Nature: Man Made Co2 saves us from Ice Age

Then we would need scientific proofs/investigations to prove both, that not only that CO2 cannot make us too warm, but also CO2 can keep us from being too cold!
well I hope the global warming side wins, because I don't like being cold
 
Personally I do not place too much value in this kind of modelling Yet today!

Anyone could be able to build a highly rational model with beautiful/wonderful forecasting capability to fit/suit her/his expected/desired result, easily!

Perhaps I am very wrong here!
 
Last edited:
I have already produced the charts from one of the peer reviewed papers which shows I have been telling the truth...

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."
 
well I hope the global warming side wins, because I don't like being cold

The other side when trying hard to prove that CO2 would cause cooling effect, rather than warming effect, could be counterproductive!

That means CO2 did/does cause changes on climate! However, the opposite direction!
 
The other side when trying hard to prove that CO2 would cause cooling effect, rather than warming effect, could be counterproductive!

That means CO2 did/does cause changes on climate! However, the opposite direction!
yep, that's science for ya
 
yep, that's science for ya

Here is science (of politics):

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/natural-born-vs-preterm-born.297178/#post-4231742
So, only natural born is eligible for presidency!

Q

http://www.pregnancy.com.au/resources/topics-of-interest/labour-and-birth/preterm-birth.shtml

How does a preterm baby develop?

The development of a preterm baby is of great importance to the parents. Most babies born ten or more weeks early will have developmental checkups. These checkups will keep a track of the baby’s eyesight, hearing and movement. Eyesight and hearing problems can range from mild loss of function to total deafness and blindness. Key development areas that will be examined during developmental check-ups are movement, vision, hearing and language, social development and learning. Of the babies that develop a disability, two thirds will have a mildly disability and will still be able to lead independent lives and one third will have a severe disability that will make them very dependant. To give you an idea, around 30 out of every 100 babies born at 24 to 25 weeks and 25 out of every 100 born at 27 weeks, will have one or more of these disabilities.

How does preterm birth affect parents?

Preterm birth has been described as a crisis and parents often go through a wide range of emotions such as fear, shock, hurt, grief, guilt and a sense of lost control. Parents grieve for lost experiences and lost dreams and have to learn to come to terms with the reality they have been dealt. The roller coaster of emotions that result can be exhausting and confusing and whatever the individual experience, parents need a great deal of support and information to help them through this often unexpected event. Doctors, nurses, midwives, social workers, lactation consultants, chaplains and preterm support groups interact with and support parents through this very difficult time.
UQ
 
Hey weasel......

Just to be clear about your lie here. You believe that the 40% increase in CO2 levels is not due to man. Because this is what you said.

the level of co2 in the atmosphere... follows natural systems and not the co2 being produced by man.


Now before you answer. Maybe you should look at this chart.


graph.jpg


You think that this spike in CO2 is NOT due to man. Is that correct? Please answer yes or no instead of throwing red herrings.


If you could show a peer reviewed article or even the data and the analysis... .. (not some warped perspective graph) that co2 leads temps you would have a nobel prize... you troll.

I have already produced the charts from one of the peer reviewed papers which shows I have been telling the truth...

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



so go ahead post your peer reviewed science or even any at all that shows Co2 leads temperature.

if you don't it will prove conclusively for all here to see that you are the liar here.
 
I can see you got your troll buddy to fall for it... you of course left out the remaining sentences... continued from where you left off... in bold... and then underlined where it says co2 always lags changes in temperature.



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.





"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."
 
chicken or egg? Which comes first? Warm temp makes more co2, more co2 makes warm temp? Stop blaming me I say and start blaming the sun, he has a lot more to do with it than I do.
 
I told you that even you can see that the red line jumps before the blue line.
Now go find a study that says co2 leads temperature.
I have the science supporting what I have said.
where is your peer reviewed science? liar.

by the way for the new here ---
there is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming. zero nada zilch. This is why agw trolls like futurecurrents never produce any links to peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming.








Hey weasel......

Just to be clear about your lie here. You believe that the 40% increase in CO2 levels is not due to man. Because this is what you said.

the level of co2 in the atmosphere... follows natural systems and not the co2 being produced by man.


Now before you answer. Maybe you should look at this chart.


graph.jpg


You think that this spike in CO2 is NOT due to man. Is that correct? Please answer yes or no instead of throwing red herrings.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top