Freezing January for Easterners Was Not Felt Round the World

[stu]

First of all stu, you ignorant fool, greenhouse gases warm and cool. What science does not know right now is if add more CO2 or more water vapor to this environment warms or cools. That is where a lot of research is being done right now.
NASA recently called CO2 a powerful coolant and a thermostat in this study.


Why don't you try and actually present some science to support your belief that adding more co2 creates warming in our current environment.

What suddenly happened to your false argument about lag? A moment ago you were confusing yourself about that. Now your ignorance is showing again over what nasa says.

Still I suppose the regular and sudden disconnects you make onto other bogus issues is utterly essential if you're going to keep yourself in a state of ignorance and denial.

 

[fhl]

 

[stu]

As shown in all the raw data, the medieval warm period was significantly WARMER than it is today. You can choose to ignore the charts and data, but the truth stands. Why do you think Greenland is called "Green Land"? The Viking were growing grains such barley there during the Medieval Warm period. In England during this time grapes were grown for wine? How do you explain this unless the world was fundamentally warmer in 900AD to 1200AD.

Greenland's grain growing Vikings is being simplistic and another red herring just as lag is. Regional variation is not global change.
You could make exactly the opposite case using other isolated regions. The persistent underlying global temperature and its effect is the real issue.
The truth as it stands is temperatures during the Medieval Warm period were significantly below those now recorded in modern times.

The bottom line is that man-made warming caused by CO2 does not supported by scientific evidence. The reality is that man should be more concerned with natural global cooling and take steps to prepare for it.

When the scientific evidence does support man-made warming caused by CO2, the reality is that it's ridiculous to say it doesn't.

 

[Ricter]

Days of extreme heat on rise, research shows
Frequency affects farming, humans and wildlife
By Tom Spears, Postmedia News February 26, 2014 6:55 AM

"Weather observers have relaxed at an apparent slowdown of global warming, but new Environment Canada evidence says the warming that matters most hasn't slowed down at all.

"The world's average temperatures haven't jumped much in the past decade after big increases during the 1990s. Observers are calling it a "pause" in the warming trend.

"Many who argue that climate change is not happening, such as the U.S. Cato Institute, claim this apparent leveling off of the world's average temperatures is proof they are right.

"Now, research says the number of days with extreme heat keeps growing even when the average doesn't. Wednesday's report in the journal Nature Climate Change says these extremes - not the average day-to-day temperatures - are what matter most to farming, wildlife and humans. Evidence shows that "not only is there no pause in the evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land, but that they have continued unabated over the observational record," the analysis says.

"Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that the most 'extreme' extremes show the greatest change."

More>>

 

[gwb-trading]

Greenland's grain growing Vikings is being simplistic and another red herring just as lag is. Regional variation is not global change.
The truth as it stands is temperatures during the Medieval Warm period were significantly below those now recorded in modern times.

When the scientific evidence does support man-made warming caused by CO2, the reality is that it's ridiculous to say it doesn't.

Globally the temperatures during the Medieval Warm period were greatly above those today. This is outlined in all sorts of evidence from that time period including information on the crops grown by civilizations all over the earth.

Perhaps Professor Mann can release his raw data that is the basis of his hockey stick charts. All the raw data from the British MET and other organizations show that CO2 is not leading or causing an increase in data. The data also demonstrates that the temperature increase has paused for over 17 years as outlined in the recent IPCC report.

 

[stu]

Globally the temperatures during the Medieval Warm period were greatly above those today. This is outlined in all sorts of evidence from that time period including information on the crops grown by civilizations all over the earth.

Perhaps Professor Mann can release his raw data that is the basis of his hockey stick charts. All the raw data from the British MET and other organizations show that CO2 is not leading or causing an increase in data. The data also demonstrates that the temperature increase has paused for over 17 years as outlined in the recent IPCC report.

If you're going to insist on being a skeptic or denier, I would suggest you really shouldn't be referring to the British MET office.

They mention The Medieval Warm Period as a regional variability, going on to state that what they are observing now, is not in any case the same as such natural variations.

They state that just over a period of the last 50 years alone, temperature change is not consistent with natural cycles within the climate system and cannot be explained without elevated levels of co2 being the cause.

 

[gwb-trading]

If you're going to insist on being a skeptic or denier, I would suggest you really shouldn't be referring to the British MET office.
.

The British MET office has the most complete database of global temperatures (HadCRUT from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office) of any entity on the face of the earth. You are saying we should not reference the source of the most complete worldwide temperature data set. Well ignoring data that they don't like is typical of the AGW alarmist camp - just following Mann's example (Hide the decline, etc.)

 

[jem]

you are the twisted troll trying to change my argument.
I present the science and the data...
The problem for you is you have no science saying man made co2 causing warming in our environment.

let me present the link to the peer reviewed paper again.
maybe you will read it and understand it.

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


Highlights
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 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 explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

What suddenly happened to your false argument about lag? A moment ago you were confusing yourself about that. Now your ignorance is showing again over what nasa says.

Still I suppose the regular and sudden disconnects you make onto other bogus issues is utterly essential if you're going to keep yourself in a state of ignorance and denial.

 

[jem]

How could you be such a troll moron... as to deny the very thing you quote.
let me show you NASA science again.

By reflecting the suns energy CO2 cools.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...2/22mar_saber/

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

No, you have no science proving CO2 cools. CO2 warms the planet. That's why it's called a GHG. Idiot.

 

[jem]

here are pictures for your troll brain fraudcurrents. this explains how co2 cools
CO2 is one of the most effiecients coolants in our atmosphere.