16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations...

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

attachment.php
 
fc --- you can tell your moron blogger friends .. Salby does not have to explain what is warming the oceans... we have dozens and dozens of papers the last few years suggesting the Sun warms the oceans. And the sun and the tide warms the earth.

When you combine those papers with the fact that C02 lags warming...
you can see there is a strong chance Salby is correct.

let me explain for for agw diaper wearers.
blue leads the yellow which also leads the green.
which means co2 lags on the upside and downside.

1-s2.0-S0921818112001658-gr5.jpg
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Yes it's complicated. If one wants yearly resolution to climate prediction. But the relationship between atmospheric levels of CO is a simple and direct one. CO2 levels act like the setpoint of the earth's thermostat. The following relationship is pretty direct.
historical03.gif
The relationship between the earth including the ocean's heat and CO2 levels is even more direct. There is a very high probability that trends will continue and as CO2 levels continue to rise so will the earths's heat content, as they have been. It's not that hard to model these general trends. As they get a better handle on the ocean the resolution of the models should get better.


Your post as usual is ludicrously pretentious but worse, your conclusion is wrong. Hell, you can't even admit the recent CO2 spike is from man.

You have perhaps not noticed that the chart you posted is entirely consistent with temperature being an important component of the mechanism controlling CO2 content. It is also consistent with your thesis as an alternative explanation.. One would think that the phase shift, i.e., the time relationship, between integrated temperature and CO2 content might be a reliable arbiter between these two possibilities. Though it isn't possible to derive the phase shift from the chart you posted, the time relationship between temperature and CO2 content has recently been determined, at least for the period in question, and is consistent with temperature being the driver behind additional CO2 content.
 
You have perhaps not noticed that the chart you posted is entirely consistent with temperature being an important component of the mechanism controlling CO2 content. It is also consistent with your thesis as an alternative explanation.. One would think that the phase shift, i.e., the time relationship, between integrated temperature and CO2 content might be a reliable arbiter between these two possibilities. Though it isn't possible to derive the phase shift from the chart you posted, the time relationship between temperature and CO2 content has recently been determined, at least for the period in question, and is consistent with temperature being the driver behind additional CO2 content.

Really? Let me get this clear. You are not sure if the recent rise in CO2 is from man but might be from some unexplained rise in temps that has then released CO2?

That might be possible if were not for the fact that, among other things, the oceans are ABSORBING CO2 NOT EMITTING it. This is proven by the decreasing of the ocean's ph levels.

The phase shift of your brain has caused it's logic circuits to self-immolate for some unknown cause.

Take a close look at this chart. See the dashed vertical line on the right side? That's the spike in CO2 levels that has occurred over the last one hundred years. It's not from the sun or volcanoes or random chance or aliens or even from the hot air coming from your mouth. It's from the burning of coal oil and gas. A ten year old has enough logic to figure that out. Incredibly, you can't. Why is that piezoe? Republican?

edc_thumb.jpg


If there is one thing that bothers me more than plain stupidity, it's intelligence that is perverted for stupid ends. You are so full of pretentious and ultimately wrong bullshit that it makes me want to puke.
 
Really? Let me get this clear. You are not sure if the recent rise in CO2 is from man but might be from some unexplained rise in temps that has then released CO2?

That might be possible if were not for the fact that, among other things, the oceans are ABSORBING CO2 NOT EMITTING it. This is proven by the decreasing of the ocean's ph levels.

The phase shift of your brain has caused it's logic circuits to self-immolate for some unknown cause.

The cause is not "unknown". He begins with a conclusion, that government and taxes are evil, and works backward through the data from there.
 
The cause is not "unknown". He begins with a conclusion, that government and taxes are evil, and works backward through the data from there.
Which is the methodology of so-called "climate scientists" except they're working backwards to "justify" more government and more taxes.
 
The cause is not "unknown". He begins with a conclusion, that government and taxes are evil, and works backward through the data from there.

Oh, so as I suspected, he is another jem? I really don't get piezoe. In some respects he is reasonable and intelligent but with this he is off the wall. Maybe he is trying too hard to appear even-handed?

Maybe it's just a side-effect of being a Libtardarian.
 
Back
Top