Greenhouse gases overpowering natural cooling

[Chris]

CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com

We are all doomed, DOOMED I say. Look out the SKY is falling. And yet the temperature change has not exceeded those in the past several Centuries. Go figure.

We will get there once the arctic methane kicks in.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

It has a minimal effect and that DECREASES as the GAS increases. Already been schooled on that NUMEROUS times. And we recently had a thread where a renowned scientist made the same statement, that CO2 has very little effect on the temperatures.

By the way dumb fuck, why is it that through out the history of this planet CO2 has NEVER lead heat changes but rather CO2 increases after the planet warms up?

 

[KittenKoder]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw]YouTube - Al Gore's Lies Exposed By Congress[/ame]

 

[Liability]

YouTube - Bullshit - Global Warming ( 2/3 )

Thanks for that video!

I think the Penn and Teller Show called "Bullshit" is very funny. Even when they are mocking some belief I may harbor, they do it in a very entertaining and often illuminating way.

(That last sentence is less than 43% bullshit, by the way!)

Anyway, Chris NEEDS a healthy dose of BULLSHIT. Not the kind of stuff he so often and so tiresomely dispenses. No. I mean REAL bullshit for him to chew and swallow.

A kind of carbon credit for his excessive misuse of the internet.

 

[Intense]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

Why don't You Hold Your Breath?

 

[Chris]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

It has a minimal effect and that DECREASES as the GAS increases. Already been schooled on that NUMEROUS times. And we recently had a thread where a renowned scientist made the same statement, that CO2 has very little effect on the temperatures.

By the way dumb fuck, why is it that through out the history of this planet CO2 has NEVER lead heat changes but rather CO2 increases after the planet warms up?

Because there weren't 7 billion people on the planet burning coal, gas, and oil, you dumb fuck!

 

[Liability]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

Greenhouses, covered in glass, do retain heat.

The OPEN-SYSTEM-atmosphere of planet Earth is NOT covered in glass! (It's TRUE. You could even look it up on Wiki!)

YOU make the sub-moronic claim (and endlessly loop it) that because we sometimes have an "excess" amount of "carbon" IN our atmosphere,* that "excess" carbon "acts" like glass to make the atmosphere warm up LIKE glass would for a greenhouse.

But there's NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHRED OF VERIFIABLE GOOD SCIENCE to back up your silly theory.

So, don't ask US to refute your blather. Ty to prove it your own sad sack stupid self.

______________
* an atmosphere that naturally contains lots of carbon in the first damn place and has LONG had carbon floating around in the collection of gasses we call our atmosphere even BEFORE humankind ever HAD any kind of industry -- in fact -- even long before mankind existed!

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - Bullshit - Global Warming ( 2/3 )

ROFLMAO

wow, i need to start me one of them thar companies

 

[Chris]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

Greenhouses, covered in glass, do retain heat.

The OPEN-SYSTEM-atmosphere of planet Earth is NOT covered in glass! (It's TRUE. You could even look it up on Wiki!)

YOU make the sub-moronic claim (and endlessly loop it) that because we sometimes have an "excess" amount of "carbon" IN our atmosphere,* that "excess" carbon "acts" like glass to make the atmosphere warm up LIKE glass would for a greenhouse.

But there's NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHRED OF VERIFIABLE GOOD SCIENCE to back up your silly theory.

So, don't ask US to refute your blather. Ty to prove it your own sad sack stupid self.

______________
* an atmosphere that naturally contains lots of carbon in the first damn place and has LONG had carbon floating around in the collection of gasses we call our atmosphere even BEFORE humankind ever HAD any kind of industry -- in fact -- even long before mankind existed!

There is no theory.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

Greenhouses, covered in glass, do retain heat.

The OPEN-SYSTEM-atmosphere of planet Earth is NOT covered in glass! (It's TRUE. You could even look it up on Wiki!)

YOU make the sub-moronic claim (and endlessly loop it) that because we sometimes have an "excess" amount of "carbon" IN our atmosphere,* that "excess" carbon "acts" like glass to make the atmosphere warm up LIKE glass would for a greenhouse.

