Freezing January for Easterners Was Not Felt Round the World

[jem]

yes... it is possible but it is unlikely since the video goes on to explain that co2 trails temperatures in the proxy data... and co2 has a strong match but trails by 9 months changes in ocean temps.
(lets not forget science knows that as oceans warm the off gas CO2 and as they cool they eat co2.... therefore the correlation makes perfect sense.)

Therefore... as a practical matter for co2 to cause warming you would expect scientists to find some other cycle in which co2 leads the change in temperature.
After billions and billions of research dollars being spent on modeling... you can bet your house they would have found that cycle if it existed.

Prior to Salby and the other papers (including the one below) CO2 believers were hoping co2 might amplify warming and cooling... as sort of a positive feedback mechanism. With Salbys finding and the paper below. I am not sure how co2 would fit into the equation as a cause of warming.



The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


---

My conclusion... NASA tells us that CO2 is a powerful coolant... and that CO2 acts as a thermostat.
Frankly I believe them when they say that.

I suspect when all the science gets settled you will see that when its very cool the initial co2 works to trap heat more than it reflects the sun... but as you get more co2 in the atmosphere it blocks more sun than it traps heat.

Ok, but that post does not exclude the possibility that Man is warming the planet to some degree via his CO2 emissions, though.

 

[futurecurrents]

jem could be a very rich man. He just needs to show his theory to these guys.

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
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
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

 

[jem]

actually for me to be a rich man on this subject, I would only need a few democrats to pay me to run some research. Just like your team.

 

[Ricter]

yes... it is possible but it is unlikely since the video goes on to explain that co2 trails temperatures in the proxy data... and co2 has a strong match but trails by 9 months changes in ocean temps.
(lets not forget science knows that as oceans warm the off gas CO2 and as they cool they eat co2.... therefore the correlation makes perfect sense.)

Therefore... as a practical matter for co2 to cause warming you would expect scientists to find some other cycle in which co2 leads the change in temperature.
After billions and billions of research dollars being spent on modeling... you can bet your house they would have found that cycle if it existed.

Prior to Salby and the other papers (including the one below) CO2 believers were hoping co2 might amplify warming and cooling... as sort of a positive feedback mechanism. With Salbys finding and the paper below. I am not sure how co2 would fit into the equation as a cause of warming.



The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


---

My conclusion... NASA tells us that CO2 is a powerful coolant... and that CO2 acts as a thermostat.
Frankly I believe them when they say that.

I suspect when all the science gets settled you will see that when its very cool the initial co2 works to trap heat more than it reflects the sun... but as you get more co2 in the atmosphere it blocks more sun than it traps heat.

"yes... it is possible but it is unlikely since the video goes on to explain that co2 trails temperatures in the proxy data"

Again, that is the observation of the time before Man.

 

[futurecurrents]

actually for me to be a rich man on this subject, I would only need a few democrats to pay me to run some research. Just like your team.

 

[jem]

correct... he says, as in the proxy data.... there is a lag... that lag is about 800 years... please watch the video... it could not be more clear... he has overly dramatic pauses... but they do make you remember.

he looked at current data...
co2 matches up very well and trails by 9 months (he might have said a year... I do not remember the exact time.

if you don't like what he was saying then read the paper I also linked to...
there are free copies running around the internet.

I saw one other paper which says the same thing.



.

"yes... it is possible but it is unlikely since the video goes on to explain that co2 trails temperatures in the proxy data"

Again, that is the observation of the time before Man.

 

[wjk]

Ok, but that post does not exclude the possibility that Man is warming the planet to some degree via his CO2 emissions, though.

Some of us have never disputed that. It may or may not matter to the equation, but this same pattern over the US occurred between 1915 and 1920. The water off the coast of Alaska was warm at that time as it is this winter, and a resulting ridge occurred over the western part of Canada and Alaska. Was that due to man made warming back then? These are reasonable questions that our local nutter has refused to address when asked. I guess it doesn't fit the template.

Yet, when these historic similarities are mentioned, especially when the models forecasting doom and gloom have proven to have multiple flaws, those who point them out are immediately vilified, thus making it nearly impossible to support those doing the name calling, even if there is some agreement.

As I've said previously, the science has been polluted by too many interests, including control freak, power hungry left wing gov, fearful fuel industries, and last but not least, completely intolerant asshole nutters, including one in ET (not you). They actually do the most damage to their cause because they demonstrate how insane and irrational some of those actually making the decisions might be.

 

[Lucrum]

Ok, but that post does not exclude the possibility that Man is warming the planet to some degree via his CO2 emissions, though.

So you'll be quitting your job in the oil service industry then?

 

[futurecurrents]

Some of us have never disputed that. It may or may not matter to the equation, but this same pattern over the US occurred between 1915 and 1920. The water off the coast of Alaska was warm at that time as it is this winter, and a resulting ridge occurred over the western part of Canada and Alaska. Was that due to man made warming back then? These are reasonable questions that our local nutter has refused to address when asked. I guess it doesn't fit the template.

Yet, when these historic similarities are mentioned, especially when the models forecasting doom and gloom have proven to have multiple flaws, those who point them out are immediately vilified, thus making it nearly impossible to support those doing the name calling, even if there is some agreement.

As I've said previously, the science has been polluted by too many interests, including control freak, power hungry left wing gov, fearful fuel industries, and last but not least, completely intolerant asshole nutters, including one in ET (not you). They actually do the most damage to their cause because they demonstrate how insane and irrational some of those actually making the decisions might be.

No, they are not reasonable question(s). It is a stupid question. So in the past there was something like what's happening today. So what?

And the models while not perfect have not had "multiple failures". You are deluded by right wing propaganda. The important point is that the earth has not stop warming.

It's very simple. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. We have raised levels of it by 40%. Temperatures are going up and ice is melting, as expected. There is absolutely no question about those facts.

Maybe it's just too simple.

 

[fhl]