yes thank you... that is the exact concern. does adding man man co2... do anything? warm? or cool? although you left out the shielding effect.
so this link is a bullshit link fraudcurrents that I gave you before? you do not even read the science. you just lie your ass off. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v343/n6260/abs/343709a0.html Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature CYNTHIA KUO, CRAIG LINDBERG & DAVID J. THOMSON Mathematical Sciences Research Center, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974, USA The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months. ------------------[/QUOTE]
look at the publications in this list and see what liar fraundcurrents is. they come from nature geophysical research letters science etc.
[/QUOTE] Hey asshole, we know CO2 lags temperature. We also know that it leads. Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you? LOL This is really starting to get funny. Like watching one of those crazy street people yelling at no one in particular. But yes nature.com is a good source as you say. The following is from there. Maybe now you will give up your lie that it is the sun. Yeah right. But no matter how one looks at the issue, existing data were long supposed sufficient to disprove the only seemingly reasonable idea that global warming might be the natural result of increased solar activity. Lockwood and Froehlichâs study does however go a step further. The two find that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures. End of debate? Unfortunately no, I would guess. The inaptly so-named âclimate scepticsâ who are keen to let mankind off the global warming hook, will not easily abandon this battle-tried warhorse. A natural sun-climate link, albeit invisible and unverifiable, is just the most persuasive among the set of quasi-plausible arguments with which upright eco-optimists attempt to dismiss as a (left-wing? anti-liberal?) conspiracy theory mankindâs responsibility for global warming. The âGreat Global Warming Swindleâ documentary, to be aired tomorrow in Australia, is just the most-recent example of such attempts to argue that climate change is the effect of the sun. To further confuse things and the public, solar changes do seem to have had an impact on past climates. Moreover, it is at least not impossible that cosmic ray intensity does influences clouds and climate. Thereâs nothing wrong with investigating these things â thatâs how science goes. But blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore â it is deliberate disinformation.] http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/sun_not_a_cause_of_global_warm.html
Jerm, since you won't read from real science sites here is more from NOAA Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
There is hardly any point to waste times with old dumb farts like jem, this is the guy who right into election night was predicting a Romney win and downplaying every bit of scientific polls that said otherwise. And the funny bit is that after the humiliation he received, he started pretending that he meant something else from his incorrect analysis. You can't win with such aggressive intentional disingenuous stupidity. Hopefully evolution will catch up and such morons will simply stop getting born.
actually6-9 months before I pointed out the polls were very slanted with sample leaning 11 to 20 points to the dems. I predicted they would un slant by election time and they did. The finally tally was dem by a few points not plus 11 or more. at one point many of the polls had Romney in the lead... then crowly, the storm and the fat guy hug and a few other things swung it back. I may be older than you but with 4 kids under 15... I do care about the future for their sake. whats your excuse for supporting the scum in wash d.c. destroying out kids futures.
here is the chart and peer reviewed paper.. in fact every paper on the subject ackowledges change in air temps also leads change in co2. (yet somehow the pyschotic troll calls me a liar. he does not even read his own agw nutter team's papers ) By the way it makes sense that change in ocean temps leads change in co2. as oceans warm they release co2. as air warms it can hold more water vapor and co2. "The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes." See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
Math Professor predicts 50 years of cooling possible. http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2010/01/uw-milwaukee-professor-predicts-50-years-of-global-cooling/ [Milwaukee, Wisc...] A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor is making headlines for his work suggesting the world is entering a period of global cooling. "Now we're getting a break," Anastasios Tsonis, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at UWM, said in an interview with the MacIver Institute. Tsonis published a paper last March that found the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years. He says we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years. With record breaking cold temperatures around the world this winter, his research is starting to get a lot of attention. Over the past couple of weeks, Tsonis has been featured in the British newspapers The Guardian and the Daily Mail. Current figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirm that temperatures have trended downward over the last ten years. In Wisconsin, temperatures dropped 1.68 degrees Fahrenheit from 2000 to 2009, according to NOAA. "Around 2001 the climate began shifting. It's cooling now. That doesn't mean that the warming was a fluke," said Tsonis. He believes man could have played a role in the warming the world recently experienced. However, Tsonis says natural forces, particularly ocean currents, are playing a greater role in the world's climate than man. Tsonis says it's dangerous to place all the blame for climate change on one or the other.