On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:
Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.
Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the
ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises
in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her
nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into
English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

Â* Â* “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of
carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up
first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and
sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and
some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide
followed.�

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

snip

References:

Dr. Bogataj, K. L., ‘The more we know, the better,’ (18/11/2010), Delo
Polet

What skulduggery by O'Sullivan - there is no quote from the article to
the effect that Ms. Bogataj has taken a contrary position to the
world's scientific community on the matter of CO2 causing GW, and my
guess is that she did nothing of the sort. I hope she sues him for
misrepresentation if this is the case. That's what bottom-feeding
ambulance-chasers deserve.

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain

I see the OP hasn't bothered to list his source. Is it a blog, or what?

On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:





Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.
Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the
ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises
in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her
nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into
English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

Â* Â* “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of
carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up
first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and
sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and
some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide
followed.�

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

LOL, we have a denier here. You don't think the oceans warm? The
surface changes temp very quickly. The further down you go the longer
it takes. The old pattern is still there. If the ocean warms it
gives off CO2 and becomes less acidic. You don't need to take my word
for it, here is the data from Mauna Loa compared to the data for
surface temperature from GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...n:12/from:1958

As you can see the CO2 concentration in the air lags the surface
temperature.


snip

References:

Dr. Bogataj, K. L., ‘The more we know, the better,’ (18/11/2010), Delo
Polet

What skulduggery by O'Sullivan - there is no quote from the article to
the effect that Ms. Bogataj has taken a contrary position to the
world's scientific community on the matter of CO2 causing GW, and my
guess is that she did nothing of the sort. I hope she sues him for
misrepresentation if this is the case. That's what Â*bottom-feeding
ambulance-chasers deserve.

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain

I see the OP hasn't bothered to list his source. Is it a blog, or what?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He skipped the intermediate source but provided the original source,
Delo Polet (18/11/2010).

On Nov 24, 5:17Â*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:





On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:

Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.
Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the
ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises
in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her
nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into
English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

Â* Â* “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of
carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up
first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and
sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and
some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide
followed.�

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

LOL, we have a denier here. Â*You don't think the oceans warm? Â*The
surface changes temp very quickly. Â*The further down you go the longer
it takes. Â*The old pattern is still there. Â*If the ocean warms it
gives off CO2 and becomes less acidic. Â*You don't need to take my word
for it, here is the data from Mauna Loa compared to the data for
surface temperature from GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...ean:12/scale:0....

As you can see the CO2 concentration in the air lags the surface
temperature.





snip

References:

Dr. Bogataj, K. L., ‘The more we know, the better,’ (18/11/2010), Delo
Polet

What skulduggery by O'Sullivan - there is no quote from the article to
the effect that Ms. Bogataj has taken a contrary position to the
world's scientific community on the matter of CO2 causing GW, and my
guess is that she did nothing of the sort. I hope she sues him for
misrepresentation if this is the case. That's what Â*bottom-feeding
ambulance-chasers deserve.

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain

I see the OP hasn't bothered to list his source. Is it a blog, or what?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He skipped the intermediate source but provided the original source,
Delo Polet (18/11/2010).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

did you look at temps in the stratosphere?

On Nov 24, 7:17*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:32*pm, JohnM wrote:

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

LOL, we have a denier here. *You don't think the oceans warm? *The
surface changes temp very quickly. *The further down you go the longer
it takes. *The old pattern is still there. *If the ocean warms it
gives off CO2 and becomes less acidic. *You don't need to take my word
for it, here is the data from Mauna Loa compared to the data for
surface temperature from GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...ean:12/scale:0....

As you can see the CO2 concentration in the air lags the surface
temperature.

We can see also that the gradient of the temperature is not affected
by the rising CO2. There is no change in the temperature gradient when
the CO2 begins to rise, or the exponential function that would be
evident as the risiing and greater CO2 levels would causes greater
retention of energy and greater effect upon temperature.

The data show clearly that temperature fluctuates for OTHER REASONS
AND CAUSES.

Which negates the pseudo scientific case that any warming detected
must be caused by higher CO2 which must be caused by human
contributions.

KD

On Nov 24, 7:57*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

did you look at temps in the stratosphere?-

What would that matter?
If CO2 is added in very small quantities to gases such as N2 and O2
which do not have the dark emission bands, these bands are FULLY
saturated within 5 meters of passage of continous spectrum of infrared
radiation through the gases.

You have no science at all, and no need to accept or regurgitate some
made up **** about the atmosphere.

When the idea of greenhouse gases was first introduced to explain the
high temperatures of Venus, most scientists understood this about
saturation of the bands.

