Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[SSDD]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

 

[otto105]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

Of course it’s a non issue since you can’t refute any of the facts presented.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

Of course it’s a non issue since you can’t refute any of the facts presented.

Poor Otto-retard got his ass kicked by three people in this thread alone... And he still has yet to produce ANY empirical evidence or shown it has even a basic grasp of the hypothesis. Still waiting to see even a glimmer of hope that it is nothing more than a parrot..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Funny;

All three use Karl Et Al garbage for their failed model.... I guess if your going to believe a lie that would be the one for alarmists...

 

[SSDD]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

Of course it’s a non issue since you can’t refute any of the facts presented.

It is a fact that the climate changes...it is not a fact that we are altering the global climate...but do feel free to post some observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that we are.

 

[otto105]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

Of course it’s a non issue since you can’t refute any of the facts presented.

Poor Otto-retard got his ass kicked by three people in this thread alone... And he still has yet to produce ANY empirical evidence or shown it has even a basic grasp of the hypothesis. Still waiting to see even a glimmer of hope that it is nothing more than a parrot..

Billy Bob

You have nothing, offer nothing and believe in doubt.


That is what the denier side has.

 

[otto105]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

Of course it’s a non issue since you can’t refute any of the facts presented.

It is a fact that the climate changes...it is not a fact that we are altering the global climate...but do feel free to post some observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that we are.

Yeah, because CO2 just decided in our Industrail age to spike to a 3 million year high....


Refute that denier.

 

[otto105]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Funny;

All three use Karl Et Al garbage for their failed model.... I guess if your going to believe a lie that would be the one for alarmists...

You have refuted nothing, offer nothing and pat yourself on the back.


You proved to be a loser.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

Of course it’s a non issue since you can’t refute any of the facts presented.

It is a fact that the climate changes...it is not a fact that we are altering the global climate...but do feel free to post some observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that we are.

Yeah, because CO2 just decided in our Industrail age to spike to a 3 million year high....


Refute that denier.

You are aware that CO2 has been much higher in our current Inter-glacial period, don't you? High resolution ice core data show we have been at >458ppm in the last 10,000 years.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

And you have nothing... Just spouting your denier meme when you are the science denier. So why are you denying empirical scientific evidence? They show the AVERAGED level of CO2 to be 396ppm (plot points of 250 years) but in the data it shows years in groups of about 50-75 years that were over 458ppm with step rises and falls of just 30 years. So our current rise in CO2 is very likely natural variation and not man induced.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Funny;

All three use Karl Et Al garbage for their failed model.... I guess if your going to believe a lie that would be the one for alarmists...

You have refuted nothing, offer nothing and pat yourself on the back.


You proved to be a loser.

Says the idiot who believes in modeling that has NO PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

You just provided evidence that the climate changes...who is disputing that other than you warmer wackos. You seem to think that the climate is supposed to remain static indefinitely and if it changes in any way, it is time to panic.

Your evidence proves a non issue....that the climate changes. The issue is whether or not mankind is in any way altering the global climate. Which part of any of the material you provided do you think rises to the level of empirical evidence that mankind has any hand in the changing global claimate?

Of course it’s a non issue since you can’t refute any of the facts presented.

It is a fact that the climate changes...it is not a fact that we are altering the global climate...but do feel free to post some observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that we are.

When Otto-tard is challenged he can only do his parrot imitation... "Denier... SKWAKKKK.... Polly wants a cracker.... Denier... SKWAKKK..."

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

post the piece that shows the statistics of man vs natural.

The Heritage Foundation has posted this..

The graph is of GHG in our atmosphere and only comprises 1.98% of our total atmosphere.

Lets put this in perspective of the atmosphere as a whole;

 

[daveman]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

post the piece that shows the statistics of man vs natural.

The Heritage Foundation has posted this..

View attachment 264590

The graph is of GHG in our atmosphere and only comprises 1.98% of our total atmosphere.

Lets put this in perspective of the atmosphere as a whole;

View attachment 264592

WERE ALL GONNA DIE OBVIOUSLY WORLD SOCAILISM IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE US

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

post the piece that shows the statistics of man vs natural.

The Heritage Foundation has posted this..

View attachment 264590

The graph is of GHG in our atmosphere and only comprises 1.98% of our total atmosphere.

Lets put this in perspective of the atmosphere as a whole;

View attachment 264592

WERE ALL GONNA DIE OBVIOUSLY WORLD SOCAILISM IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE US

 

[jc456]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

post the piece that shows the statistics of man vs natural.

The Heritage Foundation has posted this..

View attachment 264590

The graph is of GHG in our atmosphere and only comprises 1.98% of our total atmosphere.

Lets put this in perspective of the atmosphere as a whole;

View attachment 264592

WERE ALL GONNA DIE OBVIOUSLY WORLD SOCAILISM IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE US

Ahhhhhhhhh

 

[SSDD]

[

Yeah, because CO2 just decided in our Industrail age to spike to a 3 million year high....


Refute that denier.

Line everything else you believe..it is based on assumptions and a profound lack of actual knowledge. You probably are not aware that human beings dont even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth’s own CO2 making machinery.

I dont think you are able to put the small amount of the total atmospheric CO2 into any real perspective. .and i doubt that you would be interested in getting it right anyway.

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) 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.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Almost two decades ago I realized this whole global warming thing was the biggest crock of shit I had ever seen.

And actual evidence can make no impression whatsoever on your bone head. Oh well, nothing new.

Again........I cant stop laughing.


ONLY 29 excuses???!!!!!


Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ?pause? in global warming ? ?If you can?t explain the ?pause?, you can?t explain the cause?? | Climate Depot

Global Temperature

Mkay the world is 4.4 BILLION years old. Your manipulated graph covers 130 years. Care to give info on the other 99.9999999% of the earth's time in existence?

 

[otto105]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

post the piece that shows the statistics of man vs natural.

The Heritage Foundation has posted this..

View attachment 264590

The graph is of GHG in our atmosphere and only comprises 1.98% of our total atmosphere.

Lets put this in perspective of the atmosphere as a whole;

View attachment 264592

A PDF from the NCPA?

And how does pharmacy organization judge this?

 

[otto105]

[

Yeah, because CO2 just decided in our Industrail age to spike to a 3 million year high....


Refute that denier.

Line everything else you believe..it is based on assumptions and a profound lack of actual knowledge. You probably are not aware that human beings dont even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth’s own CO2 making machinery.

I dont think you are able to put the small amount of the total atmospheric CO2 into any real perspective. .and i doubt that you would be interested in getting it right anyway.

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) 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.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

All james has done is cite peer reviewed chips from papers and jammed it together on a blog post.

 

[otto105]

[

Yeah, because CO2 just decided in our Industrail age to spike to a 3 million year high....


Refute that denier.

Line everything else you believe..it is based on assumptions and a profound lack of actual knowledge. You probably are not aware that human beings dont even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth’s own CO2 making machinery.

I dont think you are able to put the small amount of the total atmospheric CO2 into any real perspective. .and i doubt that you would be interested in getting it right anyway.

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) 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.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

All james has done is cite peer reviewed chips from papers and jammed it together on a blog post.