^ Even more bullshit.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
^ Even more bullshit.
Quote from jem:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henryâs Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.MpRRDnYE.dpuf
No, this is wrong. The CO2 goes into the air, increasing the levels, then SOME goes into the biosphere. The author of this is an idiot. More crap from a Koch bro funded website.
Totally fucking wrong. You are an evil liar. Please kill yourself now. The Koch bros would be the only ones to mourn you.
Note, the data presented in this chart is accurate.
and its shows co2 trailing ocean temps and land temps. that is why you have a cheap little slanted cut away view.
its for you lefties that don't take the time to understand the science.
oh look a the scary picture from the screwed up perspective.
its for you lefties that don't take the time to understand the science.
oh look a the scary picture from the screwed up perspective.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Note, the data presented in this chart is accurate.
No you evil liar. Temps and CO2 are in synch. Kill yourself now.
As one can see here. CO2 has lead temps higher
of course it goes into the air.... but if you really want to learn something... understand this chart.
you see the uptake line rising to match the green line.
you see the annual carbon increase line.
well take that line down to the next chart.
you see how it matches up ocean sea surface temperature.
Do you understand the implication is that ocean sea surface temps drive co2 levels and why?
If you read the article you will learn something. Stop being so ignorant... and admit you do not know anything about what co2 does in our atmosphere.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
you see the uptake line rising to match the green line.
you see the annual carbon increase line.
well take that line down to the next chart.
you see how it matches up ocean sea surface temperature.
Do you understand the implication is that ocean sea surface temps drive co2 levels and why?
If you read the article you will learn something. Stop being so ignorant... and admit you do not know anything about what co2 does in our atmosphere.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
you are a corrupt son of a bitch. where did you find a chart missing the last 5 to 10 years of data?
even john cook on the website sponsored by al gore admits that co2 trails temps in the temperature record.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html
Why does CO2 lag temperature?
Posted on 9 January 2010 by John Cook
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many.
even john cook on the website sponsored by al gore admits that co2 trails temps in the temperature record.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html
Why does CO2 lag temperature?
Posted on 9 January 2010 by John Cook
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many.
Quote from futurecurrents:
No you evil liar. Temps and CO2 are in synch. Kill yourself now.
As one can see here. CO2 has lead temps higher
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf
Fc don't you get tired of just lying your ass off and being wrong every time you argue with me.
There is a reason for it. I have science to back up my statements or I tell you its my opinion. When you make factual statements you should try and google it to make sure.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf
It appears from this graph that CO2 concentrations follows temperature with a lag of
approximately 6-9 months. The interesting part is off course that the CO2 trends so
markedly responds to temperature changes. I wanted to get a clearer picture of this
relationship, and thus took approximately 20 datasets from this graph:
Fc don't you get tired of just lying your ass off and being wrong every time you argue with me.
There is a reason for it. I have science to back up my statements or I tell you its my opinion. When you make factual statements you should try and google it to make sure.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf
It appears from this graph that CO2 concentrations follows temperature with a lag of
approximately 6-9 months. The interesting part is off course that the CO2 trends so
markedly responds to temperature changes. I wanted to get a clearer picture of this
relationship, and thus took approximately 20 datasets from this graph: