16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

futurecurrents · Jun 24, 2014

Jerm you weasely sack of lying shit, the chart is accurate. Is it due to man or not?

piehole at least had the complete audacity to say it is likely natural. What say you?

jem · Jun 24, 2014

you ignorant troll fc... trying learning something before you call someone a weasel.
I will post the sentence for you... so you don't have to read the big words before and after...

"there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve."

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 NiÃ±o, the 1994-5 El NiÃ±o, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El NiÃ±o, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El NiÃ±o, etc. Every positive peak is an El NiÃ±o 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

futurecurrents · Jun 24, 2014

futurecurrents said:
The ice record coincides with the atmospheric nearly perfectly.

So jem, piezoe.....heck any of you denialists.......is this recent spike due to man or not?

The ice records (multiple) mesh with atmospheric perfectly. The ice record is reliable.

The recent spike of CO2 is of course from man. One would have to be total idiot not to think so.

futurecurrents · Jun 24, 2014

Note how all the data sets coincide with each other. Of course CO2 is spiking 40% due to man. Only a right wing buffoon would think otherwise.

Ricter · Jun 24, 2014

futurecurrents said:
Note how all the data sets coincide with each other. Of course CO2 is spiking 40% due to man. Only a right wing buffoon would think otherwise.

Quite remarkable when you consider that the ocean is NOT warming (the claim when we're discussing where the heat is going if not on land), and when you consider that the ocean IS warming (which is the claim when we're discussing why CO2 is increasing).

Ffox · Jun 24, 2014

This is not ocean temperature. Itâs only temperature near the surface of the ocean, where there are measurements. Thatâs relevant to outgassing of CO2 by the ocean. But not to atmospheric temperature, which depends on temperature of the entire ocean. Most of it is not even measured. That leaves one big Black Hole.

Ricter said:
So the oceans are warming. That was being denied here a month ago.

Ricter · Jun 24, 2014

Ffox said:
This is not ocean temperature. Itâs only temperature near the surface of the ocean, where there are measurements. Thatâs relevant to outgassing of CO2 by the ocean. But not to atmospheric temperature, which depends on temperature of the entire ocean. Most of it is not even measured. That leaves one big Black Hole.

But someone was just arguing that the oceans are absorbing CO2, which is why global warming has paused.

futurecurrents · Jun 24, 2014

So jem, you weasely sack of lying shit, is the recent 40% spike in CO2 from man or not?

piezoe · Jun 25, 2014

Ricter said:
I think it's crazy, yes. We can (and have) put a meter on a tailpipe or smokestack and directly observe the CO2 we're emitting.

just to clarify. What I intended to convey was that there is quite a bit of uncertainty in the actual values of atmospheric CO2 calculated from proxy data. Consequently it is not at all certain that the present spike is actually very much greater than spikes in the past. This is what several of you have been alluding to. We do know with reasonable accuracy what the present CO2 concentration is, on average. But the proxy data is subject to large error.

Salby has looked at the proxy data and concluded that it wasn't properly corrected for CO2 diffusion. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past was higher than has been reported, and i am assuming higher than that shown in FC's graph.

futurecurrents · Jun 25, 2014

piezoe said:
just to clarify. What I intended to convey was that there is quite a bit of uncertainty in the actual values of atmospheric CO2 calculated from proxy data. Consequently it is not at all certain that the present spike is actually very much greater than spikes in the past. This is what several of you have been alluding to. We do know with reasonable accuracy what the present CO2 concentration is, on average. But the proxy data is subject to large error.

Salby has looked at the proxy data and concluded that it wasn't properly corrected for CO2 diffusion. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past was higher than has been reported, and i am assuming higher than that shown in FC's graph.

No you said that the recent spike - and there is NO doubt that there is a historic spike - is likely natural. Don't try to walk it back when faced with obvious absurdity of the statement.

Salby is a fool and and a liar and more importantly just plain wrong. Why you continue to refer to his bullshit is a real mystery. I can only conclude that you are also a fool and a liar.

Just what is your deal piezoe? Are you for real?