Global Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout March In Unprecedented Milestone

[deltex1]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have. But the speed of the increase is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Do you think if you say that often enough it will be true?

It is true!

No real scientific proof has have been presented to prove it!

There's not really any such thing as "scientific proof".

Even the father of the AGW movement can not prove it with datasets and source code..

The father of the "AGW movement" died in 1927.

 

[BlindBoo]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Please cite the study, any study, that claims CO2 controls the climate.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have. But the speed of the increase is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

We are over 100% of the imbalance, however.

 

[deltex1]

100% of a fart in a windstorm.....

 

[Treeshepherd]

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly.

By citing "unprecedented spikes in temperature", are you referring to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph? I wouldn't depend upon that. Richard Muller (prof. of physics at UC Berkley, senior scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs, founder of climate research group Berkley Earth) wrote a very readable and accessible critique of the hockey stick problem.
Global Warming Bombshell MIT Technology Review

He wrote a revision a decade later. I recommend both to anyone who is certain that warming since the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented. Of course, for his astute observations and criticisms, Muller has been labelled a denier. That the current warming trend is unprecedented is far from factual. It's very much a hypothesis.

Rather, past interglacial periods (with lower CO2 levels) had warmer temperatures at this stage during the process (roughly 18,000 years of warming) than we have. The last interglacial period saw sea levels 20 feet higher than we see today at roughly the same place on the timeline.

But, here's another monkey wrench in the theory; We can't be sure that long term measurements are even accurate. An interesting discovery of the late 20th century was that tree rings suddenly ceased to respond to warming during the last half of the century, for unknown reasons. The ice core record from Vostok could be subject to statistical smearing. The science of paleoclimatology could be rife with erroneous-ness.

On a more recent scale, how many climate buoys did we have in the southern Indian Ocean in the 19th century? How many atmospheric stations were in Africa? In the 19th century, scientists went out on whatever clipper ships they could catch a ride on and they scooped up water with canvas bags to be taken below deck to be measured with mercury thermometers. Are the modelling adjustments accurate to account for the urban heat island effect (no atmospheric/climate station has had long term consistent surroundings as we've paved over 1.5 million sq miles since the Industrial Revolution. Even if you trust the hockey stick graph, it shows a drastic upswing when my great grandfather as a child was chasing the very first car to drive through San Francisco. There were only 1 billion people on the planet back then. By comparison, humans emit 10 times more carbon today and there is no commensurate further upswing.

It's all a gigantic question mark.

 

[Skylar]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have. But the speed of the increase is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

The natural quantities of emissions are balanced with similar levels of long term locking of CO2 into the long term carbon cycle.

Our additional emissions have no such balance. Which is why we're at the highest CO2 levels in the last 3,000,000 years. And continuing to rise rapidly.

 

[Kosh]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Please cite the study, any study, that claims CO2 controls the climate.

That is what I have been asking the AGW cult to post and provide for over 20 years including the Hack scientist known as James Hansen.

 

[Kosh]

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Do you think if you say that often enough it will be true?

It is true!

No real scientific proof has have been presented to prove it!

There's not really any such thing as "scientific proof".

Even the father of the AGW movement can not prove it with datasets and source code..

The father of the "AGW movement" died in 1927.

James Hansen is still alive and you have not provided a link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

 

[Kosh]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have. But the speed of the increase is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

The natural quantities of emissions are balanced with similar levels of long term locking of CO2 into the long term carbon cycle.

Our additional emissions have no such balance. Which is why we're at the highest CO2 levels in the last 3,000,000 years. And continuing to rise rapidly.

Wrong as always!

CO2 does NOT control climate!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Here comes the glowarm boogey man again.

 

[BlindBoo]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Please cite the study, any study, that claims CO2 controls the climate.

That is what I have been asking the AGW cult to post and provide for over 20 years including the Hack scientist known as James Hansen.

So you have no proof that any scientist has ever claimed that CO2 controls the climate or, are you saying Hansen said it?

 

[Kosh]

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Please cite the study, any study, that claims CO2 controls the climate.

That is what I have been asking the AGW cult to post and provide for over 20 years including the Hack scientist known as James Hansen.

So you have no proof that any scientist has ever claimed that CO2 controls the climate or, are you saying Hansen said it?

Do you not read this thread?

 

[Skylar]

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly.

By citing "unprecedented spikes in temperature", are you referring to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph? I wouldn't depend upon that. Richard Muller (prof. of physics at UC Berkley, senior scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs, founder of climate research group Berkley Earth) wrote a very readable and accessible critique of the hockey stick problem.

Nope. Not the hockey stick problem, which measures from 1400 to present. But the ice core record, which measures 800,000 to present.

We've seen higher temperatures in the last 800,000. But never an increase this fast in that time period. And the CO2 level this high haven't been seen in 3,000,000 years. With the speed of the spike in CO2 also unprecedented.

He wrote a revision a decade later. I recommend both to anyone who is certain that warming since the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented. Of course, for his astute observations and criticisms, Muller has been labelled a denier. That the current warming trend is unprecedented is far from factual. It's very much a hypothesis.

Even by Muller's standards, this type of temperature spike is still comparatively rare. The likelyhood that it would occur as nearly an exact mirror of CO2 increases that are unprecedented in the last 3,000,000 years is ridiculously unlikely.

Still lottery odds. Though state lottery rather than Powerball. The grand coincidence theory is technically *possible*, but ludicriously unlikely. And has no demonstrable mechanism. While an increase caused by increases in CO2 levels is a far more likely explanation for the CO2 increases and temperature increases occurring at the same time. And has a demonstrable mechanism.

