Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
 
futurecurrents said:
So which of the following is wrong? [/B]
More...

Every model that has put forward is wrong.

We had the fraudsters put forth models in the 70s that were presented as fact that greatly exaggerate the amount of warming that would happen.

We had the fraudsters put forth models in the 80s that were presented as fact that greatly exaggerate the amount of warming that would happen.

We had the fraudsters put forth models in the 90s that were presented as fact that greatly exaggerate the amount of warming that would happen.

The models have been wrong over and over again. It would be one thing if these were simple mistakes, but they weren't simple mistakes. It was done deliberately to enact laws that would handicap the US economy.

Once again, if it is such a problem, then why don't you lead by example because you are really nothing more than hypocrite. Get your own house in order.
 
while its true in the ice core records indicate co2 also lags warming on long term cycles

the lag below has little or nothing to do with 20,000 year milankovitch cycles as
you can clearly see in the second image below co2 follows the change in ocean warming and cooling very closely and lags by one year.
click the link read the paper... see the data. you can find it free on the net.



jem said:
interesting chart... but lets drill down to see if the annual carbon increase actually matches up with man made co2.
you can see man made co2 the green line... goes up in a steady manner.
the annual carbon increase curve far more close resembles change in ocean temps.

I will post the next chart that shows... that shows the paper which explains that the carbon curves follows change in ocean temps very close...and lags by 12 months.


Caryl_11.png


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 Henry’s 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


----

"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 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

1-s2.0-S0921818112001658-gr5.jpg
More...
[/QUOTE]
 
I presented the big paper on that subject to you here on ET. It came out a few years ago and was by Shakun.
We read it and reviewed it.

That paper clearly showed that the pole warmed first. Then co2 increased... then it seems other parts of the earth warmed.
1. you could not say that the warming in the pole did not cause the continued warming by effecting the tides.

2. Shakun... the author speculated it was co2 doing the warming... but there is no scientific proof of that.
However, by the same speculation you could also show that towards the end of the warming cycle co2... starts to cause cooling.

futurecurrents said:
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
More...
 
wildchild said:
Every model that has put forward is wrong.

We had the fraudsters put forth models in the 70s that were presented as fact that greatly exaggerate the amount of warming that would happen.

We had the fraudsters put forth models in the 80s that were presented as fact that greatly exaggerate the amount of warming that would happen.

We had the fraudsters put forth models in the 90s that were presented as fact that greatly exaggerate the amount of warming that would happen.

The models have been wrong over and over again. It would be one thing if these were simple mistakes, but they weren't simple mistakes. It was done deliberately to enact laws that would handicap the US economy.

Once again, if it is such a problem, then why don't you lead by example because you are really nothing more than hypocrite. Get your own house in order.
More...


No the general consensus of climate scientists since the mid seventies has been generally correct that AGW was and is occuring. The "models" have predicted warming and it is occurring.


"It was done deliberately to enact laws that would handicap the US economy. "

^Excuse me, but that's just fucking nuts.

And you still haven't answered. What is wrong with the things I presented showing the obvious common sense science of AGW? Surely you can grasp it.
 
In the past the rising CO2 levels caused higher temperatures. Were it not for the CO2 increases the temp changes would be a fraction of what they were.

Never in the past has such large amounts of CO2 been introduced into the atmosphere so quickly as is happening now. We are seeing the effects.

Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top