AGW "stopped" 1998 - Nope! - smoking gun found

Once again, Mike, you are ignoring scientists and repeating denialist talking points. I’m getting tired of repeating this, so try to pay attention.
This is what the scientists at Real Climate have to say about CO2 lag.]

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no. The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
There is much more to the article and to the site. If you truly want to know what is happening to our planet you should listen to scientists, not energy company funded denialist think tanks.

Here’s another article from Real climate, dateline Dec. 2004.
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperatures in ice cores tell us about global warming?]

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
This argument of yours was answered 10 years ago. Give it up and move on.
As for your insinuation regarding what Gore said, I notice you don't offer any specific quotes nor references, meaning you aren't interested in teaching anyone anything - it's all about repeating propaganda lines oblivious to their substance or implications.
Come ‘on now, get real. Al’s charts showed that the earth heated then the carbon rise followed. That what started this carbon lag questioning in the first place. But Al’s charts seemed to be correct on the carbon lag, the climate cycles have been doing just that for the last million years. The only part of Al’s charts that were incorrect was when the carbon increased the amount of earth’s temperature rise did not happen as predicted. Thus, the missing heat. So, we all understand that Al’s numbers need adjusting. This requires a datum line to work from. And that datum line should be the earth’s natural 100k warming cycles which have left clues on earth in the ice cores and hidden in different areas of nature that the scientists are today figuring out. And a lot of that research is on the carbon lag. Notice still no charts to share specifically just what you are going on about. No links to verify that you even understand what Gore was claiming. {And frankly I don't think you do understand what he was saying} I don't think you do. So show us. Just claiming what you believe without offering any supporting information is a joke.
Notice still no charts to share specifically just what you are going on about. No links to verify that you even understand what Gore was claiming. {And frankly I don't think you do understand what he was saying} I don't think you do. So show us. Just claiming what you believe without offering any supporting information is a joke.
Go to the internet, in the choices of Web, Shopping, Images, News and Videos. Pick Images. The best charts are the Carbon Dioxide vs Temperature: past 400,000 years. In the search window choose any of the following search tags. Carbon lag Carbon lag charts Carbon lags temperature Al Gore charts Global warming charts Some of the charts are better to understand than others, you should have many to choose from.

DarronS,
Sorry for taking so long to get back, having computer trouble. Updating to the Cloud in MS Office 365. In the fourth attempt off re-downloading.
If this is true, then you failed to explain what would cause the CO2 to increase and decrease in the 100K cycles over and over again, that just so happens to match the Milankovitch climate cycles. Is this just a coincident that happens? I don’t think so.
Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores#sthash.eGoHYlye.dpuf
I found the article very weak in backing facts. The comments offers some very good questions.
It is obvious the CO2 and the earth’s climate cycles work together. History tells us that. We just have not found the key to fully understanding how this is all connected yet. There are a couple good ideas being worked on now.
Not wanting to get the cart before the horse. Once we understand the CO2 step the next step is why the cycle takes 90,000 years to warm and only 10,000 years to cool.
Not very balanced.
That puts a lot of weight towards the oceans. What else could hold that amount of energy?
The earth’s rotation path around the sun changing is another possibility. That would mean that the speed of the earth should get faster and then have a sling shoot affect speeding the earth upon leaving the direction of the suns pull.
The next one would be the sun heating cycle changing.
The big one would be the universal gravity change that would change the speed of light and everything. Maybe there is a gravitational cycle we haven’t learn of yet.
But before we have to start thinking about what’s happening with the 9 to 1 cycle change. We need to solve the CO2 lag question.
The 500, 800 years could be a trend, I was unaware that a trend could cover 5,000 years. I will have to check the charts when I got time because I was thinking trends were mostly under 200 years.