But there's NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHRED OF VERIFIABLE GOOD SCIENCE to back up your silly theory.

So, don't ask US to refute your blather. Ty to prove it your own sad sack stupid self.

______________
* an atmosphere that naturally contains lots of carbon in the first damn place and has LONG had carbon floating around in the collection of gasses we call our atmosphere even BEFORE humankind ever HAD any kind of industry -- in fact -- even long before mankind existed!

There is no theory.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

And yet the fact remains CO2 has NEVER , in the entire known history of earth , EVER increased before the temperatures increased. In every known example it has FOLLOWED increased temperatures.

 

[Chris]

Greenhouses, covered in glass, do retain heat.

The OPEN-SYSTEM-atmosphere of planet Earth is NOT covered in glass! (It's TRUE. You could even look it up on Wiki!)

YOU make the sub-moronic claim (and endlessly loop it) that because we sometimes have an "excess" amount of "carbon" IN our atmosphere,* that "excess" carbon "acts" like glass to make the atmosphere warm up LIKE glass would for a greenhouse.

But there's NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHRED OF VERIFIABLE GOOD SCIENCE to back up your silly theory.

So, don't ask US to refute your blather. Ty to prove it your own sad sack stupid self.

______________
* an atmosphere that naturally contains lots of carbon in the first damn place and has LONG had carbon floating around in the collection of gasses we call our atmosphere even BEFORE humankind ever HAD any kind of industry -- in fact -- even long before mankind existed!

There is no theory.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

And yet the fact remains CO2 has NEVER , in the entire known history of earth , EVER increased before the temperatures increased. In every known example it has FOLLOWED increased temperatures.

Wrong.

You really need to do more reading. Seriously.

Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea
By Helen Briggs BBC

A computer simulation of the Earth's climate 250 million years ago suggests that global warming triggered the so-called "great dying".
A dramatic rise in carbon dioxide caused temperatures to soar to 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, say US researchers.

The warming had a profound impact on the oceans, cutting off oxygen to the lower depths and extinguishing most lifeforms, they write in the latest issue of Geology.

The research adds to the growing body of evidence that higher temperatures, rather than a giant space rock hitting the planet, led to the greatest mass extinction in history.

The extinction, at the end of the Permian Period and the beginning of the Triassic, has puzzled scientists for many years.

Some 95% of lifeforms in the oceans became extinct, along with about three-quarters of land species.
Many possible reasons for this catastrophic event have been proposed - including impacts, volcanism, climate change and glaciation. Hard evidence, however, has been difficult to find.

The latest data from scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, supports the view that extensive volcanic activity over the course of hundreds of thousands of years released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the air, gradually warming up the planet.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea

 

[Liability]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

Greenhouses, covered in glass, do retain heat.

The OPEN-SYSTEM-atmosphere of planet Earth is NOT covered in glass! (It's TRUE. You could even look it up on Wiki!)

YOU make the sub-moronic claim (and endlessly loop it) that because we sometimes have an "excess" amount of "carbon" IN our atmosphere,* that "excess" carbon "acts" like glass to make the atmosphere warm up LIKE glass would for a greenhouse.

But there's NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHRED OF VERIFIABLE GOOD SCIENCE to back up your silly theory.

So, don't ask US to refute your blather. Ty to prove it your own sad sack stupid self.

______________
* an atmosphere that naturally contains lots of carbon in the first damn place and has LONG had carbon floating around in the collection of gasses we call our atmosphere even BEFORE humankind ever HAD any kind of industry -- in fact -- even long before mankind existed!

There is no theory.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

No no, you moron. I did not ask you to repeat your dopey baseless mantra. We all already know what it is you "believe."

Faith is fine. I have some faith in some things, too.

What I SAID (rather plainly) was that thre is NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHRED OF VERIFIABLE GOOD SCIENCE to back up your silly theory. And yes. It IS, in fact, just a dopey theory.

so, instead of you just repeating your baseless belief, try to back it up.

You will win points for being succinct since you have a bad tendency to cover-up your woeful lack of factual basis with LONG-WINDED bullshit.

