Now I know why righties are so deluded about global warming

See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008





The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

The paper:

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Ole Humluma, b,
Kjell Stordahlc,
Jan-Erik Solheimd

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...global-warming/
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Correlation does not imply causation. How are we to know that temperature isn't the leading indicator and that the last few hundred years isn't an outlier? That chart doesn't say anything specific except that the temperature has been just as high, if not higher, in the past. There is an alarmingly high spike in CO2, that's for sure. What happens as a result of that is largely unproven.
More...

It seems to me the CO2 spike would be a concern and one would come to the conclusion it's man made. To not consider the possible consequences would be foolish don't you think? If we acted assuming the global warming scientist are correct and we cut carbon fuels what did we lose? Some convenience and wealth and some growth which some would be made up for in other areas and we saved some of our natural resources. If we don't act and the scientist are correct what did we lose? You can answer this yourself.
The conservative and prudent thing to do is conserve our natural resources, IMO.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Very good. As we see from the past, the CO2 level largely controls the temperature level as NASA says. It acts as the setting on a thermostat. So what should we expect to see now?
More...

What caused those earlier spikes?

Until the AGW nutters can answer that, I remain unimpressed with their vacuous and unsupported arguments and theories. :D
 
it would be more of a concern if the spike in co2 was not trailing change in ocean temperature.

see my previous post...
and this...

the big payoff starts around 60 minutes.

as he says...

co2 tracks the integral of temps and does not track temps.



<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2ROw_cDKwc0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




Quote from bigarrow:

It seems to me the CO2 spike would be a concern and one would come to the conclusion it's man made. To not consider the possible consequences would be foolish don't you think? If we acted assuming the global warming scientist are correct and we cut carbon fuels what did we lose? Some convenience and wealth and some growth which some would be made up for in other areas and we saved some of our natural resources. If we don't act and the scientist are correct what did we lose? You can answer this yourself.
The conservative and prudent thing to do is conserve our natural resources, IMO.
More...
 
Quote from Arnie:

What caused those earlier spikes?

Until the AGW nutters can answer that, I remain unimpressed with their vacuous and unsupported arguments and theories. :D
More...


The climatologists know what caused the previous spikes.

CO2 caused the spikes, after orbital changes caused small variations in solar gain. Were it not for CO2 the spikes would be much smaller and perhaps would not be spikes at all. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 outgassed from the earth as temps rose, accentuating the warming in a feedback loop. Ice and snow cover extent variations also accentuated the changes.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

It seems to me the CO2 spike would be a concern and one would come to the conclusion it's man made. To not consider the possible consequences would be foolish don't you think? If we acted assuming the global warming scientist are correct and we cut carbon fuels what did we lose? Some convenience and wealth and some growth which some would be made up for in other areas and we saved some of our natural resources. If we don't act and the scientist are correct what did we lose? You can answer this yourself.
The conservative and prudent thing to do is conserve our natural resources, IMO.
More...

The CO2 spike is certainly a concern, and I think it's obvious that it is man made. Apart from that, there is no data that anything will happen at all. We could waste huge amounts of resources combatting something that has no effect on the greater ecosystem. Or we could act in the wrong direction. Sometimes acting with bad info is worse than not doing anything.

The only argument I have on the topic is the "This is proven science" horseshit. To say science has proven that CO2 is causing temperatures around the world to rise is simply not the case, no matter how many of the same charts and propaganda are recycled over and over again.

I maintain: The earth is 4.25 billion years old. To say you can plot cause and effect within a few hundred year activity is absurd.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

The climatologists know what caused the previous spikes.

CO2 caused the spikes, after orbital changes caused small variations in solar gain. Were it not for CO2 the spikes would be much smaller and perhaps would not be spikes at all. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 outgassed from the earth as temps rose, accentuating the warming in a feedback loop. Ice and snow cover extent variations also accentuated the changes.
More...

If this is the case, and CO2 is the leading indicator, why is temperature leading the decline after every peak?
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

...I maintain: The earth is 4.25 billion years old. To say you can plot cause and effect within a few hundred year activity is absurd.
More...

Is this what's known as an inconvenient truth?
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

If this is the case, and CO2 is the leading indicator, why is temperature leading the decline after every peak?
More...

It is not an either/or situation. Sometimes temps lead CO2 higher and other times CO2 helps the temps to rise further. They are interdependent.

But basically it is orbital variations that cause these feedback processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top