Is Global Warming Real?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Look at your own graph. The last 0.15 thousand years (see: 150 years) sees a sharp increase in temperature.

The Industrial Revolution, of course, took place approximately 150 years ago.

Guys, let's not focus on my cum hoc ergo propter hoc position now! What matters is the Jurassic and only the Jurassic.

Fixed.

[Mavorpen]

Look at your own graph. The last 0.15 thousand years (see: 150 years) sees a sharp increase in temperature.

The Industrial Revolution, of course, took place approximately 150 years ago.

And actually, it goes down for a while, THEN it goes up. around the 1940s-50s.

Mongol, that's not how you read a graph. The overall trend shows an obvious increase in temperatures.

[Mavorpen]

Guys, let's not focus on my cum hoc ergo propter hoc position now! What matters is the Jurassic and only the Jurassic.

Fixed.

You don't know what that means, do you?

[R Ev0lution]

Look at your own graph. The last 0.15 thousand years (see: 150 years) sees a sharp increase in temperature.

The Industrial Revolution, of course, took place approximately 150 years ago.

And actually, it goes down for a while, THEN it goes up. around the 1940s-50s.

... Which produces what people with basic math skills refer-to as a "net gain," meaning that the end result, even factoring in the losses, is still higher than what you started out with.

Yeesh. For a fake Chemistry major, you're pretty damn awful at this "math" stuff.

[Tubbsalot]

TMI, it is a fact that human output of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide has been of sufficient quantity to hugely increase atmospheric concentrations of the gas. Given that carbon dioxide is the gas of primary interest as refs the greenhouse effect, notwithstanding water (for which the atmosphere has a maximum load capacity, and is therefore irrelevant), by what mechanism do you propose climate could fail to be altered?

[Avenio]

Key words: EARLY Jurassic. I'm talking about the whole thing, unless you can prove the later parts did not have as high CO2.

The late Jurassic was even hotter, and continued to get hotter still through the Cretaceous, changing in lock-step with CO2 concentrations;

Summary

The Kimmeridgian/Tithonian (154.7−145.6 Ma) (middle and lateLateJurassic) was a time of expanded continental rifting, increased sea-floor spreading, and a relatively high eustatic sea level stand. These processes collectively caused the fragmentation and flooding of the megacontinent Pangea as well as the alteration of the global paleoclimate.

Using a version of the Community Climate Model (CCM) from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, we report two Kimmeridgian/Tithonian paleoclimate seasonal simulations, with geologically inferred paleotopography: one using a CO2 concentration of 280 ppm (pre-industrial level) and the other 1120 ppm. Increasing the CO2 four-fold warms virtually the entire planet. The greatest warming occurs over the higher latitude oceans and the least over the equatorial and subtropical regions. Simulation of a warmer planet with an elevated greenhouse effect fits the distribution of paleoclimatically sensitive faunas, floras, and sedimentary rocks.

Model results indicate that sea ice was restricted to the high latitudes of the Boreal and Austral seas, making landfall only in restricted areas. The trade winds bring heavy rainfall in December/January/February to eastern Gondwana and in June/July/August to the Tethys Sea margins. A strong June/July/August monsoon occurs over southeast Asia. The distribution of coals correlates to precipitation sufficient to maintain gymnosperm forests and coastal areas where water saturated sediments are a result of eustatic high stands of sea level. Evaporites are localized to areas of negative precipitation-evaporation. Runoff is restricted to regions of intense precipitation.

Overall, the 1120 ppm CO2 simulation provides a reasonable paleoclimate for the Kimmeridgian/Tithonian and provides a standard until a CCM with oceanic heat transport, a coupled atmospheric/oceanic model, or one with a finer grid cell configuration is available. The results need further scrutiny in areas with more detailed geologic information.

Abstract

A composite Tethyan Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous carbon and oxygen isotope curve is presented. C-isotope data provide information on the evolution and perturbation of the global carbon cycle. O-isotope data are used as a palaeotemperature proxy in combination with palaeontological information. The resulting trends in climate and in palaeoceanography are compared with biocalcification trends and oceanographic conditions favouring or inhibiting biocalcification. Positive C-isotope anomalies in the Valanginian and Aptian correlate with episodes of increased volcanic activity regarded as a source of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. A major warming pulse accompanies the Aptian but not the Valanginian C-isotope event. The observed change in Early Aptian temperatures could have triggered the destabilization of sedimentary gas hydrates and the sudden release of methane to the biosphere as recorded as a distinct negative carbon isotope pulse preceding the positive excursion. Both C-isotope anomalies are accompanied by biocalcification crises that may have been triggered by pCO2-induced changes in climate and in surface water chemistry. Elevated nutrient levels in river-influenced coastal waters and in upwelling regions further weakened marine calcification. These conditions contrast with ‘normal’ trophic conditions prevailing in the latest Jurassic and favouring biocalcification. The C- and O-isotope curves record a stable mode of carbon cycling and stable temperatures. We conclude that biocalcification is mostly triggered (and inhibited) by CO2 conditions in the atmosphere–ocean system.

