 

I am waiting for your answer to #383.

 

For those who missed or are lost.

1. Gaar asked “1. Why was CO2 15 times higher than now in the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation?”
2. PD answered that in the 1st place CO2 levels were not high at all, that Gaar had no article to refer stating that they were.

2. I posted article titled

"Reconciling Late Ordovician glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels"


My article (as it is clear even from the title itself)

1. cites other articles claiming extremely high CO2 levels in time of global icing, and it takes them as a proven and known fact (input data).
3. moreover, it takes time and money to create a simulation which could answer Gaar’s question. It considers Gaar’s question fully justified.
4. The simulation shows how extremely high CO2 levels can naturally happen during global cooling (glaciation).


Scientists have been proving that a slight increase in CO2 imminently leads to global warming.


The well known and accepted fact of global cooling/freezing during not only high but extremely high CO2 levels had been overlooked by them as well as a number of all-known facts had been.


Now they try to “burn books” and silence well established theories or pervert them.

Obviously, it is not only one article citing or pointing to high CO2 level during cooling I had looked up. It cites the theory so widely accepted and circulating that all these articles resulted in the Encyclopedia Britannica stating high CO2 levels during cooling as a geological fact. EB is not wiki. In the preindustrial era it was a quick look up for all circles of people having it on a shelf, including scientists.

Here P. Debator keeps on trying to spin the clear and simple statement of the article. I am playing cat-mouse game. I do it to demonstrate the essence of AWG to any honest and decent person.

Any argued scientific theory may be checked out by anyone, by a cook, a construction guy, a cleaning lady. It is easy to see which side is spinning, lying, insulting and bullying, and which side is easy and forthcoming and need not lie and insult or spin plain English sentences.

Now, let other side make its remarks and brief on his view, and we will continue after a short break.

 

No it doesn't. It cites other papers, but does not take them as proven. That's why they use the words "may have been" instead of "was".

And if we actually consult the cited paper (Yapp & Poths) -- as I did long ago, and posted about long before this brouhaha got started, we find that their proxy CO2 measurement was dated only to the Ashgillian, which does not and cannot eliminate the possibility that it was from the well know mid-Ashgillian warm period.

Only if (a) the Sun was 4.5% dimmer than it is today, and (b) you get a rock-bottom minimum of orbital forcing, and (c) the near-pole continental areas of Gondwana were also at high altitudes.

(b) is certainly possible, but (c) is entirely speculative. As for (a), the problem is that best current models indicate that the Sun's actual strength in the Ordovician was more like 3.5% dimmer than today. So it looks like you'd need lower CO2 to make up the difference. Which makes perfect sense, in light of the heavy carbonate deposits laid down just before the Hirnantian glaciation: that drew down CO2 in the air.

What the simulation does not show is that CO2 has no effect on climate. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite.

Yeah, over the past few decades, scientists have only published a thousand papers on this glaciation. I guess that counts as "overlooked" in your alternate universe.

What well established theory? I certainly haven't seen it. Normally, I would ask for a peer-reviewed citation at this point ... but we've seen how well that works.

And neither EB nor wiki is peer-reviewed science. Which is what I asked for.

So far, all you've demonstrated is that deniers play cat-and-mouse games when asked for real scientific evidence to support their false claims.

 

You don't understand. That was briefeng from my side. It is not debatable.

You were offered to make your briefing from your side, in the same way with no reply or arguments from me.

Then, after me taking a break from you and PF we will continue.

 

Sorry, but you don't make the rules for free speech. I'll comment on anything I want, any time I want.

 

I do not make the rules for free speech.

I just point to to a particular point made by me in my post you have commented on which was my request not to comment.


Moreover I had already exercised my right of free speech commenting on the right of OWS protesters to take a dump on a police car and I saw the result of my exercise.

There is no such thing as a free speech in a community allowing a view of overwhelming majorities of a community to have more weight than my view. This point about fascism is the only point I have been making. And I am looking forward to continue making it after a short break.

 

Q. 2.2.3

What data does the article contain that is not original but relevant to Gaar's statement, are you talking about here?


Q. 2.2.4


Does it matter in the consideration of the article if it is Ordovician and not for instance Medieval ?

 

Gaar, you totally misrepresented the premise of the article you linked by excluding the bulk of the text. When the link is read in its entirety it totally refutes the premise of your argument. Whats more, your link explicitly supports the anthropogenic climate change position. Did you purposefully misrepresent the information in your link or did you not read it?

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

 

The proxy CO2 measurement taken from Yapp & Poths.

Sure. It also matters if it's Ashgillian and not Hirnantian.

 

What is that proxy CO2 measurement taken from Yapp & Poths?

 

You're the google specialist. Why don't you look it up yourself?

 

What is that proxy CO2 measurement taken from Yapp & Poths you are pointing to?

 

16±4xPAL @ 440 Ma. In other words, likely Silurian, and if Ordovician, nonspecifically Ashgillian.

Meanwhile, back to my own question 1:

Do you have any peer-reviewed original proxy data that shows high CO2 concentrations specifically during the late Ordovician glaciation?

YES or NO?