You've been listening to Glen Beck again haven't you? 1, aerosols are not greenhouse gasses, aerosols are particulate in nature, GHGs are not, and we know aerosols can result in cooling the atmosphere. That's why SO2, an aerosol, is being looked at as a geoengineering solution to GW. So what. 2, No, CO2, on balance, and that's what matters, warms the atmosphere, that's why it's called a greenhouse gas, you idiot. 3, Yes CO2 outgasses as temperatures rise. The climatologists know that very well. Again, so what? You are, once again, flailing around with bullshit hoping to baffle and confuse your fellow dumb righties. It may work on them, but us liberals are smarter than that.
no, I do not get glen beck.. you have been listening to him. somehow I had a brain blackout and conflated other ghgs with aerosols. you are correct that was a mistake. I took a few weeks off and my brain is just coming back to speed. however... the rest of your stuff is loony. if you realize co2 lags water and air temps... and you know co2 causes cooling and warming... how do you know what it does "on balance" in our atmosphere. you have no science just failed models.
Global Warming 'Pause' Isn't What Climate Change Skeptics Say It Is http://www.weather.com/news/science...bal-warming-climate-change-heres-why-20140109
correct... temps are independent of co2 buildup. co2 follows change in ocean temps... <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2ROw_cDKwc0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But CO2 is a greenhouse gas so as levels rise so do temps. This is elementary climate science which you still don't understand for some reason.
Salby is a fool.. Salby's carbon cycle confusion Professor Salby refers to a number of graphs in his talk, but I have been unable to track down copies of these, therefore we'll have to rely on what I'm able to glean from the podcast, and given it's length, I'll only address some of the more obvious mistakes. At the beginning of the talk Salby states: "current CO2 values are 380pmmv"(parts per million by volume) Not an encouraging start that he cites the atmospheric CO2 concentration as it was in 2005, rather than the 393 parts per million by volume (ppmv) it currently is in 2011. Not a fatal flaw of course, but not encouraging either. "Net annual emission has an average increase of about 1.5ppmv per year. We're on the right planet. That's the annual average increase you just saw. But it varies between years, dramatically by over 100%. From nearly zero in some years to 3ppmv in others. Net global emission of CO2 changes independently of of the human contribution" At this point the accentuation and drama in Salby's voice make it sound as though he has stumbled onto something momentous, something no one else has noticed before. On the face of it, it seems preposterous that the army of scientists that have worked on carbon cycling over the years could have missed something so glaringly obvious. No, of course they haven't. As discussed in the first paragraph of this post (and evident in Figure 1), the natural flux of CO2 in and out of natural systems varies from year-to-year. This flux is 20-30 times larger than the annual contribution by humans, but this balances out in the long-term. This variability is driven largely by El Nino and La Nina in the tropical Pacific, which shifts rainfall patterns over much of the world and is associated with warming and cooling of equatorial waters in the Pacific. The change in seawater temperature, and episodic upwelling of carbon-rich deep water, significantly affects the uptake and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, and of course rainfall variation greatly affects plant growth. The upshot is that land vegetation takes up more CO2 during La Nina, and expels more CO2 during El Nino. In the ocean, the opposite trend occurs - El Nino leads to more CO2 absorption, and La Nina is when the oceans give up more CO2 (Figure 2). Figure 2 - (a) time trend in the exchange of CO2 by land-based vegetation (& soil microbes) with the atmosphere. (b) same - but for exchange of CO2 by ocean with atmosphere. Red indicates El Nino and blue La Nina phase. See Keeling (1995). There is simply no reason why the annual fluctuation should match the human contribution. At least Salby doesn't explain why he expects this to be the case. Having now convinced himself that short-term net CO2 has nothing to do with the human contribution, Salby therefore deduces long-term net CO2 must also be unrelated to human emissions. He goes on to derive a formula for CO2 rise associated with temperature. Salby claims a good match back to 1960 but therefafter it deviates from actual CO2 measurements by 10ppmv. By 1880, prior to atmospheric CO2 sampling, he estimates atmospheric CO2 at 275ppmv with a whopping uncertainty of 220 to 330ppmv! In order to explain the deviation between the surface temperature record and his calculated atmospheric CO2 level, Salby blames the surface temperature record as being unreliable. As for his calculated trend disagreeing with the ice core record for the year 1880 (i.e the CO2 in air, from that period, trapped in ice cores) he 'disses' the ice core record claiming it to be only a 'proxy'. Which is news, I'm sure, to respected ice core experts like Dr Richard Alley. You will note that every time the data disagrees with Salby's 'model', he