[Free Soviets]

And actually, it goes down for a while, THEN it goes up. around the 1940s-50s.

more like goes up for decades, then very minutely declines and flattens out for a very obvious and quite well-know reason, then heads back up even faster than before.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

And actually, it goes down for a while, THEN it goes up. around the 1940s-50s.

... Which produces what people with basic math skills refer-to as a "net gain," meaning that the end result, even factoring in the losses, is still higher than what you started out with.

Yeesh. For a fake Chemistry major, you're pretty damn awful at this "math" stuff.

Well that's bogus. I can just as easily say the trend upward started 300 million years ago. The fact is, you can't say it's "INDUSTRIAL REVOLEWSHUN", and then for half of that time till the present it goes down. Beginning, almost exactly in time with the Industrial revolution.

Using a version of the Community Climate Model (CCM) from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, we report two Kimmeridgian/Tithonian paleoclimate seasonal simulations

Sorry, simulations fail contrasted with geological record, like my map.

[Mavorpen]

... Which produces what people with basic math skills refer-to as a "net gain," meaning that the end result, even factoring in the losses, is still higher than what you started out with.

Yeesh. For a fake Chemistry major, you're pretty damn awful at this "math" stuff.

Well that's bogus. I can just as easily say the trend upward started 300 million years ago. The fact is, you can't say it's "INDUSTRIAL REVOLEWSHUN", and then for half of that time till the present it goes down. Beginning, almost exactly in time with the Industrial revolution.

You're joking right? That's an upward trend.

[Norstal]

I think the sad part about this whole debacle is that if we fail to prevent Global Warming, these deniers would just say it's all part of Gawd's plans as everyone is dying off around them and that we should not do anything to survive...

On the upside, I'd be comfortable in my underground acropolis. *nods*

[Avenio]

Sorry, simulations fail contrasted with geological record, like my map.

Simulation of a warmer planet with an elevated greenhouse effect fits the distribution of paleoclimatically sensitive faunas, floras, and sedimentary rocks.

ie, fits with observed results.

And that's 1/2 of the papers; what about the other?

There are plenty more where that came from, incidentally;

Abstract

A compilation of new and published stratigraphic, paleontological and geochemical data is used to detect the reciprocal influences of carbon cycling and global environmental changes in the Jurassic. A major perturbation of the surface carbon cycling accompanied by pronounced climate and sea level fluctuations (waxing and waning of continental ice?) affected Earth history around the Middle/Late Jurassic transition (MLJT). We establish the respective timing of changes of carbonate and organic matter sedimentation, and global fluctuations of sea surface temperatures (paleobiogeography and O-isotope paleothermometry) and sea level (sequence stratigraphy), so that causative mechanisms and feedback effects can be considered. It is apparent that the global sea level rise and warming initiated in the Late Bathonian led to a constriction of carbonate platforms to low latitudes and enhanced marine organic deposition. Sea level and temperature optima were achieved several million-years later during the Middle Callovian. A detailed record of sea surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere based on migration of marine fauna and isotopic thermometry indicates that a drastic climatic decline set in during the early Late Callovian, just post-dating the increased capture of organic matter by marine sediments. This decline in temperature is interpreted in terms of an inverse greenhouse effect, triggered by drawdown of CO2 consequent upon excess carbon burial. The magnitude of refrigeration and its coincidence in time with an abrupt global-scale fall of sea level are both suggestive of continental ice formation at this time. Carbonate sedimentation was jeopardized at the MLJT as a result of both global cooling and presumed PCO2 lowering, and resumed abruptly during the Middle Oxfordian by spreading again over mid-latitude zones. Salient conclusions are that (1) the pattern of excess carbon burial, coincident with elevated temperature but followed by climatic deterioration supports the general hypothesis that a major control on Mesozoic climate was the abundance of atmospheric CO2; (2) significant masses of continental ice may have formed during this part of the Jurassic and correlatively, high CO2 levels were certainly not sustained throughout this period; (3) the global carbonate sedimentation budget correlated with the surface temperature and sea level, but the latitudinal spreading of type-tropical carbonates was not simply related to the thermal status of seawaters; (4) on a global scale, the Corg and Cinorg burial rates were coupled, apparently through the correlation existing between the CO2 level and surface temperature.

