Only 6% of scientists vote Republican
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Fraudcurrents... as an air conditioning installer you should love this chart as it shows the massive extra co2 you and al gore create is apparently not increasing the cummulative co2 totals.
The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.
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 Henry’s 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.8zHVVfJs.dpuf
[/quote]
The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.
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 Henry’s 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.8zHVVfJs.dpuf
[/quote]Fraudcurrents... as an air conditioning installer you should love this chart as it shows the massive extra co2 you and al gore create is apparently not increasing the cummulative co2 totals.
The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.
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 Henry’s 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.8zHVVfJs.dpuf
"As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve."
The relationship looks fairly strong to me, based on that chart. Steady upward trend in fossil carbon emissions, and a "sawtooth" (because of seasonality) upward trend in the moving average carbon increase.
The article is really interesting... but here is the deal... the currents are causing the warming and the cooling...
in short the currents like el ninos and la ninas are causing the warming and the cooling we have been seeing since 1945.
not man made co2.
Note on the map, figure 5, that the warm tropical seas emit CO2, and the cool northern seas absorb CO2. The AMO index is a temperature index for the North Atlantic. It is derived by subtracting the global SST from 60°N to 60°S from the total SST, or alternatively, the Atlantic temperate and tropical SST from the whole north Atlantic. This means that as the tropical ocean warms more than the average global ocean, this drives the AMO index negative. This shifts the CO2 solubility (figure 2) downward and to the right. That peak in the 1970’s occurs because the tropical oceans were warmer than the average during that period, emitting more CO2. Since that time, the difference has gone the other way, the biosphere is taking up increasing amounts of CO2, lowering the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere. You can also see a one year lag between AMO and the carbon flux. This is because the AMO lags the tropical Pacific by about a year.
The point of all this is that temperature is driving CO2, not the other way around.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...not-vice-versa/#sthash.8zHVVfJs.ktf3W16m.dpuf
in short the currents like el ninos and la ninas are causing the warming and the cooling we have been seeing since 1945.
not man made co2.
Note on the map, figure 5, that the warm tropical seas emit CO2, and the cool northern seas absorb CO2. The AMO index is a temperature index for the North Atlantic. It is derived by subtracting the global SST from 60°N to 60°S from the total SST, or alternatively, the Atlantic temperate and tropical SST from the whole north Atlantic. This means that as the tropical ocean warms more than the average global ocean, this drives the AMO index negative. This shifts the CO2 solubility (figure 2) downward and to the right. That peak in the 1970’s occurs because the tropical oceans were warmer than the average during that period, emitting more CO2. Since that time, the difference has gone the other way, the biosphere is taking up increasing amounts of CO2, lowering the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere. You can also see a one year lag between AMO and the carbon flux. This is because the AMO lags the tropical Pacific by about a year.
The point of all this is that temperature is driving CO2, not the other way around.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...not-vice-versa/#sthash.8zHVVfJs.ktf3W16m.dpuf
No jerm, you ignorant slut. It's the 40% increase in the earth's most important greenhouse gas that is causing the temps to rise.
Do you consider your lies to be white?
Do you consider your lies to be white?
While I'm not Jem, I do admire his enthusiasm for the science and his ability to understand much of it. He obviously is paying attention and making a good effort to understand it. You, on the other hand, keep spouting off the same ridiculous nonsense. One hundred twenty molecules per million air molecules is a 40% (approximately) increase in CO2 relative to the tiny amount of CO2 in the air in 1890 or so. But so what? Does that 40% increase represent enough increase in the number of CO2 chromophores present to have any measurable change in CO2's greenhouse effect? Apparently not, assuming one pays attention to all the data, especially the copious amounts of data we have available now that we have these remote sensing satellites. You're constantly harping on some early data that was consistent with Hansen's hypothesis and ignoring the much more recent data that is inconsistent with it.
Richter at least keeps an open mind and asks reasonable questions and says he doesn't see how the Figure Jem posted demonstrates a disconnect between mans emissions and the actual variation in CO2 being detected. At least Richter is specific about what he doesn't understand or accept. You're just like a skipping record -- the same thing playing over and over without paying any attention to what is really going on. You call highly trained experts idiots when you don't agree with them, but you never bother to mention why you don't agree with them.
For example, why don't you specifically address why, if man produced CO2 is the cause for ocean heating, CO2 is much better correlated with ocean temperature than it is with man produced CO2. Why, if you want us to believe that man released CO2 is the real cause for temperature increases, don't you offer a good explanation for changes in temperature leading changes in CO2 that would be consistent with the Hansen hypothesis. I haven't seen any explanations from you, just a parroting of the same old non-germane nonsense.
