Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

Just shut the fuck up you evil crazed lying sack of shit.

 

leftist trolls like fc can't handle it when they get hit with the truth. They just go nuts.
I wonder what happens to them that causes them to be so resistant to the idea that science just does not know... and that real science does not serve a leftist / fascist agenda.

 

What's comical is that you're the troll. You wouldn't be posting anything if the evidence against your argument wasn't overwhelming. You're the definition of deranged. I know plenty of GOPs who admit to MMCC. To them, it's not a partisan-issue.

 

wow.. we have a new person pop up without any science.
I challenge you to produce science showing man made co2 causes warming.
Not... a failed model.

I will tell you why you will have trouble. The data shows co2 follows change in ocean temps....

this is from a peer reviewed paper below.

----

"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 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

 

here is science showing co2 also cools and NASA says it acts as a thermostat.

So convexx being that co2 cools i the uppper atmosphere and warms in the lower... can you tell me the net effect of adding more?

how... using what science?


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Science you say? Engrish plz.

 

this was too advanced for fraudcurrents but why don't you take a look at it convexx.
now how can you be sure man made co2 is doing anything?




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.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf[/QUOTE]

 

we can see convexx is a troll who engages on a typo instead of the science.

brainpower plz.

 

record cool in death valley... by 15 degrees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lley-was-cooler-than-missoula-mont-on-sunday/

 

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-argues-current-lull-in-solar.html

New paper argues current lull in solar activity is consistent with a Gleissberg Cycle minimum
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics finds that recent low solar activity "mirrors" extended solar minimums in the 19th & early 20th centuries, as well as other periods over the past 1000 years consistent with the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle of solar activity. Such periods have also been associated with global cooling.

According to the authors
"The recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910. Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. This paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC's is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores."
If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is "consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles," and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.

Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.