[R Ev0lution]

... Which produces what people with basic math skills refer-to as a "net gain," meaning that the end result, even factoring in the losses, is still higher than what you started out with.

Yeesh. For a fake Chemistry major, you're pretty damn awful at this "math" stuff.

Well that's bogus. I can just as easily say the trend upward started 300 million years ago.

The fact is, you can't say it's "INDUSTRIAL REVOLEWSHUN", and then for half of that time till the present it goes down. Beginning, almost exactly in time with the Industrial revolution.

You really, really don't understand the term "net gain", do you?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Well that's bogus. I can just as easily say the trend upward started 300 million years ago. The fact is, you can't say it's "INDUSTRIAL REVOLEWSHUN", and then for half of that time till the present it goes down. Beginning, almost exactly in time with the Industrial revolution.

You're joking right? That's an upward trend.

You don't just get to use a different map after you realize my data no longer supports you. By the way,

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Well that's bogus. I can just as easily say the trend upward started 300 million years ago.

The fact is, you can't say it's "INDUSTRIAL REVOLEWSHUN", and then for half of that time till the present it goes down. Beginning, almost exactly in time with the Industrial revolution.

You really, really don't understand the term "net gain", do you?

There was a net gain from 300 million years ago. Obviously it started then.

[Mavorpen]

You don't just get to use a different map after you realize my data no longer supports you. By the way,

Actually, no. It's the same data, but enlarge and it goes from the industrial revolution to modern day. You were the one what was disputing the last part of the graph. Your graph supported us just fine.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Well that's bogus. I can just as easily say the trend upward started 300 million years ago. The fact is, you can't say it's "INDUSTRIAL REVOLEWSHUN", and then for half of that time till the present it goes down. Beginning, almost exactly in time with the Industrial revolution.

You're joking right? That's an upward trend.

That's significantly sharper. I never denied it's an upward trend, but there's also an upward trend from 300 million years ago. See? I can confirmation bias as well.

[Mavorpen]

You're joking right? That's an upward trend.

That's significantly sharper. I never denied it's an upward trend, but there's also an upward trend from 300 million years ago. See? I can confirmation bias as well.

Still an upward trend.

http://photos.mongabay.com/06/0924nasa.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... _graph.gif

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Still upward trend 300 million years ago.

[Mavorpen]

Still upward trend 300 million years ago.

So you admit it's an upward trend from the Industrial Revolution. Thanks, we're done.

[Desperate Measures]

Still upward trend 300 million years ago.

Not as sharp.

[Free Soviets]

You're joking right? That's an upward trend.

That's significantly sharper. I never denied it's an upward trend, but there's also an upward trend from 300 million years ago. See? I can confirmation bias as well.

despite agreeing with mann that muller's BEST project has done nothing more than catch him up to climate science circa 1994, they do have a nice chart of the temps over the past 200ish years that shows things even more clearly.



but anyways, tell me which of these claims you deny:
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased
3) increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will, all else equal, increase the average temperature
4) we drive cars and use electricity, etc.
5) the fossil fuels that power such are made up of hydrocarbons
6) the combustion of hydrocarbons results in the release of CO2
7) we have burned far more than enough hydrocarbons to account for the observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere

if you wish to even pretend to 'question' anthropogenic climate change, you have to deny at least one of these statements. but it is impossible to do so without looking like an idiot, as they are all trivially provably true. and it gets worse for denialists, as we have even finer grain tools to use - isotope rations, for example - that even more solidly show the anthropogenic nature of things.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Still upward trend 300 million years ago.

So you admit it's an upward trend from the Industrial Revolution. Thanks, we're done.

I never denied it. I accept temperature has gone up.

Which doesn't mean, you know, anything. My rooster crows every time the sun rises. Clearly my rooster moves the sun. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased
3) increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will, all else equal, increase the average temperature
4) we drive cars and use electricity, etc.
5) the fossil fuels that power such are made up of hydrocarbons
6) the combustion of hydrocarbons results in the release of CO2
7) we have burned far more than enough hydrocarbons to account for the observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere

I'd contest Statement 7.

I also contest 8.) That the amount of CO2 rise we've seen accounts for the temperature rise.

[Refudia]

Does anyone have any up-to-date graphs that they can post relating to the warming trend? Most of them I've seen are outdated by at least 7 years.

[Mavorpen]

I never denied it. I accept temperature has gone up.

Which doesn't mean, you know, anything. My rooster crows every time the sun rises. Clearly my rooster moves the sun. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

So you admit that the definition of Global Warming is actually happening. Now, we have to debate whether it is anthropogenic or not. By the way, you should learn what that phrase means. You keep using it, but it just results in you creating straw men.