It is the change in the number of CO2 chromophores present relative to the number of other greenhouse gas chromophores that's important as far as CO2's role as a greenhouse gas is concerned. So why is CO2 going up relative to itself by 40% germane? The more recent data seems to be indicating that CO2's greenhouse effect hasn't changed much at all, and may not be important with regard to temperature changes observed over the past century. Carbon dioxide is looking less and less important with regard to temperature increases as we learn more about the sources of ocean heating. And furthermore, how do you justify using models to show CO2 as the cause of heating when those models all start with the unproven assumption that CO2 is the cause of heating!
Just calling all these legitimate investigators idiots and fraudsters is not convincing. Why don't you come up with a reasonable explanation to explain why these experts are wrong, and you are right, if you want us to take you seriously? Simply pointing out that their viewpoint is a minority viewpoint is not an explanation. No Hypothesis, that has as much data and as many experts aligned against it as we have with the Hansen Hypothesis, can be considered proven until all those aligned against it have been convincingly shown to be wrong.
Last edited:
Again with the irrelevant molecules diversion bit. Too funny. Do you make yourself laugh as you make this shit up? Chromophores? Stop embarrassing yourself with these obvious attempts to impress which instead make you look foolish. Chromophores have NOTHING to do with CO2. Now I know you are totally full of shit.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's the most important one we have. It's level determines the temperature of the earth. This is basic climate science 101 which you apparently skipped or did not understand. We have raised the levels by 40% and that has caused warming and is causing warming. The greenhouse effect, what you call the Hansen hypothesis to diminish it, is alive and well and still true. Why you are having so much trouble with these basic facts is a real mystery.
Once again you wrote a lot and said nothing. You are really good at that. Really good at bullshitting.
And Salby is certainly not legitimate. He is a proven fraud. That you defend a proven fraud and fool says volumes about you. You are just like him.
Chromophores! And now we know more about the sources of the ocean heating? Is it your hot air? LOL
You are so full of shit that it's not even funny.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's the most important one we have. It's level determines the temperature of the earth. This is basic climate science 101 which you apparently skipped or did not understand. We have raised the levels by 40% and that has caused warming and is causing warming. The greenhouse effect, what you call the Hansen hypothesis to diminish it, is alive and well and still true. Why you are having so much trouble with these basic facts is a real mystery.
Once again you wrote a lot and said nothing. You are really good at that. Really good at bullshitting.
And Salby is certainly not legitimate. He is a proven fraud. That you defend a proven fraud and fool says volumes about you. You are just like him.
Chromophores! And now we know more about the sources of the ocean heating? Is it your hot air? LOL
You are so full of shit that it's not even funny.
Last edited:
You are once again making the same unfounded arguments as before. Salby is not a proven fraud. He had a disagreement with the NSF and the jerked his funding. Why don't you take the time to learn more about what happened. The quality of his science was never questioned, it was a matter of NSF not approving some of his grant expenditures.
I did use the term chromophore incorrectly. I realized it after I posted my comment regarding the silliness of your maintaining that experts that don't agree with you are all idiots or frauds. ( I suppose you'll claim Woodcock is a fraud too, or is he merely an idiot in your eyes.)
"Chromophore" is a term originally used by dye chemists to refer to the part of a molecule responsible for its color, but it is now a general term used by photo chemists to refer to the part of a molecule responsible for an electronic transition regardless of whether the transition occurs in the visible region. But it is not an electronic transition in CO2 that is responsible for any Greenhouse effect it may have, rather it is a transition between vibrational states within the ground electronic state that's responsible. So I should not have said "chromophore". My apology for inaccurate use of that term.
The important point, which continues to be lost on you, is that it is highly unlikely that Hansen was right when he suggested an increase in CO2 might, via its Greenhouse effect, cause the Earths surface temperature to rise. The extra 120 molecules per million of air molecules is going to have only a negligible change in any green house effect. The change would be undetectable against all the more important contributors to the Earths surface temperature. That's exactly what the data shows. That is the dilemma you and the other Hansen adherents face. The fortuitous rise in temperature that occurred at the same time CO2 was rising caused a lot of people to be misled early on.
If you want to stick to what seems like an untenable position you had better stop with the nonsense and face the data head on. You've got to explain to those of us that now believe Hansen is wrong why and how the data supports his hypothesis. If you have a valid argument that isn't full of obvious holes I'll listen. You could start by rebutting the points I made in my post. So far you've just ignored them.
Last edited: