Greenhouse Effect At All-Time High

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25, 2005
(AP)

[ . . . ]

Skeptics sometimes dismiss the rise in greenhouse gases as part of a
naturally fluctuating cycle. The new study provides ever-more
definitive evidence countering that view, however.

Deep Antarctic ice encases tiny air bubbles formed when snowflakes fell
over hundreds of thousands of years. Extracting the air allows a direct
measurement of the atmosphere at past points in time, to determine the
naturally fluctuating range.

[ . . . ]

Today's still rising level of carbon dioxide already is 27 percent
higher than its peak during all those millennia, said lead researcher
Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We are out of that natural range today," he said.

Moreover, that rise is occurring at a speed that "is over a factor of a
hundred faster than anything we are seeing in the natural cycles,"
Stocker added. "It puts the present changes in context."

[ . . . ]

Researchers also compared the gas levels to the Antarctic temperature
over that time period, covering eight cycles of alternating glacial or
ice ages and warm periods. They found a stable pattern: Lower levels of
gases during cold periods and higher levels during warm periods.

The bottom line: "There's no natural condition that we know about in a
really long time where the greenhouse gas levels were anywhere near
what they are now. And these studies tell us that there's a strong
relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases," said Oregon
State's Brook. "Which logically leads you to the conclusion that maybe
we should worry about temperature change in the future."


The total article is at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1075640.shtml

In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" posted excerpts from AP article, in
part:

...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1075640.shtml
...
Greenhouse Effect At All-Time High
WASHINGTON, Nov. 25, 2005
...
Skeptics sometimes dismiss the rise in greenhouse gases as part of a
naturally fluctuating cycle. The new study provides ever-more
definitive evidence countering that view, however.
...
The bottom line: "There's no natural condition that we know about in a
really long time where the greenhouse gas levels were anywhere near
what they are now. And these studies tell us that there's a strong
relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases," said Oregon
State's Brook. "Which logically leads you to the conclusion that maybe
we should worry about temperature change in the future."
...

One feature of the strong relationship _not_ highlighted by Roger's post
is that the temperature rises _follow_ CO2 rises. The new analysis
explicitly confirms and extends this finding. Graphs of CO2-temperature
relationship were an "icon of calamitology" years before the "hockey
stick". The first finding that CO2 lagged, rather than led, temperature
change was quite a blow to the many who had inferred that the causal
relationship was CO2 causing the temperature rise. Some of the graphs
used to promote alarm about CO2 actually showed CO2 change slightly
before temperature change.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin wrote:

One feature of the strong relationship _not_ highlighted by Roger's post
is that the temperature rises _follow_ CO2 rises.

So does A cause B, or does B cause A?

What about the third possibility not mentioned?

What about A causes B and B causes A?


It would be dishonest to focus attention away from the truth, right,
Steve?


CO2 warms the climate and warmer climates increase CO2.

Both are well supported by physical evidence.


--
Phil Hays
--
Clues for sale or rent,
Hints for just fifty cents.
No trolls, no spam, no twits.
Only fools smoke them cigarettes.

Steve Schulin wrote:
In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" posted excerpts from AP article,
in part:

...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1075640.shtml
...
Greenhouse Effect At All-Time High
WASHINGTON, Nov. 25, 2005
...
Skeptics sometimes dismiss the rise in greenhouse gases as part of a
naturally fluctuating cycle. The new study provides ever-more
definitive evidence countering that view, however.
...
The bottom line: "There's no natural condition that we know about in
a really long time where the greenhouse gas levels were anywhere near
what they are now. And these studies tell us that there's a strong
relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases," said Oregon
State's Brook. "Which logically leads you to the conclusion that
maybe we should worry about temperature change in the future."
...

One feature of the strong relationship _not_ highlighted by Roger's
post is that the temperature rises _follow_ CO2 rises.

Not established. In most cases CO2 clearly leads temperature. In one place,
it *seems* to lag, but then the data has too much error to be definititve.
What IS defined, within the error bars, is the simple CO2/temparature
coorelationship.

The new
analysis explicitly confirms and extends this finding. Graphs of
CO2-temperature relationship were an "icon of calamitology" years
before the "hockey stick".

It is called the 'hockey stick graph' only due to similarity of symbology.
The fact that ther is a long stable period ( the shaft ) folloiwed by a
drastic and rapid rise ( the blade ) does NOT make for an argument either
for or against the facts.

The first finding that CO2 lagged, rather
than led, temperature change was quite a blow

Really. In reality it led to a check of the analysis which found an error in
the timeline related to O18/016 depostion rates that changed the lag to a
small fraction of the error bars. You really have to include the QUALITY of
the data when trying to reach firm conclusiosn.

to the many who had
inferred that the causal relationship was CO2 causing the temperature
rise. Some of the graphs used to promote alarm about CO2 actually
showed CO2 change slightly before temperature change.

Keep spinning Steve. Eventually, you may bore a hole to China.


Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin knows the truth about the phase
of CO2 and proxy temperatures in ice cores, so
he is not spinning; he is simply lying.

In article ,
Phil Hays wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

One feature of the strong relationship _not_ highlighted by Roger's post
is that the temperature rises _follow_ CO2 rises.

So does A cause B, or does B cause A?

What about the third possibility not mentioned?

What about A causes B and B causes A?

It would be dishonest to focus attention away from the truth, right,
Steve?

You mean the folks who say the science is settled? Yep.

CO2 warms the climate and warmer climates increase CO2.

Both are well supported by physical evidence.

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
[CO2 and temp corelation in the glacial record]

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Don't you think the isotope signature of the CO2 increase makes this even
less than unlikely?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

In article gl7pf.12043$wg4.4396@edtnps84, says...

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
[CO2 and temp corelation in the glacial record]

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Don't you think the isotope signature of the CO2 increase makes this even
less than unlikely?

Good answer! Besides the pervious large up swings in CO2 happened after
the glaciers receded and there is no such process underway today (yet).

Too bad Steve is more interested in playing the debate game instead of
thinking about the science.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Schulin wrote:

Phil Hays wrote:

CO2 warms the climate and warmer climates increase CO2.

Both are well supported by physical evidence.

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

What an honest suggestion.


--
Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
Phil Hays

In article . com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:
Steve Schulin knows the truth about the phase
of CO2 and proxy temperatures in ice cores, so
he is not spinning; he is simply lying.

Sure,he's pathological. He's spreading the right-wing's lies about Clinton
too.