If you wish to assert some "thing" as a scientific "fact," then support that "thing" with a link.

If you wish to offer some long-winded article as evidence for your empty THEORY, fine. Offer it as a freaking LINK -- but give us a one or two sentence BRIEFLY written abstract prior to offering the link.

Leave your subjective opinions out of it entirely.

Good boy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no theory.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

And yet the fact remains CO2 has NEVER , in the entire known history of earth , EVER increased before the temperatures increased. In every known example it has FOLLOWED increased temperatures.

Wrong.

You really need to do more reading. Seriously.

Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea
By Helen Briggs BBC

A computer simulation of the Earth's climate 250 million years ago suggests that global warming triggered the so-called "great dying".
A dramatic rise in carbon dioxide caused temperatures to soar to 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, say US researchers.

The warming had a profound impact on the oceans, cutting off oxygen to the lower depths and extinguishing most lifeforms, they write in the latest issue of Geology.

The research adds to the growing body of evidence that higher temperatures, rather than a giant space rock hitting the planet, led to the greatest mass extinction in history.

The extinction, at the end of the Permian Period and the beginning of the Triassic, has puzzled scientists for many years.

Some 95% of lifeforms in the oceans became extinct, along with about three-quarters of land species.
Many possible reasons for this catastrophic event have been proposed - including impacts, volcanism, climate change and glaciation. Hard evidence, however, has been difficult to find.

The latest data from scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, supports the view that extensive volcanic activity over the course of hundreds of thousands of years released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the air, gradually warming up the planet.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea

And yet it states it was not CO2 at all or alone. You may want to actually read what you post.

 

[Oddball]

Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?

It has a minimal effect and that DECREASES as the GAS increases. Already been schooled on that NUMEROUS times. And we recently had a thread where a renowned scientist made the same statement, that CO2 has very little effect on the temperatures.

By the way dumb fuck, why is it that through out the history of this planet CO2 has NEVER lead heat changes but rather CO2 increases after the planet warms up?

Because there weren't 7 billion people on the planet burning coal, gas, and oil, you dumb fuck!

Uh-oooohhhhh!!

A personal attack from the prattling jackass who repeatedly claims that he's above such low brow tactics.

Looks like we can add sanctimonious dickweed to the list.

 

[Chris]

And yet the fact remains CO2 has NEVER , in the entire known history of earth , EVER increased before the temperatures increased. In every known example it has FOLLOWED increased temperatures.

Wrong.

You really need to do more reading. Seriously.

Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea
By Helen Briggs BBC

A computer simulation of the Earth's climate 250 million years ago suggests that global warming triggered the so-called "great dying".
A dramatic rise in carbon dioxide caused temperatures to soar to 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, say US researchers.

The warming had a profound impact on the oceans, cutting off oxygen to the lower depths and extinguishing most lifeforms, they write in the latest issue of Geology.

The research adds to the growing body of evidence that higher temperatures, rather than a giant space rock hitting the planet, led to the greatest mass extinction in history.

The extinction, at the end of the Permian Period and the beginning of the Triassic, has puzzled scientists for many years.

Some 95% of lifeforms in the oceans became extinct, along with about three-quarters of land species.
Many possible reasons for this catastrophic event have been proposed - including impacts, volcanism, climate change and glaciation. Hard evidence, however, has been difficult to find.

The latest data from scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, supports the view that extensive volcanic activity over the course of hundreds of thousands of years released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the air, gradually warming up the planet.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea

And yet it states it was not CO2 at all or alone. You may want to actually read what you post.

But that wasn't the point.

You said that CO2 NEVER preceded the warming of the planet. You were wrong.

It would be nice if you would admit it.

But arguing that CO2 is not warming the planet is ridiculous. It would be physically impossible for CO2 not to warm the planet because CO2 absorbs the sun's radiation and heats up the earth.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.

You really need to do more reading. Seriously.

Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea
By Helen Briggs BBC

A computer simulation of the Earth's climate 250 million years ago suggests that global warming triggered the so-called "great dying".
A dramatic rise in carbon dioxide caused temperatures to soar to 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, say US researchers.

