The Reef Ain't Dead

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes. They're quick summaries, and each has links back to the sources of information. Lots to satisfy genuine intellectual curiosity.

I don't think you have a handle on what "reasonable expectations" would actually be. Until the human addition of CO2 from fossil fuel, the natural trend for the present would have been for a slowly lowering average temperature. AGW has swamped that.


Then keep looking. Don't stop at such an uninformative graph.

Reasonable expectations are exactly that, based on what happened repetitively before giving a reasonable assumption of what might happen again.

It has nothing to do with optimism, I'm not talking about what the human race is wishing was true...... It's about probability, probability based on natural non man made history.

Each of those gradients on the graph is 2°C, if you transpose across to the last 3 or 4 high's we're in quite a bit of trouble..... And it's all natural historically. Not sure which side is in denial. Maybe the one's that think we can fix it ?

If the time and energy spent on this could be used figuring out what causes the natural cycles we might be headed in the right direction although I feel the answer is beyond our influence.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Climate Change or Man Made Climate Change ?
For me this graph answers that question beyond reasonable doubt.
Can anyone explain why this isn't 99.99% proof of natural cycle. This is one of the few pieces of data that isn't manipulated.
I'm happy to be proven wrong but it looks pretty convincing to me.

Perhaps, a little context might be useful.
➥ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/

I don't see your chart, in any papers, published by EPICA, however it does appear in the above-linked British Antarctic Survey paper.

Why do you think that "This is one of the few pieces of data that isn't manipulated."?

The EPICA data, itself, has been "revised" (not manipulated), since first published.
“Revision of the EPICA Dome C CO2 record from 800 to 600 kyr before present” ~ by Bernhard Bereiter et al (2014)
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014GL061957

What other specific data has been "manipulated"?

It really does appear, to me, that you're happy to be wrong.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Perhaps, a little context might be useful.
➥ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/

I don't see your chart, in any papers, published by EPICA, however it does appear in the above-linked British Antarctic Survey paper.

Why do you think that "This is one of the few pieces of data that isn't manipulated."?

The EPICA data, itself, has been "revised" (not manipulated), since first published.
“Revision of the EPICA Dome C CO2 record from 800 to 600 kyr before present” ~ by Bernhard Bereiter et al (2014)
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014GL061957

What other specific data has been "manipulated"?

It really does appear, to me, that you're happy to be wrong.

The information is from raw data, from the observer, provided in full. It is not provided with bias in edited length or shown with inflamitory scaling or variable rounding, or combined with other data to support a particular outcome for either side and not built on a false premise.. it is simple easy to understand data. Not 100% guaranteed untouched but it does make it unlikely. It could be fabricated too, but it seems to attract no contest on the data from either side so this too seems unlikely. This makes it a strong piece for me, easily as strong as anything I've seen.

My offer remains open for anyone to tell me where I have gone wrong. I am happy to be wrong because I have an open mind and an ability to see things from another perspective and happy to change my mind if the facts support it.

Once more... Explain to me how the temperatures we are seeing now are outside of reasonable expectations.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

The information is from raw data, from the observer, provided in full...

You previously indicated that EPICA was the source of your graph.
Please provide a specific link.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You previously indicated that EPICA was the source of your graph.
Please provide a specific link.

Ah, that's too easy.

Here it is
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/

It might look familiar, it's your link to me. Note Fig 3, it is the graph headed EPICA.

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Ah, that's too easy.

Here it is
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/

It might look familiar, it's your link to me. Note Fig 3, it is the graph headed EPICA.

The BAS graphs intended to demonstrate the relationship of CO2 concentrations and local temps from Deuterium in Antartic ice in the last 800k years. It does not imply that current CO2 concentrations are still <300ppm as per the attached graph from NOAA.

[Lake-Effect]

^ ^ ^

A fine example of partisan denial. Not a pinch of science there from v360, just uninformed supposition, a ridiculous suggestion for adversarial scientific review (cos nothing gets you closer to the truth than some good lawyering, amirite?), and some nodding.

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

^ ^ ^

A fine example of partisan denial. Not a pinch of science there from v360, just uninformed supposition, a ridiculous suggestion for adversarial scientific review (cos nothing gets you closer to the truth than some good lawyering, amirite?), and some nodding.

FTR this is in response to a deleted post after mine

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fivecapes

FTR this is in response to a deleted post after mine

Yup. Mods should probably delete my response too.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Ah, that's too easy.
Here it is
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/
It might look familiar, it's your link to me. Note Fig 3, it is the graph headed EPICA.

You should re-read the webpage, you so admire; because the scientists who produced it (BAS), draw the exact opposite conclusion, that you seem to think their graph "proves".

According to the British Antarctic Survey (BAS):
There is clear evidence for climate change from many sources including: globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, reductions in most glaciers, acidification of the oceans and sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion and ice melt.
Unequivocal evidence has shown that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by natural events.
The present concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeds any value measured in ice cores covering the last 800,000 years.

Antarctic temperature and CO2 rose together, consistent with the role of CO2 as an important amplifier of climate change (see Fig. 4 overleaf). In our modern era, of course, it is human emissions of CO2 that are expected to kick-start the sequence of events.

"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off." ~ Gloria Steinem

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You should re-read the webpage, you so admire; because the scientists who produced it (BAS), draw the exact opposite conclusion, that you seem to think their graph "proves".

According to the British Antarctic Survey (BAS):
There is clear evidence for climate change from many sources including: globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, reductions in most glaciers, acidification of the oceans and sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion and ice melt.
Unequivocal evidence has shown that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by natural events.
The present concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeds any value measured in ice cores covering the last 800,000 years.

Antarctic temperature and CO2 rose together, consistent with the role of CO2 as an important amplifier of climate change (see Fig. 4 overleaf). In our modern era, of course, it is human emissions of CO2 that are expected to kick-start the sequence of events.

"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off." ~ Gloria Steinem

Ah, the "look over there" defence.

I'm not debating CO2 or green house gasses.

My challenge was to provide evidence that the global temperatures are not within the expected range. But that's really not possible because it is quite clear we are sitting somewhere a bit under cooked at the moment.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Ah, the "look over there" defence.

I'm not debating CO2 or green house gasses.

My challenge was to provide evidence that the global temperatures are not within the expected range. But that's really not possible because it is quite clear we are sitting somewhere a bit under cooked at the moment.

Your challenge is of the "disprove my simplistic and irrelevant point, or I'm right" variety. Please consider the following:

Why we should be cooling, not warming

In other words, no we're not within the actually expected range.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your challenge is of the "disprove my simplistic and irrelevant point, or I'm right" variety. Please consider the following:

Why we should be cooling, not warming

In other words, no we're not within the actually expected range.

Its not good information in the link.

[Dave_S]

Forgetting for a moment about manmade or not, and excluding the last 200years. I'm guessing that no one disputes the natural cycles of climate change over the longer term exists.

How do we not know precisely what causes it.

Would you agree we should know.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Forgetting for a moment about manmade or not, and excluding the last 200years. I'm guessing that no one disputes the natural cycles of climate change over the longer term exists.

How do we not know precisely what causes it.

Would you agree we should know.

Don't know about you, but I wasn't around 120,000 years ago. Climate science might not have been a thing back then either.

If there was another cause for the current warming besides our raising the CO2 by more than 40% ... we would know.