Bullshit chart. Try this one. Oh, but NOAA must be wrong right?
No AGW Say 20+ NASA Scientists
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Bullshit chart. Try this one. Oh, but NOAA must be wrong right?
Oh you mean another bullshit denier chart courtesy of the Koch bros?
try this one...this is the ACTUAL lower atmospheric levels.
The following graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years. It includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used.
Yes this is true...CO2 can lead temperatures higher because it is a greenhouse gas.
The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If there is more of it temps go up. So simple a ten year old can understand it. But not moron deniers.
If you look at the previous graph to the averages, there is a huge peak in CO2 around 1943. That is a very fast one: from the base line in 1936 at around 330 ppmv (historical) to 430 ppmv in 1943. That is 100 ppmv in only 7 years time. The same the other way out: back down to the baseline of 330 ppmv in 1953, again 100 ppmv in only 10 years time. That is a huge amount of CO2 which must come and go from/to another reservoir. Such huge movements aren't seen in any year of accurate measurements since 1959. The maximum variability in recent times is +/- 1 ppmv/yr.
But let us assume that the figures are right. Well, the release of 210 GtC (= 100 ppmv) in 7 years time is theoretically possible as result of a huge release from volcanoes, (undersea) vents, meteorite impacts, etc... Or burning 1/3th of all vegetation on earth... There is no sign that something like that happened, but it is possible. But the opposite way: that 210 GtC were absorbed in ten years time, either by vegetation (that is one third of all vegetation as extra growth) or oceans, is physically impossible. There simply is no process in the natural world which can absorb such a quantity of CO2 in such a short time. This in fact refutes the probability of such a peak value around 1943.
We have other sources of CO2 measurements or proxies which may give a hint of CO2 variability around 1943. None of these show a specific variability around 1943, which should be present if the atmospheric CO2 content increased and decreased with 30% in such a short period. Have a look:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
for a long detailed exhaustive explanation of why that chart is simply wrong.
you are dimwit.
you keep acting like the earth is a closed system.
But you admitted the earth can outgas and plants and the ocean can process or hold CO2.
here is analogy...
Warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.
Does that mean that water vapor causes warming.
If I turn on a hot shower and releasing water vapor does that mean I caused global warming?
grow up... you are guessing.
you guess might turn out to be correct... but it is a guess.
Just like with the knowledge that mass attracts mass it is a guess that something will fall if we drop it? Then we drop it and it falls.
Similarly we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas so if it goes up we can expect the temps to also. Then, as recent observations show, as the CO2 goes up so does the temps. I guess by your definition of guess all cause-effect expectations are guesses.