Hey jem, you lying sack of shit, this is all one data set. Is the spike due to man?
16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Hey jem, you lying sack of shit, this is all one data set. Is the spike due to man?
We're ALL Lucrum! The only person on ET who's not Lucrum is you and even that's in doubt
.
LOL!
What if the ice core data is off by a factor of 1.2 to 10 then what do you have to say?
look at the other proxies I just showed you they show levels of c02 in the thousands.
your whole game is based on scary charts. Which I then go out an put into context.
The co2 rise lags but follows the ocean temp rise.
look at the other proxies I just showed you they show levels of c02 in the thousands.
your whole game is based on scary charts. Which I then go out an put into context.
The co2 rise lags but follows the ocean temp rise.
See the charts show which shows the data up until 2012.
Change in Co2 follows but lags change in ocean temps.
Check the data yourself. You can get it from your favorite source... NOAA.
So if CO2 is rising it looks to be following ocean temps rising.
Science shows CO2 lags change in temps.. see the peer reviewed paper below.
"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
Change in Co2 follows but lags change in ocean temps.
Check the data yourself. You can get it from your favorite source... NOAA.
So if CO2 is rising it looks to be following ocean temps rising.
Science shows CO2 lags change in temps.. see the peer reviewed paper below.
"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
for trolls like fc who did not understand differential charts... let me explain the 2 charts tell the same story.
the above charts the the change over the same time period the year before.
So when the Ocean temp rises... its shows the CO2 rises 9 months later.
the chart below shows the temperature record of the ocean overall it is rising and leading co2 higher.
this also explains why co2 was going up significantly but land temps have not gone up in 17.5 years.
co2 lags ocean temps it does not lead land temps.
These charts tell the story... CO2 trails ocean temps.
But do not expect FC to understand.
the above charts the the change over the same time period the year before.
So when the Ocean temp rises... its shows the CO2 rises 9 months later.
the chart below shows the temperature record of the ocean overall it is rising and leading co2 higher.
this also explains why co2 was going up significantly but land temps have not gone up in 17.5 years.
co2 lags ocean temps it does not lead land temps.
These charts tell the story... CO2 trails ocean temps.
But do not expect FC to understand.
First of all who cares?
Secondly, my take on that argument was that FCs chart was another out of context scary chart and that taken to a proper scale the temp change was insignificant. (but no one denied it was up that I recall.)
So my argument is not that the change in temps of the ocean or co2 are significant... as they are likely not. However, the data is showing us that ocean temps leads the change in co2 .
Secondly, my take on that argument was that FCs chart was another out of context scary chart and that taken to a proper scale the temp change was insignificant. (but no one denied it was up that I recall.)
So my argument is not that the change in temps of the ocean or co2 are significant... as they are likely not. However, the data is showing us that ocean temps leads the change in co2 .
you can learn more below ... you might try google... every time I use i find science or data which destroys fcs scary charts and consensus lies.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.
As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henryâs Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.
As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henryâs Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf
Hmm... latest news is that the Obama WH told NOAA and NASA to fake data to make it look like we have not had global cooling since the 1930's... I was thinking of setting my hair on fire and running in circles screaming "wake up and pee the world is on fire" but now, not so much...
I wonder how long this GW shit can continue in light of all the leaks about faked data? It got past the email leaks a few years ago, but wow, eventually people have to decide whether to just keep lying or give it up.
I wonder how long this GW shit can continue in light of all the leaks about faked data? It got past the email leaks a few years ago, but wow, eventually people have to decide whether to just keep lying or give it up.
see this is the take way above the last paragraph....
The point of all this is that temperature is driving CO2, not the other way around. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
Studies of the CO2 emission and absorption have shown that the tropical seas emit CO2 and the cold, sinking, north Pacific and Atlantic absorb CO2. This has even been mapped. This is all due to the variation in CO2 solubility with temperature.
Caryl_5 (see the image at the site)
Figure 5: Source link for the above figure and caption.
The sea surface CO2 partial pressure is always very close to the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere above it. The sea surface is always in equilibrium with the atmosphere. This means that as we add CO2 in burning fossil fuels, some is taken up by the land biosphere. The remainder CO2 is dissolved and added to the CO2 reservoir in the surface waters. The mixed layer in the ocean is the top 20 to 200 meters, depending on the amount of wave and current mixing. That mixed layer is about 1/50th of the ocean volume. It contains roughly the same amount of CO2 as the atmosphere, as dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). The difference, whether the ocean is emitting CO2 or absorbing it, is driven by temperature. As can be seen in the above figures, an El Niño can drive 2 or 3 Gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere and a La Niña can take it right out again. The rise in CO2 is due to rising SST, not fossil fuel burning.
Caryl_6
Figure 6 is a plot of figure 4b and the biosphere increase from the previous biosphere article here, subtracted from the annual carbon increase.
