As suggested here is graph 2 in jpeg form

http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg

I am hoping to have the first graph available in same format by friday.

TonyB

“Making climatic trends over 3 years is at the best naive, not to say misleading.

“Look at this! No rise between 1992 and 1995. Proof there’s no warming. The same holds for 1998-2000 where the levels actually decreased!!! But … Wait… How is it possible then that sea levels increased between 1992 and 2000 ? ”

Short term and long term. Never heard of short-scale variability?”

Yes! In fact, most of us evil “deniers” HAVE heard of it. Which is why many of us ARE “deniers”. The satellite data have only been around since 1992. No matter what they show — it’s short term. Prior to that, all Warmists have is ridiculous tide chart data, mostly from the low countries in Europe.

At the same time you scoff at half the data, you try to claim that the other half is reliable.

What is presented here does not disprove Global Warming; but then, that’s NOT OUR JOB! It is the job of Warmist fanatics like you to PROVE that warming exists. This has never been done. What the data here shows is that it is VERY unlikely that it ever will be done.

30 years of prediction after prediction — rescinded and re-predicted. Hundreds of highly publicized predictions by Warmist Acolytes — And NOT ONE has ever come true.

In THREE DECADES of incessant apocalyptic predictions, and NONE have been accurate? What do you call a “scientific” theory with ZERO predictive value?

Hint: I call it Horsesh*t.

What

Barak Obama was right – the sea DID stop rising when he was elected!

Barak Canute?

But Vostok is one of the weirdest places on this planet, because of its temperatures, where CO2 snow is apparently a relatively common occurrence. I talked to someone on another site, who had actually observed CO2 snow at the south pole.

So does any one wonder; as I do, just what information is really encapsulated in those deep ice cores. Where does that water come from originally, and what were the conditions under which the CO2 in it got there. CO2 must dissolve in water droplets or ice crystals in clouds, and when that stuff falls to earth, it must sit for a long time during which it is in contact with the local atmosphere. How about migratioon of the CO2 and other gases during the eons of the ice compaction.

Frankly if I wanted to store a representative sample of earth’s atmosphere, I would not choose a pile of compressed snow to do it.

Now I suspect that the timing of steep edges of composition changes in the ice are of some reliability; but why would anybody believe that the absolute concentration levels of the gases are what was laid down originally.

So I believe the relative timing information at least to the extent that they are careful in counting the “tree rings” which is what the snow layers are equivalent to; but I would take the concentration numbers with a good deal of caution. I wouoldn’t be making any local climate declarations based on that and I certainly wouldn’t be even wildly guessing any global climate from that information.

So if I drill a 10,000 ft rock core in Spokane, and another one in Atlanta, is it ok for me to describe the entire geology record of North America based on that information. does anyone in this business understand the mathematical laws of sampled data systems?

Just asking !

Any information on how the ice cores are measured, their reliability or ANYTHING that will demonstrate how a constant 280ppm in the past can produce temperatures equivalent to- or higher- than today, is welcome.

It’s simple. CO2 does not “produce” temperatures. It lags temperature changes, sometimes by as much as centuries.

http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls

This graph puts all human co2 emissions since 1750 into context.

http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls

If co2 has an effect on temperature, historic co2 levels MUST be higher than today. The yellow dots give observed readings from 1820 onwards.

Any information on how the ice cores are measured, their reliability or ANYTHING that will demonstrate how a constant 280ppm in the past can produce temperatures equivalent to- or higher- than today, is welcome. If Anna herself -or anyone-can amplify her most interesting comments that would also be great.

Constant low levels of co2 should be consistent with constant low temperatures that barely fluctuate, but they self evidently aren’t. WHY?

TonyB

Interesting . I agree with you that most probably the icecores have arbitrary callibrations in absolute scale. I still suspect that being close to huge sinks of cold water they are just a record of the CO2 in that region and not a world CO2 proxy( in addition to all the objections on methodology by a number of people).

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36861020081204

With a basic knowledge of tectonic processes (knowing where land is rising or falling), I could name 23 locations where I could gaurantee sea level has fallen, as well as 23 locations where sea level has risen.

The satellite data is more reliable as it attempts to measure sea levels across the globe and isn’t subject to local tectonic effects like tide gauges.

And, graphs that don’t show recent temperatures isn’t a very convincing argument against recent cooling.

B Kerr (11:31:39) :
Excuse me but who is Nick Clegg?
Why is he on the BBC being interviewed?

Nick Clegg is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The no3 party here in the UK. He’s on the green campaign trail so his position and stance on green issues is most likely the two reasons why he’s being interviewed.

To Larh
There have been a number of times in geological history when temperatures have been higher than now. The key to understanding the raising temperatures for the 30 years prior to 1998 is to understand why and how historical changes happened. I truly believe that once we understand why it happened then, we will have a good understanding of why it happened recently.

As for the sea level rise, like every other graph on Wikipedia related to climate change, it is outdated. The data end in 2003.

I wouldn’t cite anything by Hansen as he has proved he’s lost his marbles when he said that sea levels would rise 20ft by 2100.