Thread: Positive effects of Global Warming?

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.

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

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.

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

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.

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

It's a paper about the Ordovician, but it contains no original data about the Ordovician.


.

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 ?

Originally Posted by Gaar

Again dadoalex you get it wrong...

Real Science SHOWS, without a doubt, that CO2 LAGS temperature change, not the other way around...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

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

The proxy CO2 measurement taken from Yapp & Poths.

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

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

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

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

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

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?

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

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?