The above is a residual. But the curve looks familiar.
Caryl_7
Figure 7 is Figure 6 with the average annual AMO index inverted.
Note on the map, figure 5, that the warm tropical seas emit CO2, and the cool northern seas absorb CO2. The AMO index is a temperature index for the North Atlantic. It is derived by subtracting the global SST from 60°N to 60°S from the total SST, or alternatively, the Atlantic temperate and tropical SST from the whole north Atlantic. This means that as the tropical ocean warms more than the average global ocean, this drives the AMO index negative. This shifts the CO2 solubility (figure 2) downward and to the right. That peak in the 1970âs occurs because the tropical oceans were warmer than the average during that period, emitting more CO2. Since that time, the difference has gone the other way, the biosphere is taking up increasing amounts of CO2, lowering the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere. You can also see a one year lag between AMO and the carbon flux. This is because the AMO lags the tropical Pacific by about a year.
The point of all this is that temperature is driving CO2, not the other way around.
We have good measurements of atmospheric CO2 only since 1958. Before that time our measurements were at the mercy of whatever ice does to captured CO2. We have good global measurements of temperature only from 1979, the beginning of the satellite era. This means that all of our measurement periods are shorter than the natural cycles. We have hints only from surface and ship measurements that go back 120 years, that some of the natural cycles are ~60 years long. We are presently at a convergence and peak of several of those natural cycles. There are suggestions that we are past the peak of some longer solar cycles. I use the words âhintsâ and âsuggestionsâ because of the large errors, lack of global coverage, and wishful thinking adjustments to these measurements. There are two possibilities. If CO2 drives temperature, then temperatures should continue to climb. If it doesnât, then temperatures will fall, then, shortly, CO2 will fall also. Nature is in the process of demonstrating which is which. We can just watch.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf
The point of all this is that temperature is driving CO2, not the other way around. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
Studies of the CO2 emission and absorption have shown that the tropical seas emit CO2 and the cold, sinking, north Pacific and Atlantic absorb CO2. This has even been mapped. This is all due to the variation in CO2 solubility with temperature.
Caryl_5 (see the image at the site)
Figure 5: Source link for the above figure and caption.
The sea surface CO2 partial pressure is always very close to the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere above it. The sea surface is always in equilibrium with the atmosphere. This means that as we add CO2 in burning fossil fuels, some is taken up by the land biosphere. The remainder CO2 is dissolved and added to the CO2 reservoir in the surface waters. The mixed layer in the ocean is the top 20 to 200 meters, depending on the amount of wave and current mixing. That mixed layer is about 1/50th of the ocean volume. It contains roughly the same amount of CO2 as the atmosphere, as dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). The difference, whether the ocean is emitting CO2 or absorbing it, is driven by temperature. As can be seen in the above figures, an El Niño can drive 2 or 3 Gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere and a La Niña can take it right out again. The rise in CO2 is due to rising SST, not fossil fuel burning.
Caryl_6
Figure 6 is a plot of figure 4b and the biosphere increase from the previous biosphere article here, subtracted from the annual carbon increase.
The above is a residual. But the curve looks familiar.
Caryl_7
Figure 7 is Figure 6 with the average annual AMO index inverted.
Note on the map, figure 5, that the warm tropical seas emit CO2, and the cool northern seas absorb CO2. The AMO index is a temperature index for the North Atlantic. It is derived by subtracting the global SST from 60°N to 60°S from the total SST, or alternatively, the Atlantic temperate and tropical SST from the whole north Atlantic. This means that as the tropical ocean warms more than the average global ocean, this drives the AMO index negative. This shifts the CO2 solubility (figure 2) downward and to the right. That peak in the 1970âs occurs because the tropical oceans were warmer than the average during that period, emitting more CO2. Since that time, the difference has gone the other way, the biosphere is taking up increasing amounts of CO2, lowering the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere. You can also see a one year lag between AMO and the carbon flux. This is because the AMO lags the tropical Pacific by about a year.
The point of all this is that temperature is driving CO2, not the other way around.
We have good measurements of atmospheric CO2 only since 1958. Before that time our measurements were at the mercy of whatever ice does to captured CO2. We have good global measurements of temperature only from 1979, the beginning of the satellite era. This means that all of our measurement periods are shorter than the natural cycles. We have hints only from surface and ship measurements that go back 120 years, that some of the natural cycles are ~60 years long. We are presently at a convergence and peak of several of those natural cycles. There are suggestions that we are past the peak of some longer solar cycles. I use the words âhintsâ and âsuggestionsâ because of the large errors, lack of global coverage, and wishful thinking adjustments to these measurements. There are two possibilities. If CO2 drives temperature, then temperatures should continue to climb. If it doesnât, then temperatures will fall, then, shortly, CO2 will fall also. Nature is in the process of demonstrating which is which. We can just watch.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf