Think the past winter was bad? Get ready for mini Ice Age

jem said:
yeah its so simple even a leftist troll can produce the science showing man made co2 causes warming in our environment. Except he doesn't produce the science because it doen't exist. If it did exist... agw morons would be producing it and getting nobel prizes for it.
More...


Once again on yet another topic you are confusing your intentional ignorance with what science is saying.

You know who would win a Noble prize? A scientist that could prove CO2 is NOT a GHG.

You STILL don't know what a GHG is do you? Why can't you learn?
 
nice try troll... did reversing the other's statement work for you in nursery school? Even smart 4 year olds know that is a joke.

futurecurrents said:
Once again on yet another topic you are confusing your intentional ignorance with what science is saying.

You know who would win a Noble prize? A scientist that could prove CO2 is NOT a GHG.

You STILL don't know what a GHG is do you? Why can't you learn?
More...
 
jem said:
nice try troll... did reversing the other's statement work for you in nursery school? Even smart 4 year olds know that is a joke.
More...


So I guess by this you mean that you still don't comprehend how a GHG works. Oh well. You are simply hopeless I guess.
 
gwb-trading said:
So the chart above is the equivalent of the minute chart. Are you betting your long term future on a time frame observation that is the equivalent of two hours?
More...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Great points;
+ rebuke. And a ''trend ''of .25-.75 in 100+ years [numbers are not exact, but we will use that futureCurrent chart as an example].That is really not much of a trend;
.75 [75 cents,LOL] in more than 100 years, that not really a trend or a stock trend, thats noise.LOL:D

Also, with all due respect Mr future currents;
trends are not really about predictions, thats a serious error.:cool:Cool.....Wisdom is profitable to direct.
 
murray t turtle said:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Great points;
+ rebuke. And a ''trend ''of .25-.75 in 100+ years [numbers are not exact, but we will use that futureCurrent chart as an example].That is really not much of a trend;
.75 [75 cents,LOL] in more than 100 years, that not really a trend or a stock trend, thats noise.LOL:D

Also, with all due respect Mr future currents;
trends are not really about predictions, thats a serious error.:cool:Cool.....Wisdom is profitable to direct.
More...

Murray, the world climate (temperature) models are basically predicting a trend. There are few variables that are predictable other than CO2 emissions, and they follow a steady low volatility curve. Even the predictable 11 year solar cycles have next to no influence on the modeled temp trends. There is just not enough known about such things as ocean action to even input into the model.

I'm talking just average world temperature.

As shown here. As you can see these are basically just trends.

ScenarioTempGraph-large.jpg


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html
 
futurecurrents said:
So I guess by this you mean that you still don't comprehend how a GHG works. Oh well. You are simply hopeless I guess.
More...

You're the one who doesn't understand it.

• Research published in peer-reviewed science
journals indicates the model-derived temperature
sensitivity of Earth accepted by the IPCC is too
large. Negative feedbacks in the climate system
reduce that sensitivity to values an order of
magnitude smaller.
• Establishing the historic phase relationship
between atmospheric carbon dioxide and
temperature is a necessary step toward
understanding the physical relationship between
CO2 forcing and climate change. When such
analyses are conducted, changes in CO2 are
frequently seen to lag changes in temperature by
several hundred years.
• Many studies reveal a large uncoupling of
temperature and CO2 throughout portions of the
historical record. Such findings contradict the
IPCC’s theory that changes in atmospheric CO2
drive changes in temperature.
• Atmospheric methane observations over the past
two decades reside far below the values projected
by the IPCC in each of the four Assessment
Reports it has released to date. The IPCC’s
temperature projections, which incorporate this
inflated influence, should be revised downward to
account for this discrepancy.
• Because agriculture accounts for almost half of
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in some countries,
there is concern that enhanced plant growth due to
CO2 enrichment might increase the amount and
warming effect of this greenhouse gas. But field
research shows N2O emissions will likely fall as
CO2 concentrations and temperatures rise,
indicating this is actually another negative climate
feedback.
• The IPCC has concluded “the net radiative
feedback due to all cloud types is likely positive”
(p. 9 of the Summary for Policy Makers, Second
Order Draft of AR5, dated October 5, 2012).
Contrary to that assessment, several studies
indicate the net global effect of cloud feedbacks is
a cooling, the magnitude of which may equal or
exceed the warming projected from increasing
greenhouse gases.
• The IPCC likely underestimates the total cooling
effect of aerosols. Studies have found their
radiative effect is comparable to or larger than the
temperature forcing caused by all the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations recorded since
preindustrial times.
• Higher temperatures are known to increase
emissions of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the
world’s oceans, which increases the albedo of
marine stratus clouds, which has a cooling effect.
The IPCC characterizes this chain of events as “a
rather weak aerosol-climate feedback at the global
scale” (p. 21 of the Technical Summary, Second
Order Draft of AR5, dated October 5, 2012), but
many studies suggest otherwise.
• Several other important negative forcings and
feedbacks exist in nature, about which little is
known or acknowledged by the IPCC. Such
forcings and feedbacks have been shown by
multiple scientific studies to significantly
influence Earth’s climate to a degree comparable
to that of projected anthropogenic-induced global
warming.
• The IPCC claims a positive feedback exists
between climate and the carbon cycle on century
to millennial time scales such that a warming
climate will result in a loss of carbon storage.
There is no empirical evidence to support such an
assertion. Just the opposite appears to be the case,
as global carbon uptake doubled over the past halfcentury.
www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-2-Forcings-and-Feedbacks.pdf
 