This theory relied upon the 'runaway' effect, since the saturation of
the bands occurs at very small concentrations of CO2, which means no
greater effect is achieved with higher concentrations or greater
distance of travel of the radiation through the gases.

But who the hell needs any ****ing direct scientific establishment of
fact with the brilliant wit of the academics who repeat and beleive
whatever they are taught or their collegues believe, lest they be
called intolerable names and eternally harrassed and demeaned for not
accepting what 'all' scientists accept.

Such is the process of science.

KD

On Nov 24, 6:13*pm, "
wrote:"" snip

dude, shut up

On Nov 24, 8:19*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:13*pm, "
wrote:"" snip

dude, shut up

Don't you ****ing wish.

You can always stick your head up your ass like usual, and enjoy the
peace and quite you demand.

You need to forget your pretense of being a supposed grown man or
intelligent person or explain why you think you have any grasp on
reality to accept Trenberth's analysis of the natural greenhouse
effect in which he claims that 324Wm-2 is returned TO THE SURFACE by
the 1% water vapor and trace gases. The other gases in the atmosphere
are supposedly 'non-reactive' to infrared radiation.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstract...vin1997_1.html

And yet you can refer absolutely no direct laboratory evidence that
these gases cause any effect whatsoever upon temperature.

This 324Wm-2 is then added to the 168Wm-2 of radiation energy from the
sun, from which is subtracted the 92Wm-2 of the loss of heat from the
surface of 'latent heat' and 'thermals, to bring the SURFACE energy to
the 390Wm-2 which according to Stefen's Law is the energy density for
the temperature of 13C or 57F.

KD

On Nov 24, 8:57Â*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Nov 24, 5:17Â*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:





On Nov 24, 4:32Â*pm, JohnM wrote:

On Nov 23, 6:42Â*pm, Last Post wrote:

Another Top International Scientist
Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

By John O'Sullivan
Monday, November 22, 2010

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data
signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her
former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon
dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news
scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate
agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by
that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last
month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been
translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo
Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.�
Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the
better. “

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr.
Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the
ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises
in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her
nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into
English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

Â* Â* “A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of
carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up
first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and
sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and
some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide
followed.�

A startling admission? A statement of the bleeding obvious - it's been
known for years that this is what the paleo record shows. After the
temperature rises, the oceans warm and release CO2.

Nowadays humans release CO2, the oceans don't warm because of their
huge heat capacity, the oceans absorb some of that CO2 and acidify.

LOL, we have a denier here. Â*You don't think the oceans warm? Â*The
surface changes temp very quickly. Â*The further down you go the longer
it takes. Â*The old pattern is still there. Â*If the ocean warms it
gives off CO2 and becomes less acidic. Â*You don't need to take my word
for it, here is the data from Mauna Loa compared to the data for
surface temperature from GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...ean:12/scale:0....

As you can see the CO2 concentration in the air lags the surface
temperature.

snip

References:

Dr. Bogataj, K. L., ‘The more we know, the better,’ (18/11/2010), Delo
Polet

What skulduggery by O'Sullivan - there is no quote from the article to
the effect that Ms. Bogataj has taken a contrary position to the
world's scientific community on the matter of CO2 causing GW, and my
guess is that she did nothing of the sort. I hope she sues him for
misrepresentation if this is the case. That's what Â*bottom-feeding
ambulance-chasers deserve.

John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years
has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both
the US and Britain

I see the OP hasn't bothered to list his source. Is it a blog, or what?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He skipped the intermediate source but provided the original source,
Delo Polet (18/11/2010).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

did you look at temps in the stratosphere?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why, do you think it has more affect on the ocean's surface
temperature than the troposphere which contains approximately 75% of
the atmosphere's mass and is in direct contact with the ocean's
surface?

On Nov 24, 6:37*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:"Why,
do you think it has more affect on the ocean's surface temperature
than the troposphere which contains approximately 75% of the
atmosphere's mass and is in direct contact with the ocean's surface?"

If you remove the stratosphere what happens to live on earth? Do not
play your word games, i asked a simple question if you had looked at
temps in the stratosphere, and you dodged, so that would mean you did
not take the time to really explore the issue. Instead as usual, like
all deniers you stop at some arbitrary "feel good" point, that appears
to make your argument valid, but in actuality fails to do so.

On Nov 24, 6:33*pm, "
wrote:" Don't you ****ing wish"

na, i wouldnt waste one on shutting you up, im just giving you a
friendly piece of advice. And that is, shut up.