Ummmm.....whatever. The fact remains that CO2 has gone up 40% over the last two hundred years due to fossil fuel burning. But of course you're just throwing shit out there and hope it sticks to something. Check your shoes because your aim sucks and your ammo smells.
And you install heat and air units powered by electricity. 40% of which is produced by coal fired plants. IF you're really worried about it, change careers. Otherwise you and Ricter both are just full of shit hypocrites. He's in the oil service industry ya know.
hey fc... now you are turning into the asshole troll again. dont try to respond to questions directed at stu... science is far over your head. stick to your charts which show co2 trailing temperatures. 2. Regarding proxy... The ice cores are proxies for climate.
Talk about facepalm. The oft-repeated âconsensus of climate scientistsâ who believe in man-made global warming is a pure fabrication from the global warming hysteria lobby. Only 75 scientists endorsed the IPPCâs position on human-caused climate change, not the 2,500 the media usually citesâ¦just 75. from National Post: How do we know thereâs a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 â thatâs the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken â those 2500 scientists hadnât endorsed the IPCCâs conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCCâs mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCCâs conclusions, sometimes vehemently. The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout â â97% of the worldâs climate scientistsâ accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim. This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers â in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
Yeah right troll. Science is over my head. But yet I have a degree in it and you consistently show that you don't understand the science with nearly every post you make. You still don't understand the simple fact that man has increased the greenhouse gas by 40% resulting in a warming earth. It's so simple, but you don't understand it. A ten year old can but you can't. Your ignorance and confusion are astounding. The ice cores give direct measurement of CO2 levels. That's not a proxy moron.
These pathetic attempts to disprove the facts are just that, pathetic. Multiple studies by multiple authors show that it's 97%. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
1. hey moron the ice cores are proxies for climate. Only troll assholes would try act like salby does not know what CO2 is... and claim he does not know what a proxy is. Stu.. got the all argument all wrong and then he realizing he made a mistake he started bullshitting about co2 being co2. Every non troll asshole knows they have to use statistics and comparisons to tie the co2 to level to a date. The co2 does not just pop out with a date on it. they have to figure out how far it migrated based on how long it to for the snow to turn into ice. 2. You are such a moron you do not get that co2 lags temperature in all the published studies we have seen. here is another - Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Posted on August 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2 (NOOA; green), monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2; blue stippled) and monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3; red), since January 1980. Last month shown is December 2011. Reposted from the Hockey Schtick, as Iâm out of time and on the road.- Anthony An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that âCO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2â The paper finds the âoverall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,â in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. 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 11â12 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/...made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
and before you try your leftist troll crap and bash the website instead of dealing with the science... Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. 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
Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).
No lag now. Because CO2 is now the forcer not the Malankovitch cycles. This is solid evidence that CO2 lead temperatures higher. Jem, Anthony Watts is a hack and a prostitute. He used to be a TV meteorologist. Like Al Roker. Maybe you like to get your science from Al Roker, but most people with a brain do not. I prefer NASA and NOAA.