Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

1. you really have no idea about science or or reading charts do you fraudcurrents?
the piomas chart is a year over year chart... the going down part is the seasonal aspect...that shows the minimum in the ARTIC ice is september... but this september has shown more ice than than many most recent years.



2. And if you really meant antartic ice... you are not only chart reading stupid... you are just dead ass wrong.
The volume of antartic sea ice is going up... although one part is going down because of an underground volcano.
I presume you were speaking about the artic when you said ice was decreasing... so I went to the PIOMAS Artic ice model to show you were wrong about that too.

3. So you really should not worry as you are selling the air conditioning green house gas that is 2700 times more powerful than co2. Or maybe you should.



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1

Unlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1). This ice volume increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the Arctic decrease, and about half the size of the increased freshwater supply from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Similarly to the observed ice concentration trends, the small overall increase in modeled ice volume is actually the residual of much larger opposing regional trends. Thickness changes near the ice edge follow observed concentration changes, with increasing concentration corresponding to increased thickness. Ice thickness increases are also found in the inner pack in the Amundsen and Weddell Seas, where the model suggests that observed ice-drift trends directed toward the coast have caused dynamical thickening in autumn and winter. Modeled changes are predominantly dynamic in origin in the Pacific sector and thermodynamic elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
So all the recent years on that chart is lower than the long term average and YOU consider that a gain of ice.

WOW. POS liar doesn't quite cover it.

We already knew the Arctic is rapidly losing ice. The Antarctic is also losing ice volume.
 
you misread the chart you troll. you thought the black line going down meant ice volume was going down rapidly.

the long term average is not very long... the chart started during the warming period and we now have more ice than we did for 5 recent years in a 35 year chart.

so we have more ice than than in about in 20 percent of the time period covered and all of the most recent years.
that is not rapid ice loss... if anything it looks like rebounding ice volume.






futurecurrents said:
So all the recent years on that chart is lower than the long term average and YOU consider that a gain of ice.

WOW. POS liar doesn't quite cover it.

We already knew the Arctic is rapidly losing ice. The Antarctic is also losing ice volume.
More...
 
I didn't misread anything asswipe.

F5.large.jpg
 
this article is from one of your beloved sources the AMS the American Meterological Society... in may 2014.

with an author from East Anglia - the home of the climate gate emails.

and NASA... and the Jet Propulsion guys.

As a nutter you have to salute these guys... these are your people.

Yet... they say there is an overall gain in Antartica.

Modeled Trends in Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness
Paul R.Holland and NicolasBruneau*
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, United Kingdom

ClareEnright
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom

MartinLosch
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

Nathan T.Kurtz
NASA Goddard Space Science Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

RonKwok
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California






http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1

Unlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1). This ice volume increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the Arctic decrease, and about half the size of the increased freshwater supply from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Similarly to the observed ice concentration trends, the small overall increase in modeled ice volume is actually the residual of much larger opposing regional trends. Thickness changes near the ice edge follow observed concentration changes, with increasing concentration corresponding to increased thickness. Ice thickness increases are also found in the inner pack in the Amundsen and Weddell Seas, where the model suggests that observed ice-drift trends directed toward the coast have caused dynamical thickening in autumn and winter. Modeled changes are predominantly dynamic in origin in the Pacific sector and thermodynamic elsewhere.[/quote]
 
the major problem with your theory is that CO2 matches up but lags change in ocean temperature.




figure-5-humlum-et-al-2013.jpg


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

Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. 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.[/quote]
 
  • AAAS-emblem-with-canvas-border.jpg

    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-with-canvass-border.jpg

    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-with-canvas-border.jpg

    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-with-canvas-border.jpg

    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-with-canvass-border_133x75.jpg

    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-with-canvass-border.jpg

    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-with-canvass-border.jpg

    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-with-canvass-border_133x75.jpg

    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." (200
 
the science says co2 lags warming and cooling.




figure-5-humlum-et-al-2013.jpg


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

Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. 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.[/quote][/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top