But before we have to start thinking about what’s happening with the 9 to 1 cycle change. We need to solve the CO2 lag question.
There you go again. The question has been answered. Ten years ago. Are you being deliberately ignorant or are you just too stupid to understand the answer?
But before we have to start thinking about what’s happening with the 9 to 1 cycle change. We need to solve the CO2 lag question.
There you go again. The question has been answered. Ten years ago. Are you being deliberately ignorant or are you just too stupid to understand the answer? Please enlighten us. Where is the carbon lag?
But before we have to start thinking about what’s happening with the 9 to 1 cycle change. We need to solve the CO2 lag question.
There you go again. The question has been answered. Ten years ago. Are you being deliberately ignorant or are you just too stupid to understand the answer? Please enlighten us. Where is the carbon lag? Did you miss posts #20 and #21 or are they too complicated for you to understand?
But before we have to start thinking about what’s happening with the 9 to 1 cycle change. We need to solve the CO2 lag question.
There you go again. The question has been answered. Ten years ago. Are you being deliberately ignorant or are you just too stupid to understand the answer? Please enlighten us. Where is the carbon lag? Did you miss posts #20 and #21 or are they too complicated for you to understand? Post 20 and Post 21, same report referred to. The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions. Jeff Severinghaus back in 2004 said that the earths warms for 800 years, and that was not caused by the CO2 in what Jeff says is a 5,000 year trend. The other 4,200 years (COULD) in fact have been caused by CO2. Then Jeff explains the PROBABLE sequence of events, Some (CURRENTLY UNKNOWN) process causes the Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process causes a rise in CO2 800 years later. Then Jeff says what everyone agrees on that greenhouse gases warm the earth once they are in the atmosphere. Then where does this CO2 gases come from? Jeff says, the CO2 MIGHT BE STORED IN THE DEEP OCEAN DURING THE ICE AGES, AND THEN GET RELEASED WHEN THE CLIMATE WARMS. DarronS, Yes I did check out your site before, but the data was too embarrassing for discussion. And I did not reply on it. But if you still want to use this sort of data. We can. Do you want me to point out the obvious flaws? Or do you have some better data you want to use? I would think that if anything with facts has been discovered that the IPCC would be using it, don’t you?
You are screaming Armageddon
I never have you misinformer! Armageddon is for kids with too much God cluttering up their ego-centric little gray cells. :smirk: We're talking simple extinction at the rate we're going, of course it won't happen the day after tomorrow, but a little respect for the trends we are witnessing, along with appreciation of what trends mean and the reality of simple math such as accumulating compounding interest, and such rational facts of life. The problem lies in the ignorance of the "exponential function". Listen to this excellent presentation of professor Bartlett. Let me preface it with a question: which is worse; " the crimecrate is increasing @ 7% or "the crimerate will double in 10 years". If you don't already know, you MUST see this presentation in its entirety.. enjoy..... edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRVijo65W0
The problem lies in the ignorance of the "exponential function". Listen to this excellent presentation of professor Bartlett. Let me preface it with a question: which is worse; " the crimecrate is increasing @ 7% or "the crimerate will double in 10 years". If you don't already know, you MUST see this presentation in its entirety.. enjoy.....
Good video. The math is always important to understand. On the climate the math starts with the sun delivering 230 trillion horse power worth of energy to the earth around the clock. If all that energy stayed on earth, we would become a barbequed stone like Mercury. Most of that energy goes back into space. Now all the pollution, ice, plants, oceans and atmospheric gases capture some of that energy and keeps the earth’s temperature fairly constant. Then as the distant from the sun changes, the energy coming from the sun will vary a little. Thus the 100,000 year cycles. From what the math is showing us, is that as the earth warms, the atmosphere gases will change a little bit do to the warming from the natural distant cycles from the sun. One of the gases that increases in the atmosphere as the earth goes into the warmer part of the natural cycle around the sun is CO2. And the CO2 being one of the greenhouse gases will also help capture some of the sun’s heat and keep the earth warm. Then as the earth moves further away from the sun in the natural cycle, no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere the earth will cool. We know this by fact from the ice cores. This pattern happens nine times every million years. The ice cores shows us that the CO2 increases follows the warming of the planet by several hundreds of years. This pretty much proves the CO2 is not the cause of the warming, but is a helper in keep the planet warm once it gets into the atmosphere. Now once the atmosphere has CO2 in large amounts. The data has shown that in the past the CO2 has not been able to keep the planet from cooling. The atmosphere had 350 times more CO2 than it has today at one time and the earth was frozen. So clearly there is only so much the CO2 can contribute to helping keep the earth warm. And once the earth is further away from the sun, it cools, and the amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere drops. Thus the CO2 amounts in the atmosphere has always been following the natural distant from the sun cycle for the last million years as proven by the ice cores. Al Gore’s claim that the CO2 is the main factor of the warming has had major setbacks and cannot explain several actions of the climate cycle, mainly the warm and cold 100,000 year cycles. Now Al never said the 100K cycle was not the driving force of the heat. Al just said that once the energy from the sun increased. The CO2 effect of helping hold the heat would cause the earth’s temperature to rise. Which is true. But Al took the next step and said that mankind has added extra CO2 to the atmosphere and we could expect added heat to stay in the atmosphere and warm the atmosphere beyond the natural warming cycles. OK, that makes sense and we all agreed with Al and we all agreed that Al did a hero thing in bringing this to the attention of the world in a way that caught people’s interest. And Al said that an unnatural rise of two degrees would totally upset the natural balance of life and weather on earth. Again, that makes sense and we all agreed with Al. Then Al took another step and said that the CO2 was the driving force causing the earth’s temperature to rise, the natural cycle brought more sunlight, but it was the carbon that turned the sunlight to heat and kept the heat on earth. In other words, the CO2 greenhouse effect was not only the main driver but the controlling factor of the warmth of the planet. This is where the math does not fit and the scientists could not agree. The scientists with the government grants and wanting more government grants back Al’s theory of Global Warming. The world agree that we needed to understand this Global Warming and save the earth. Big money investment was behind Al’s theory, right or wrong, the carbon credits was going to make them very rich. Al’s theory scientists made several predictions that bad things were going to happen to us if we did not move to stop the carbon going into the atmosphere. And the best way to do this was with carbon credits. When Al’s theory didn’t work, and yes there was some warming, but not much more than one would have expected in the natural cycle. Al’s theory started to include other theories and the name changed from Global Warming to Climate Change to include these new theories. What did Al do wrong or could have done differently? That is simple, Al could have addressed the carbon lag in his charts. So why did Al not address the carbon lag? The only good reason is money. Carbon lag is bad for carbon credits. By the time the computer models are running and we really understand the earth’s climate cycles enough time will have passed and the carbon credit taxes will be in place and the tax base for the one world order will have been established. You’re right Write4U, it is all in the math, and we just have to do the math.