Making the CO2 explanation orders of magnitude more likely and a vastly superior scientific explanation. An explanation that is reinforced by the our real time measurements of higher infrared emissions coming from higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. With emission increases matching CO2 levels.

Yet again.

That temperature increases AND infrared emissions increases AND CO2 levels increases would all 'just coincidentally' happen at the exact same time we pump CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels is so ridiculously unlikely as to defy credulity.

The grand coincidence theory is just an awful explanation.

But, here's another monkey wrench in the theory; We can't be sure that long term measurements are even accurate. An interesting discovery of the late 20th century was that tree rings suddenly ceased to respond to warming during the last half of the century, for unknown reasons. The ice core record from Vostok could be subject to statistical smearing. The science of paleoclimatology could be rife with erroneous-ness.

The errors you speak of only speak to when, with a given measurement possibly occuring slightly before or slightly after when we think it happened. It doesn't effect the accuracy of measurement of how much. The Vostok ice cores don't show a 400 ppm level.....anywhere. There's no model of statistical smearing that would produce such levels as the outcome of errors.

And while there isn't statistical 'certainty' in the Vostok data, most statistical analysis of the data concludes a high likelihood of accuracy. So your portrayal that we just don't have any idea and these are open questions is inaccurate. We have a very good idea with a high likelihood of accuracy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have records for the last 800,000. And the speed of the increase in temperature is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

There's that word again.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly.

By citing "unprecedented spikes in temperature", are you referring to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph? I wouldn't depend upon that. Richard Muller (prof. of physics at UC Berkley, senior scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs, founder of climate research group Berkley Earth) wrote a very readable and accessible critique of the hockey stick problem.

Nope. Not the hockey stick problem, which measures from 1400 to present. But the ice core record, which measures 800,000 to present.

We've seen higher temperatures in the last 800,000. But never an increase this fast in that time period. And the CO2 level this high haven't been seen in 3,000,000 years. With the speed of the spike in CO2 also unprecedented.

He wrote a revision a decade later. I recommend both to anyone who is certain that warming since the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented. Of course, for his astute observations and criticisms, Muller has been labelled a denier. That the current warming trend is unprecedented is far from factual. It's very much a hypothesis.

Even by Muller's standards, this type of temperature spike is still comparatively rare. The likelyhood that it would occur as nearly an exact mirror of CO2 increases that are unprecedented in the last 3,000,000 years is ridiculously unlikely.

Still lottery odds. Though state lottery rather than Powerball. The grand coincidence theory is technically *possible*, but ludicriously unlikely. And has no demonstrable mechanism. While an increase caused by increases in CO2 levels is a far more likely explanation for the CO2 increases and temperature increases occurring at the same time. And has a demonstrable mechanism.

Making the CO2 explanation orders of magnitude more likely and a vastly superior scientific explanation. An explanation that is reinforced by the our real time measurements of higher infrared emissions coming from higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. With emission increases matching CO2 levels.

Yet again.

That temperature increases AND infrared emissions increases AND CO2 levels increases would all 'just coincidentally' happen at the exact same time we pump CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels is so ridiculously unlikely as to defy credulity.

The grand coincidence theory is just an awful explanation.

But, here's another monkey wrench in the theory; We can't be sure that long term measurements are even accurate. An interesting discovery of the late 20th century was that tree rings suddenly ceased to respond to warming during the last half of the century, for unknown reasons. The ice core record from Vostok could be subject to statistical smearing. The science of paleoclimatology could be rife with erroneous-ness.

The errors you speak of only speak to when, with a given measurement possibly occuring slightly before or slightly after when we think it happened. It doesn't effect the accuracy of measurement of how much. The Vostok ice cores don't show a 400 ppm level.....anywhere. There's no model of statistical smearing that would produce such levels as the outcome of errors.

And while there isn't statistical 'certainty' in the Vostok data, most statistical analysis of the data concludes a high likelihood of accuracy. So your portrayal that we just don't have any idea and these are open questions is inaccurate. We have a very good idea with a high likelihood of accuracy.

We've seen higher temperatures in the last 800,000. But never an increase this fast in that time period.

How large was this increase over what period of time?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Do you think if you say that often enough it will be true?

It is true!

No real scientific proof has have been presented to prove it!

There's not really any such thing as "scientific proof".

Even the father of the AGW movement can not prove it with datasets and source code..

The father of the "AGW movement" died in 1927.

James Hansen is still alive and you have not provided a link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

Svante Arrhenius published the first paper on CO2 and the greenhouse effect in the 1890's.

Source code? You want a computer program now?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

100% of a fart in a windstorm.....

We know about how much fossil fuel has be burned over the past 200 years or so. Its very basic math and chemistry to show that the amount of Co2 released from burning that fuel is in excess of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period. Sorry, but have you not already done this exercise yourself? You must have just started studying climate science 5 minutes ago.

 

[Skylar]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have records for the last 800,000. And the speed of the increase in temperature is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

There's that word again.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly.

Alas, you make the same mistake as you did last time: commenting on a post you didn't actually read. If you had, you would have come across this portion:

"(Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have records for the last 800,000. And the speed of the increase in temperature is unprecedented in 800,000.)"

 

[Kosh]

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Do you think if you say that often enough it will be true?

It is true!

No real scientific proof has have been presented to prove it!

There's not really any such thing as "scientific proof".

Even the father of the AGW movement can not prove it with datasets and source code..

The father of the "AGW movement" died in 1927.

James Hansen is still alive and you have not provided a link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

Svante Arrhenius published the first paper on CO2 and the greenhouse effect in the 1890's.

Source code? You want a computer program now?

No Hansen is the farther of the AGW movement..

And yes they need to present the real science with datasets and source code.

And yes Computers are the new way of doing things incase you haven't noticed. Especially in the AGW predictions..