trusts his 'model' over the data. Which contravenes the 'skeptic lore' that models are worthless and must be bashed, and only data should be trusted. Q&A time - try not to shoot yourself in the foot! The question & answer session at the end of Salby's talk throws up a few more comments that just reinforce that he has strayed into a field of science which he just simply doesn't understand. Witness: "I think it's a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It's not atmospheric CO2, and I don't believe it's CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down" This is nonsense. Perhaps Professor Salby should have acquainted himself with glaciology research before making such comments, because CO2 from ancient air trapped in the ice cores is precisely what is measured, albeit with some uncertainty in dating some sections. "CO2 after the turn of the (21st) century continued to increase, in fact if anything slightly faster, but global temperature didn't. If anything it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century. Now I'm confident the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will come up with an explanation, in fact they've come up with several" It's here we need to back the truck up a bit. Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air directly dependent upon temperature - increase temperature and you increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without an accompanying increase in temperature. Which contradicts his 'model'. By this time Salby is too focused on 'dissing' the IPCC to notice his own incoherency, and none of the audience picks up on this either. Note that SkS recently discussed the 'noughties slow-down' in global temperature here and here. If the curve fits Seasoned readers will notice similarities between this Salby claim and a Lon Hocker rebuttal here at SkS last year. But the whole premise seems to follow along the lines of other recent flawed works tendered by Roy Spencer and Craig Loehle & Nicola Scafetta. That is: find some tenuous statistical relationship between two sets of data, and use these to assert the mainstream scientific establishment is wrong. The fact that there is no physical basis for the statistical relationship, or it doesn't fit within the well-established scientific framework, or is contrary to numerous other sets of data, never seems to warrant attention by "skeptic" scientists. It should, because of the implications one can draw. So what does this work by Salby imply, if it were true? From what I can gather from Salby's podcast, a 0.8°C change in average surface temperature is supposed to lead to about 120ppmv change in CO2. Therefore we can work backward in time to estimate what he reckons atmospheric CO2 would be at the time of the last Ice Age (glacial maximum), a time when global temperatures were about 4-6°C cooler than now . Today atmospheric CO2 is about 393ppm, so with 4°C cooling you already have a negative value for CO2 when we re-trace our steps back to the last ice age. Therefore all plant-based life on Earth must have died (and all the animals that depended on them) according to Professor Salby. And the Earth froze solid too.
1. the person writing your critique did not understand Salbys most basic point. CO2 tracks the change in OCEAN TEMPS. You have been telling us ocean temps are still rising... correct fc? your idiot reviewer got that most basic point wrong... see this quote... "It's here we need to back the truck up a bit. Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air directly dependent upon temperature - increase temperature and you increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without an accompanying increase in temperature. Which contradicts his 'model'. By this time Salby is too focused on 'dissing' the IPCC to notice his own incoherency, and none of the audience picks up on this either." 2. where do you find guys willing to write such bullshit. we already went over this... the ice core record is a proxy. http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html Whilst ice cores allow direct measurement of atmospheric gases, like CO2 and Methane, some care is needed in interpreting the results. This is because of the fact that, while the snow is being compressed into ice, gas transfer may occur between the atmosphere and the layers of ice. Indeed, dating information is sometimes given for the âice ageâ and âgas ageâ. Because the gases in the atmosphere are mixed and decay over time this adds another element of uncertainty. In effect, the data represent the average over a period of time, which can be several decades; a corollary of this is that data calculated from ice cores, for temperature of CO2 for example, will have less variation than the measured record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years per meter at 100 m depth, 600yr/m at 200 m, 7000yr/m at 400 m, 5000yr/m at 800 m, 6000yr/m at 1600 m, and 5000yr/m at 1934 m.[24] Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.[25]
You misunderstand and are in error, as usual. Salby is an idiot and is wrong. So of course you and the denier morons listen to him.
you are the nutter idiot salbys charts and data were there for you to see and are supported by the recent study I have posted for you many times. here it is again... 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/