You are a hopeless case Mike.
Maybe you haven’t heard that some other names are being considered besides “Climate Change”

"Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods" and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life."
New York Times]
You are a hopeless case Mike. Maybe you haven't heard that some other names are being considered besides "Climate Change"
"Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods" and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life."
New York Times]
New York Times, (your link was to The New Yorker). This article was about how the public reacts to tabloid type of headings? That is, Yale said that “Climate change" is now getting less interest from the American public and there are recommendation of changing the name to “you will be burnt to a crisp and die." This article was written as satire is all. So what are your views Lausten? Would you say that this climate change is caused by man’s carbon in the atmosphere or this climate change is part of the earth’s natural cycle that happens once every 100,000 years? Or would you say it is part of both? And if it is part of both, how much can one contribute to the natural cycle and how much to mankind’s adding of greenhouse gases? Do you agree that modern man has been on earth for the last 200,000 years? If so, then mankind has survived the last two natural cycle peaks. Some scientists have even claimed that the last climate peaks have caused some extinction of species. And this has all happen without mankind’s help. Now the big question is, if things get this bad at the peak of the natural cycle, then mankind’s adding to earth’s greenhouse gases can’t be good in any view. Wouldn’t you agree? So just how much worst is it going to get with the extra CO2? Do you agree that's the big question on everyone's mind? What if all this money pumped into Global Warming projects does very little good because earth’s natural cycles will cause the tsunamis and floods and create the hellhole The New Yorker is quoting anyway? Should we first not understand the scope of what we are dealing with, then establish the battle plan and spend our resources wisely?
You are a hopeless case Mike. Maybe you haven't heard that some other names are being considered besides "Climate Change"
"Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods" and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life."
New York Times]
Another question for you. What is message The New Yorker is letting out? Is it that Yale has found that certain groups have been yelling woof so many time about the sky is falling? And it has proven wrong so many times that the public is not reacting as much anymore. That the scientists are going to have to go to extreme headlines to get public to listen to them anymore. You can fool some of the public some of the time, but not all the public all the time.
You are a hopeless case Mike. Maybe you haven't heard that some other names are being considered besides "Climate Change"
"Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods" and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life."
New York Times]
Another question for you. What is message The New Yorker is letting out? Is it that Yale has found that certain groups have been yelling woof so many time about the sky is falling? And it has proven wrong so many times that the public is not reacting as much anymore. That the scientists are going to have to go to extreme headlines to get public to listen to them anymore. You can fool some of the public some of the time, but not all the public all the time. I don't know where you are getting your information Mike, but it's wrong. ]
You are a hopeless case Mike. Maybe you haven't heard that some other names are being considered besides "Climate Change"
"Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods" and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life."
New York Times]
Another question for you. What is message The New Yorker is letting out? Is it that Yale has found that certain groups have been yelling woof so many time about the sky is falling? And it has proven wrong so many times that the public is not reacting as much anymore. That the scientists are going to have to go to extreme headlines to get public to listen to them anymore. You can fool some of the public some of the time, but not all the public all the time. I don't know where you are getting your information Mike, but it's wrong. ] Can you be more specific? The crying of woof has taken place in the news and internet over the last ten years that the warming has not followed the predictions. And the search for the missing heat has been jumping from one theory to the next. And it isn’t that there is not a little truth to each of the theories, which is now leading to the theory that it is a combination of a little of the heat being taken by all of the theories combined. But the biggest problem with that is when you try and make all of this work with what history has given us from the ice cores, they cannot make it work and match past history data.