Trader666 said:
You're the one who doesn't understand it.

• Research published in peer-reviewed science
journals indicates the model-derived temperature
sensitivity of Earth accepted by the IPCC is too
large. Negative feedbacks in the climate system
reduce that sensitivity to values an order of
magnitude smaller.
• Establishing the historic phase relationship
between atmospheric carbon dioxide and
temperature is a necessary step toward
understanding the physical relationship between
CO2 forcing and climate change. When such
analyses are conducted, changes in CO2 are
frequently seen to lag changes in temperature by
several hundred years.
• Many studies reveal a large uncoupling of
temperature and CO2 throughout portions of the
historical record. Such findings contradict the
IPCC’s theory that changes in atmospheric CO2
drive changes in temperature.
• Atmospheric methane observations over the past
two decades reside far below the values projected
by the IPCC in each of the four Assessment
Reports it has released to date. The IPCC’s
temperature projections, which incorporate this
inflated influence, should be revised downward to
account for this discrepancy.
• Because agriculture accounts for almost half of
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in some countries,
there is concern that enhanced plant growth due to
CO2 enrichment might increase the amount and
warming effect of this greenhouse gas. But field
research shows N2O emissions will likely fall as
CO2 concentrations and temperatures rise,
indicating this is actually another negative climate
feedback.
• The IPCC has concluded “the net radiative
feedback due to all cloud types is likely positive”
(p. 9 of the Summary for Policy Makers, Second
Order Draft of AR5, dated October 5, 2012).
Contrary to that assessment, several studies
indicate the net global effect of cloud feedbacks is
a cooling, the magnitude of which may equal or
exceed the warming projected from increasing
greenhouse gases.
• The IPCC likely underestimates the total cooling
effect of aerosols. Studies have found their
radiative effect is comparable to or larger than the
temperature forcing caused by all the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations recorded since
preindustrial times.
• Higher temperatures are known to increase
emissions of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the
world’s oceans, which increases the albedo of
marine stratus clouds, which has a cooling effect.
The IPCC characterizes this chain of events as “a
rather weak aerosol-climate feedback at the global
scale” (p. 21 of the Technical Summary, Second
Order Draft of AR5, dated October 5, 2012), but
many studies suggest otherwise.
• Several other important negative forcings and
feedbacks exist in nature, about which little is
known or acknowledged by the IPCC. Such
forcings and feedbacks have been shown by
multiple scientific studies to significantly
influence Earth’s climate to a degree comparable
to that of projected anthropogenic-induced global
warming.
• The IPCC claims a positive feedback exists
between climate and the carbon cycle on century
to millennial time scales such that a warming
climate will result in a loss of carbon storage.
There is no empirical evidence to support such an
assertion. Just the opposite appears to be the case,
as global carbon uptake doubled over the past halfcentury.
www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-2-Forcings-and-Feedbacks.pdf
More...
\


All that stuff above is wrong or irrelevant...... and CO2 is still a GHG and we have raised it's levels by 40% so temps are going up and will continue to do so as CO2 levels continue to increase as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. There is an overwhelming consensus about this in the world's science community.


And there certainly is a positive feedback effect and temps and CO2 are very highly coupled and feedback on each other.

and the NIPCC is nothing more than propaganda from the Heartland Institute. Maybe you think that it is equal to the IPCC.......but it's not. Not even close. You should be embarrassed by presenting this piece of crap as if it's real science.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top