The warming had a profound impact on the oceans, cutting off oxygen to the lower depths and extinguishing most lifeforms, they write in the latest issue of Geology.

The research adds to the growing body of evidence that higher temperatures, rather than a giant space rock hitting the planet, led to the greatest mass extinction in history.

The extinction, at the end of the Permian Period and the beginning of the Triassic, has puzzled scientists for many years.

Some 95% of lifeforms in the oceans became extinct, along with about three-quarters of land species.
Many possible reasons for this catastrophic event have been proposed - including impacts, volcanism, climate change and glaciation. Hard evidence, however, has been difficult to find.

The latest data from scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, supports the view that extensive volcanic activity over the course of hundreds of thousands of years released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the air, gradually warming up the planet.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea

And yet it states it was not CO2 at all or alone. You may want to actually read what you post.

But that wasn't the point.

You said that CO2 NEVER preceded the warming of the planet. You were wrong.

It would be nice if you would admit it.

But arguing that CO2 is not warming the planet is ridiculous. It would be physically impossible for CO2 not to warm the planet because CO2 absorbs the sun's radiation and heats up the earth.

Ok genius, provide for us the rise in temperature from 1700 to 1800, from 1800 to 1900 and the amount from 1900 to 2000 and show us this drastic rise in temperature you are claiming has occurred.

 

[Chris]

In a new research, scientists have determined that big volcanic eruptions dont always fuel mass extinctions because the destructive potential of the blasts seems to depend upon carbon dioxide (CO2) spewing non-volcanic rocks in the region.

London, April 22 : In a new research, scientists have determined that big volcanic eruptions don't always fuel mass extinctions because the destructive potential of the blasts seems to depend upon carbon dioxide (CO2) spewing non-volcanic rocks in the region.

Earlier, geologists have found evidence of many huge ancient volcanic eruptions that seem to not be connected to mass extinctions at all.

Now, according to a report in Nature News, a team of researchers has analyzed just how much CO2 non-volcanic rocks around volcanoes might release if they are super-heated.

They have found that in some cases, the rocks might spew out much more CO2 than the volcano itself.

Clement Ganino and Nicholas Arndt at Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, went to explore a volcanic site roughly 260 million years old in southwestern China that seems to have formed at the same time as a mass extinction wiped out 35 percent of all genera on the planet.

CO2 spewing rocks can influence destructive potential of mass extinction events

 

[Chris]

And yet it states it was not CO2 at all or alone. You may want to actually read what you post.

But that wasn't the point.

You said that CO2 NEVER preceded the warming of the planet. You were wrong.

It would be nice if you would admit it.

But arguing that CO2 is not warming the planet is ridiculous. It would be physically impossible for CO2 not to warm the planet because CO2 absorbs the sun's radiation and heats up the earth.

Ok genius, provide for us the rise in temperature from 1700 to 1800, from 1800 to 1900 and the amount from 1900 to 2000 and show us this drastic rise in temperature you are claiming has occurred.

The temperature of the earth depends on many things besides CO2, and the sun is at a low level of activity and the earth's orbit is in a position that we should be cooling, but we are not.

The real problem is that the increase in the earth's temperature we are seeing will release the arctic methane which is a 20 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. That is the real danger, much more so than CO2. But the man made increase in CO2 will probably release the arctic methane, and the results of that could be dramatic.

 

[KittenKoder]

Math lesson:

CO2 is less than 1% of the atmosphere (been away from this for so long I forgot already). We are increasing it by 30% ... so that's a .3% change (at best) in the atmosphere. Which means only a .3% change in the temperature for our contribution ... seriously? You're worried about that?

 

[Liability]

Math lesson:

CO2 is less than 1% of the atmosphere (been away from this for so long I forgot already). We are increasing it by 30% ... so that's a .3% change (at best) in the atmosphere. Which means only a .3% change in the temperature for our contribution ... seriously? You're worried about that?

I think that math may be off.

It would be a .3% change in temperature ONLY if there was a 1:1 correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase. I doubt temperature rise marches that much with CO2 increase even if there is ANY correlation between CO2 and temperature.