Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997â2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.
![GhJR3ywIijo](http://<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GhJR3ywIijo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>)
Koch funded climate skeptic declares global warming is real
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
did you not read a quote from the IPCC vice chair...
the warming is not significantly differernt form zero... .05 Celsius.
Something I have been telling your for over a year.
"The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time â which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero. ..."
the warming is not significantly differernt form zero... .05 Celsius.
Something I have been telling your for over a year.
"The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time â which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero. ..."
Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997â2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.
Of course you are correct, but only IF the energy flux input does not decline. I am quite certain that I am right about the net effect of CO2 being to slow the dissipation of heat from the Earth's surface. What you are, in my opinion, not allowing for is variation in input energy flux. If that goes down, even in the event of increasing CO2, temperature can drop.
It is not simple. It is absolutely wrong, however, to assume that if CO2 concentration goes up that temperature must go up. That is simply not so.
Furthermore, there are huge lags in the response of the biosphere to relatively rapid increases of CO2. Plants , assuming we haven't killed off too many of them, will respond accordingly. But we won't notice the response until quite awhile later.
This business of man dumping too much CO2 too fast into the atmosphere is a serious concern. My criticism is of the early science which i think is extremely flawed.
In the meantime, until this difficult problem can be sorted out, we must be vigilant and not wreck our biosphere by polluting the oceans and chopping down too many forests. What we should fear most is not Global Warming but destruction of the biosphere's balance.
We can't do anything about our energy sources (sun and Earth's core) but we can certainly do something about the headlong destruction of our biosphere. The major step forward is obvious: population control.
a. Recent papers have stated that co2's warming ability decreases logarthmically as you add more. So adding more at this stage may not create much more warming but adding it to the upper atmosphere in large amounts could block out more of the suns energy.
b. the recent nutter and non nutter papers have speculated co2's impact is on clouds. if it is true that adding co2 adds more clouds... then co2 could certainly add more cooling.
I agree with most of the the rest of the things you wrote and I whole heartedly agree with the concept that we have to protect our oceans and forests.
b. the recent nutter and non nutter papers have speculated co2's impact is on clouds. if it is true that adding co2 adds more clouds... then co2 could certainly add more cooling.
I agree with most of the the rest of the things you wrote and I whole heartedly agree with the concept that we have to protect our oceans and forests.
A) Maybe, that just means it would heat up the troposphere a little less as concentrations get so high that they are toxic to life. At no point would it ever cool, nor suddenly find itself transported from the tropo to the stratosphere. Only in your crazed mind is this possible.
B) No, climatology 101 is that CO2's main effect is to increase temps. It's earth's dominant ghg. Cloud formation is a secondary result of this and the effect of clouds on temps is pretty much a wash. They do some cooling and some heating.
C) You and piehole are like some crazed ideologues that will do everything but admit Al Gore was/is right. What the fuck is wrong with you guys? Your egos are so fragile that you cannot admit you are wrong about something?
FC, it puzzles me why you repeat that CO2 is the dominate greenhouse gas. There is no question that CO2 is very important, in conjunction with water, in moderating the Earth's surface temperature. Nevertheless, there is no scientific basis for saying that CO2 is anymore important than water as a greenhouse gas nor more important in it's energy shielding properties.
When one takes into account the relative mean abundance of water vapor and the relative absorbance of the infrared spectrum emitted by the Earth, water is something like 3 times as significant as a greenhouse gas than CO2. If you then consider the effect of condensed water vapor (clouds) and solid water (snow, and ice) on temperature, it is clear that water has the larger influence overall. It is clearly wrong to say that CO2 is the dominate greenhouse gas. By that effect alone, water is dominate, though CO2 is very important...
I believe the critical error that the early investigators made, besides letting the issue be turned into a political football and becoming emotionally involved, was to look at CO2 on too short a time scale and not pay enough attention to changes in incident radiative flux plus thermal flux from the earth's core. They treated CO2, or at least the popular press did, as you would if it were the energy source, but of course it is not. This led to incorrect statements such as "CO2's main effect is to increase temperatures," when clearly that is only an incidental effect under specific conditions.
At this point, it is too early to speculate on what CO2's "main effect" is. It may not have "a" main effect, but instead several equally important effects. CO2 is extremely important in moderating the rate of energy dissipation from the Earth's surface, but of course it has some energy shielding effects as well. And we certainly can't ignore it's huge affect on aqueous bicarbonate/carbonic acid/CO2 equilibria and its critical role in plant physiology.
If the incident energy flux drops, atmospheric carbon dioxide can go very much higher, and yet temperature drops. We have pretty good evidence (not perfect, it's proxy evidence) of such periods in the distant past.
One can make an excellent argument for why it is a good idea to pay attention to biosphere pollution, including the dumping of unnecessary amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Sadly, our current knowledge is insufficient for us to decide whether man's addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is having a significant affect on our climate, despite the popular media's insistence. We absolutely can not distinguish, at this point, anthropomorphically from naturally driven climate phenomena. [This is not the same, by the way, as distinguishing anthropomorphic from naturally occurring CO2. Though it is looking more and more like we aren't good at that either.]
My interest is in the science and in doing what we can to avoid wrecking our biosphere. I have no emotional ties to what has become a climate argument fiasco. I'll either be dead when the answers are finally known, or perfectly satisfied however the answer turns out. Koch Brothers, James Hansen and Mr. Gore can all be damned as far as I'm concerned. None of them are making positive contributions.
"...Thus, while the non-condensing greenhouse gases account for only 25% of the total greenhouse effect, it is these non-condensing GHGs that actually control the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect since the water vapor and cloud feedback contributions are not self-sustaining and as such, only provide amplification. Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/