You quote comes for an simple experimental climate model. our climate is not simple... there are negative feedbacks and buffers. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earthâs greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect. "Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earthâs greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.
Yes, and it's simply getting hotter due to the simple fact that CO2 is simply the most important long term greenhouse gas and we have simply raised it's levels by 40% which even a simpleton like you should understand.
Quote from jem: a. greenhouse gases such as aerosols cause cooling. (most aerosols cause cooling) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...osols/page3.php Scientists believe the cooling from sulfates and other reflective aerosols overwhelms the warming effect of black carbon and other absorbing aerosols over the planet. Models estimate that aerosols have had a cooling effect that has counteracted about half of the warming caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases since the 1880s. However, unlike many greenhouse gases, aerosols are not distributed evenly around the planet, so their impacts are most strongly felt on a regional scale. Despite considerable advances in recent decades, estimating the direct climate impacts of aerosols remains an immature science. Of the 25 climate models considered by the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), only a handful considered the direct effects of aerosol types other than sulfates. 1. co2 causes cooling... http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...ant-growth.html A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback â a cooling effect â in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. 2. CO2 is a powerful coolant and thermostat per NASA science. http://science.nasa.gov/science-new...12/22mar_saber/ Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASAâs TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earthâs 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 planetâs surface. âCarbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,â explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABERâs principal investigator. âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â Thatâs what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earthâs magnetic field. (On the âRichter Scale of Solar Flares,â 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. âThe thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,â says Russell. âIt began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.â 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. 3. Change in co2 follow but lag change in ocean temps. 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 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/...global-warming/
jem, you keep posting the same irrelevant stuff. Why? Are you trying to baffle us with bullshit? Of course you are. Funny stuff.
Are you incapable of reading the facts and understanding them? You seem to have a real problem with this... along with your continual re-posting of the same same nonsense over and over again - like a retarded parrot.
I'm putting with the exact same thing from big<s>arrow</s>loser in another thread. What is it with these guys? Are they just trolling or are they really as stupid intellectually dishonest and delusional as they appear?
I told you... every time you make your unsubstantiated statements about co2 causing warming I will post my links to science.
I understand what jem is posting just fine, but it's irrelevant bullshit. It's like saying water is wet therefore it can't get hot. It's nonsense.
then you need education. I will make it easy as 123. the info I presented... a page ago stands for the following... 1, some aerosols (a greenhouse gas) causes cooling in our atmosphere 2, co2 a greenhouse gas causes cooling in our atmosphere 3. change in ocean temps leads co2 change and even change in air temps lead co2 change. therefore... very unlikely adding more co2 to our atmosphere now causes significant net warming. how could the dependent va