16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

ricter... i know you realize you understand you can be in an overall uptrend and nevertheless see the lead lag relationship on the monthly data.
so I am not sure if you are feigning ignorance or being ignorant. So those cycles. learn about them.. read the paper I cited... or watch Salby.
Theyre have been a few papers on the subject.

No scientist, not even the craziest of AGW nutters denies that I have ever read... denies this that CO2 lags temps on the monthly data.
They attack the messengers but not the message.
The data is there for you download and its obvious.

FC I already explained this too you when I should you are chart and explained why the chart said "diff" on it.
So fc you are once again you are a troll moron.
 
jem said:
ricter... i know you realize you can and overall uptrend and nevertheless see the lead lag relationship on the monthly data.
so I am not sure if you are feigning ignorance or ignorant.

FC I already explained this too you when I should you are chart and explained why the chart said "diff" on it.
So fc you are once again you are a troll moron.
More...

I'm not disagreeing with your lead/lag point anymore, since it's clear to me now that it's the yearly CO2 cycle generated by the greening of the northern hemisphere. But the CO2 molecule can, does, and will continue to "delay" the radiation of the sun's energy back into space. The more delay created, by the addition of more "delayers", the more warmth you get, i.e. warming. All this carbon sinking stuff is a distraction, the energy will out, eventually. I believe this at least until I start hearing arguments that this pause is, unlike the last one, permanent, because the upper atmosphere is now reflecting enough sunlight back into space to lower the deposits to the CO2 "bank" below.
 
there are two theories on the prevention of heat loss.
The seeming majority of scientists... (nutter and those with integrity) typically argue that the initial layers of co2 trap long wave radiation to some degree and this trapping causes warming.

There are a second group of scientists who claim the heat is really trapped because of atmosphere pressure. .

I have reserved final judgment on that because I while I suspect the former group is correct. I have not really done enough of the science work to make a conclusion for myself. However, I do know NASA says that C02 is also a very efficient coolant in the atmosphere.

In other words... CO2 is sort of an insulator like the pink stuff in your attic. it keeps some warming in and it keeps some warming out. at some point you have enough of and insulator it to keep warming in.... eventually adding more of it will have no added benefit to keep warming in... but it may start to keep more warming out as you make the atmosphere more difficult for the suns warming rays to penetrate.




Ricter said:
Jem did acknowledge, yesterday I think, that he saw the assertion that CO2 acts as a... "delayer" of heat loss back to space. He questions it, but I am glad he finally saw it. I've been holding that point in mind, too, but had lost the link to the paper. I would like to see a calculated chart of how our temperature changes would have looked if CO2 did not rise with the N. American summer but remained constant. I suspect the annual cooling would be significantly more pronounced.
More...
 
ok... you should also be aware there are multiple papers and essays which show or conclude that as you add more CO2 the the warming effect of the co2 falls off logarithmically.
here is one essay on the subject.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ver-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/



I reserve judgment.

Science does not have nearly enough info to determine whether adding man made co2 causes warming... here are some of the reasons:

1. We do not know if we are warming outside natural variability.
2. We do not know how much impact adding more CO2 impacts water vapor.
3. We are not sure if the the impact on the water vapor will cause warming or cooling.
4. We are not sure if there is a tipping point with CO2 and that at some point in time... adding more of it will create cooling like aerosols.

So
is it possible that adding man made co2 causes warming.. yes?
is it possible that adding man made co2 causes cooling... yes?
is it possible the that co2 impact if any depends where we are in earth's cycle... yes?

Any science will be appreciated.... Fraudcurrents typical deceptions and lies will continue to be met with scorn and derision.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ver-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/


Ricter said:
I'm not disagreeing with your lead/lag point anymore, since it's clear to me now that it's the yearly CO2 cycle generated by the greening of the northern hemisphere. But the CO2 molecule can, does, and will continue to "delay" the radiation of the sun's energy back into space. The more delay created, by the addition of more "delayers", the more warmth you get, i.e. warming. All this carbon sinking stuff is a distraction, the energy will out, eventually. I believe this at least until I start hearing arguments that this pause is, unlike the last one, permanent, because the upper atmosphere is now reflecting enough sunlight back into space to lower the deposits to the CO2 "bank" below.
More...
 
wtf... you think in systems on the other threads... why do you refuse to do so on this issue.

we are likely to warm again at some point, plus the el nino seems to be kicking in again which if it does will cause warming.

the real issue is not whether weather and climate change... its whether man made co2 is causing a concerning part of it.


Ricter said:
But it hasn't, yet. We had a big pause, then warming resumed with a vengeance. Now there's another pause (at least on land) and some are saying this one is permanent?
More...
 
jem said:
wtf... you think in systems on the other threads... why do you refuse to do so on this issue.

we are likely to warm again at some point, plus the el nino seems to be kicking in again which if it does will cause warming.

the real issue is not whether weather and climate change... its whether man made co2 is causing a concerning part of it.
More...


Umm yeah, and answer is without a doubt yes. You see jem, it doesn't matter what YOU think. The scientific debate on the basics is over. Almost all of the warming over the last one hundred years is due to man's emissions. But you are certainly free to keep raving like a lunatic.

And your obsession with air temps alone as a measure of the earth's heat just shows the limits of your intellect.

heat_content2000m.png
 
when you can show some science showing man made co2 warming the oceans or the air let us know. feel free to link here before you win a nobel prize.
I repeat... its going to hard for you to show man made co2 causes oceans warming... because as the ocean warms they release co2.

here is the proven path.
Ocean warms... land warms... co2 rises.

I will post the link next.



futurecurrents said:
Umm yeah, and answer is without a doubt yes. You see jem, it doesn't matter what YOU think. The scientific debate on the basics is over. Almost all of the warming over the last one hundred years is due to man's emissions. But you are certainly free to keep raving like a lunatic.

And your obsession with air temps alone as a measure of the earth's heat just shows the limits of your intellect.

heat_content2000m.png
More...
 
CO2 lags change in ocean temps and change in land temps.

now for you agw morons let me translate the above into colors...
blue leads the yellow which also leads the green.

1-s2.0-S0921818112001658-gr5.jpg
[/QUOTE]
 
futurecurrents said:
The scientific debate on the basics is over.
More...

Only in your "mind" and in the "minds" of AGW moonbats like you.

global+warming+Moonbat.jpg


The irony is that the more you environmental jihadists (to include so-called "climate scientists") dig in and stomp your little feet, the less people believe you. So keep up the good work :D

2013-04-22-Global-warming-trust.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top