https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

On 04/01/18 19:17, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:22:23 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

This caught my eye: "The event also caused a global CO2 decline of
about 25 ppm over about 300 years". There is quite a lot of evidence
accumulating from ice cores that in the recent geological past,
increases in CO2 levels followed climate warming, the reverse of the
current hypothesis and in accord with that Wiki statement.

Yep. Thats been fairly well known ever since people looked more closely
at the graphs Al Gore Rythm pointed to in his infamous film 'a very
convenient lie'

They showed that CO2 inrcerase follows global warming by a couple of
hundred years.

200 years ago we were beginning to come out of the little ice age.


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 04/01/2018 20:00, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 19:49:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/01/18 19:17, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:22:23 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

This caught my eye: "The event also caused a global CO2 decline of
about 25 ppm over about 300 years". There is quite a lot of evidence
accumulating from ice cores that in the recent geological past,
increases in CO2 levels followed climate warming, the reverse of the
current hypothesis and in accord with that Wiki statement.

Yep. Thats been fairly well known ever since people looked more closely
at the graphs Al Gore Rythm pointed to in his infamous film 'a very
convenient lie'

They showed that CO2 inrcerase follows global warming by a couple of
hundred years.

200 years ago we were beginning to come out of the little ice age.

And that process is still continuing, modulated by the 50-60 year
cycle of the PDO, resulting in the rising saw-tooth of climate
temperatures seen over the last 150 or so years, and nothing to do
with anthropogenic CO2.

You know that. I know that. Doesn't make for much of a media story
though, and if you have aspirations to a career in science it isn't
going to get you any funding.

On 04/01/18 22:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

You know that. I know that. Doesn't make for much of a media story
though, and if you have aspirations to a career in science it isn't
going to get you any funding.

Where are people like Richard Feynman when you need them? Dead, sad to
say. He'd prove that either it is happening or it isn't - no if's or
but's. And that would be the end of that.

Trouble is all the climate "scientists" are second raters.

You really think they are that good?

All the ones I have come across are academic wannabees chasing fame and
fortune.

Bunch of ****s, all of them


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

The issue though is why make it worse if we can stop it whatever the reason?
I don't think the science can be challenged that we are adding to it, the
only question is, is there another reason making things worse.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:22:23 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

This caught my eye: "The event also caused a global CO2 decline of
about 25 ppm over about 300 years". There is quite a lot of evidence
accumulating from ice cores that in the recent geological past,
increases in CO2 levels followed climate warming, the reverse of the
current hypothesis and in accord with that Wiki statement.

--

Chris

Brian Gaff wrote

The issue though is why make it worse
if we can stop it whatever the reason?

Stupid to stop it when doing that is very expensive unless
it can be shown to be a real cause of climate change.

I don't think the science can be challenged that we are adding to it,

Yes.

the only question is, is there another reason making things worse.

Yes, its very expensive to stop doing that.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:22:23 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

This caught my eye: "The event also caused a global CO2 decline of
about 25 ppm over about 300 years". There is quite a lot of evidence
accumulating from ice cores that in the recent geological past,
increases in CO2 levels followed climate warming, the reverse of the
current hypothesis and in accord with that Wiki statement.

On 04/01/2018 22:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

You know that. I know that. Doesn't make for much of a media story
though, and if you have aspirations to a career in science it isn't
going to get you any funding.

Where are people like Richard Feynman when you need them? Dead, sad to
say. He'd prove that either it is happening or it isn't - no if's or
but's. And that would be the end of that.

Trouble is all the climate "scientists" are second raters.

Somewhere in his many writings, Feynman makes the point that you can
recognise good scientists by the way they put a *lot* of effort into
looking for things wrong with their latest pet theory.

These days all the pressure is to publish by press release.

On 05/01/2018 08:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
The issue though is why make it worse if we can stop it whatever the reason?
I don't think the science can be challenged that we are adding to it, the
only question is, is there another reason making things worse.
Brian


When Arrhenius recognised that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas, and
showed that the effect on temperature was logarithmic, he suggested that
more carbon burning might beneficially stave off the next ice age.

A kilometer of ice on top of most of the current main international
capitals is something of an environmental impact.