Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from jem:

here is the review again, in case you did not understand it the first time.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11414-co2-follows-temperature-rises.html

In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003).

And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)."

So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles?

Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find?

Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "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 [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."
...
More...
[/B][/QUOTE]


Do you understand yet that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
 
Do you admit green house gases also cool temperatures in our atmosphere... yes or no... you science liar.




Quote from futurecurrents:

More...


Do you understand yet that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? [/B][/QUOTE]
 
this was your chart fc - the red line is leads the blue dots right?
I need to make sure you can understand a chart.

why would you post this chart and then lie / pretend it shows co2 leading temps?

are you ignorant or a liar?


Figure-2_with_model.jpg
 
you also lied about the quality of the co2 data in the study. you made up some crap about it, without having any idea of where the data came from or how it was filtered.

you have lied dozens of times about just about everything.

if you really believe you don't lie here at elitetrader you need to adjust your meds.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Fuck you I have never lied about anything I have written about AGW. Never. So fuck you you fucking lying prick.

It does appear the paper is peer reviewed but with very lax criteria. I was wrong, not lying.

The paper is irrelevant, poorly done, the authors are hacks who have been previously debunked with prior bullshit papers they have written

And the paper is irrelevant. A red herring. Useless.

To try to correlate a change in CO2 when there is essentially no change in rates of CO2 gain year to year with air or sea temperature is absurd and looking for statiscal correlations that aren't there is what this paper is doing.

So of course it takes a prominent position on Watt's whoring website and you mindlessly slobber all over it.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

this was your chart fc - the red line is leads the blue dots right?
I need to make sure you can understand a chart.

why would you post this chart and then lie / pretend it shows co2 leading temps?

are you ignorant or a liar?


Figure-2_with_model.jpg
More...


Yes CO2 is greenhouse gas. As the levels increase, so does temperature.
 
Quote from jem:

you also lied about the quality of the co2 data in the study. you made up some crap about it, without having any idea of where the data came from or how it was filtered.

you have lied dozens of times about just about everything.

if you really believe you don't lie here at elitetrader you need to adjust your meds.
More...

No it is you who lie.

They were measuring CO2 at the ocean's surface. It says so right in the study you fucking dipwad. I have never lied about AGW. You certainly have. All you do is peddle in lies from propaganda websites. So Fuck You.

But yes, atmospheric CO2, as opposed to that at the ocean's surface acts as a greenhouse gas. As man has increased it's levels by 40% indeed temps have and are rapidly rising. God to know you are finally learning something.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Maybe so, but geological time is not really our concern, imo, as "agricultural time". As I said before, worst case scenario would probably still have some humans around, living in small groups and eating insects if nothing else. But there would not be 7 billion humans--that takes grain. And the "transition" from 7 billion to 2 billion is probably not going to be pretty.

I think prudence is in order, I don't think we should just keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere as if the entire issue is a complete unknown.
More...

But with such a short timeline, you can't say C02 has anything to do with it. At least, not with just that graph. You're showing correlation, not causation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top