Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

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)
 
you mean that rapid climate change of 0.00 degree of change we have had the last 17 years.


17years9months.png



futurecurrents said:
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)
More...
 
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[119]
 
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[120]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
 
the Sea ice is supposed to be gone by july.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.
America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.
It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.
Scroll down for video
The Gerlache Strait separating the Palmer Archipelago from the Antarctic Peninsular off Anvers Island
SHARE PICTURE
+4
The Gerlache Strait separating the Palmer Archipelago from the Antarctic Peninsular off Anvers Island
It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.
The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.

More...

In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.
The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-ice-hits-new-record-high.html#ixzz38iPVEf70
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]
 
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position
 
41 of those 11000 papers expressed a position saying man was causing global warming... and I have read some of them.
they made their guesses based on failed computer models.

if any of the 11000 papers stated man made co2 causes warming... why don't you produce a link to them.

I will tell you why... there is no science saying man made co2 causes warming.


futurecurrents said:
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[120]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
More...
 
you go back to your crap fraudcurrents ... I will go back to science.

very paper on the subject acknowledges change in air temps also leads change in co2.

"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
[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top