Can you be more specific?
Of course I can, but why would I bother? You've already shown that you ignore such specifics. Right here in this thread.
Can you be more specific?
Of course I can, but why would I bother? You've already shown that you ignore such specifics. Right here in this thread. Not buying it. Get off you high horse, if you think that joining a click on a subject will make you right, your wrong. What works with religious and high school method of debate will not necessary work on this website! State your facts.
Can you be more specific?
Of course I can, but why would I bother? You've already shown that you ignore such specifics. Right here in this thread. Not buying it. Get off you high horse, if you think that joining a click on a subject will make you right, your wrong. What works with religious and high school method of debate will not necessary work on this website! State your facts. I think you meant "clique", but I get your gist. Let me ask you this, can you describe what your criteria is for valid scientific evidence? Be as general or specific as you'd like.
Can you be more specific?
Of course I can, but why would I bother? You've already shown that you ignore such specifics. Right here in this thread. Not buying it. Get off you high horse, if you think that joining a click on a subject will make you right, your wrong. What works with religious and high school method of debate will not necessary work on this website! State your facts. I think you meant "clique", but I get your gist. Let me ask you this, can you describe what your criteria is for valid scientific evidence? Be as general or specific as you'd like. Yes, you are right, I did mean clique. And thanks for the correction, I really do appreciate the correction. I got to say this site has helped me in writing and communication skills. Word checker still fixes half my words. But just getting to the point that word checker could come close to understanding what I was trying to spell was a big jump forward for me. As far as valid scientific evidence, I would have to say that those guild lines are established by the IPCC. The IPCC recognized in 1995 that humans did have some effect on the earth’s climate. And in the last report recognized that greenhouse gases played a role in holding the earth’s heat. But did not name it as the driving force and did not address the carbon lag. To have some scientists or organization make a claim takes you into the ping pong, liberal vs conservative, big money vs government control of big business game. And that is sure to make you dizzy. Valid scientific evidence is what the ICPP agrees on and none of the scientists disagrees on. Now of course we have to delete the 2% of the radicals. For they are just a waste of time. The base line for valid scientific evidence right now is it must pass the historical ice core test. And what I see has been happening is the fact that the many theories have a little bit of correctness in them, but fail when it comes to passing the ice core tests as the cause of climate change. They are accepted as having a helping part in warming and keeping the earth warm but they are controlled by climate cycle instead of controlling the climate cycle. And what they are finding is there are many things that are involved in keeping the suns heat in the atmosphere. And they are finding that mankind is having an effect on just about everything involved in heating the earth. This has created the AGW and it is being accepted as mankind is having an effect on all these items and even taught in schools today as part of the system that helps create heat and hold heat in the atmosphere. The whole problem should be cleared up with the first theory that can answer the carbon lag. And what I see happening is that it kind of matches the creation vs evolution process. Which is now Intelligent Design vs Evolution. The carbon scientists cannot make the natural climate cycle follow the carbon. So the carbon is slowly being connected to the earth’s natural 100,000 year cycle. Point being, in the creation vs evolution process, what was the used as valid evidence? We are in the same kind of problem here, it is political and personal and not always scientific. Have evidence that can match the historical ice cores and the mathematics pan out, then you have valid scientific evidence. Show that that data controls the natural climate cycle and you have the Holy Grail of climate science. I should mention that the ice core data is more than just the 100,000 years it takes to heat the earth. It must also must work with the 10,000 years it takes to cool the earth in each cycle. It must coincide with the nine climate cycle in the last million years. Once the carbon lag is solved, then the scientists can gauge the AGW. Point being that is more-less a waste of time to talk about anything but the carbon lag at this point in time.