The warmest year on record....so far

[daveman]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them. Moreover, there are uncountable organic ecological processes which would mitigate the situation and seek to maintain an equilibrium.

In short, that Malthusian declinist dog don't hunt.

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Right, this must be a mutant, genetically modified strain of CO2.

Even the Vostok Ice cores showed an 800 year lag with CO2 following warmth, why is this CO2 so darn different?

The CO2 from American SUVs and power plants is eviler.

World socialism is the only thing that can save us. Please...think of the children!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So wait, CO2 increased maybe 10PPM in the last year, are you saying that a 10PPM increase raises temperatures by at least 1 degree?

No. Temperature change is directly proportional to radiative forcing. But forcing is logarithmically related to the ratio of final to initial CO2 concentration.

In other words, you can't create a rule like that.

You can't count water vapor either, right?

 

[boedicca]

What a bunch of b'loney. The for the "ever" comparison, the records only go back to 1880. Even then, we have not had accurate, consistent ways of measuring temps on a global basis.

More Warmist Hooey.

 

[Greenbeard]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them.

What is the "except" referring to? Probably not the fact that temperature change is proportional to changes in radiative forcing, since many of the prior temperature increases I imagine you're referencing are generally accepted to be due to changing radiative forcings (solar insolation changes due to orbital variables). So are you saying that concentrations of certain gases don't impact the radiative forcing?

And yes, it's well-known that multiple things can affect radiative forcing. No one is arguing that warming can only be initiated by changing greenhouse gas concentrations or that as a matter of historical fact that factor has been the spark setting off all warming periods. However, it does play a role as a positive feedback in warming episodes initiated in other ways. Which is why you get lags in some bits of the historical record.

 

[Oddball]

In a vacuum, yes.

Is the Earf in a bell jar?

 

[saveliberty]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them.

What is the "except" referring to? Probably not the fact that temperature change is proportional to changes in radiative forcing, since many of the prior temperature increases I imagine you're referencing are generally accepted to be due to changing radiative forcings (solar insolation changes due to orbital variables). So are you saying that concentrations of certain gases don't impact the radiative forcing?

And yes, it's well-known that multiple things can affect radiative forcing. No one is arguing that warming can only be initiated by changing greenhouse gas concentrations or that as a matter of historical fact that factor has been the spark setting off all warming periods. However, it does play a role as a positive feedback in warming episodes initiated in other ways. Which is why you get lags in some bits of the historical record.

Problems with your experiment:

1. It is a closed system.
2. You assume only one cause. I would suggest ocean currents, volcanoes, solar flares, increases in reflective surfaces and a host of other factors are as much causes here as your theory.

 

[konradv]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them. Moreover, there are uncountable organic ecological processes which would mitigate the situation and seek to maintain an equilibrium.

In short, that Malthusian declinist dog don't hunt.

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Right, this must be a mutant, genetically modified strain of CO2.

Even the Vostok Ice cores showed an 800 year lag with CO2 following warmth, why is this CO2 so darn different?

It isn't. You're assuming that this warming is similar to previous episodes. In the past CO2 was in balance for long periods of time. It's only since the Industrial Age, a MUCH shorter time period, that massive amounts of CO2 have been emitted into the atmosphere on a daily basis. That being the case, looking to the past for answers doesn't do much good.

 

[westwall]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them. Moreover, there are uncountable organic ecological processes which would mitigate the situation and seek to maintain an equilibrium.

In short, that Malthusian declinist dog don't hunt.

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Oh konrad, poor poor konrad...yes you can. Not only that you must. THE most fundamental principal in geology is Uniformatarianism.

I suggest you read a little about it....

10(c) Concept of Uniformitarianism

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Come to East Angelia. Be one of us!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe8jJBoEmuY]YouTube - ICP - lets go all the way[/ame]

 

[westwall]

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Right, this must be a mutant, genetically modified strain of CO2.

Even the Vostok Ice cores showed an 800 year lag with CO2 following warmth, why is this CO2 so darn different?

It isn't. You're assuming that this warming is similar to previous episodes. In the past CO2 was in balance for long periods of time. It's only since the Industrial Age, a MUCH shorter time period, that massive amounts of CO2 have been emitted into the atmosphere on a daily basis. That being the case, looking to the past for answers doesn't do much good.

Your comments here bear no relationship to reality.

 

[Oddball]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them. Moreover, there are uncountable organic ecological processes which would mitigate the situation and seek to maintain an equilibrium.

In short, that Malthusian declinist dog don't hunt.

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Bull....I've seen no really credible estimate that pegs man's contribution to the total planetary output of CO2 at any number above 6%....This source is about as mainstream as they come.

Yet again, the scaremongering Malthusian dog don't hunt.

 

[daveman]

Hey, can someone tell me what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

 

[westwall]

Hey, can someone tell me what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

Somewhere above the freezing point of water and below the boiling point of lead. But only if you average it out over the life of the planet

 

[daveman]

Hey, can someone tell me what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

Somewhere above the freezing point of water and below the boiling point of lead. But only if you average it out over the life of the planet

OhMyGaea! Only world socialism can maintain the planet in that very narrow range!

 

[Old Rocks]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them. Moreover, there are uncountable organic ecological processes which would mitigate the situation and seek to maintain an equilibrium.

In short, that Malthusian declinist dog don't hunt.

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Oh konrad, poor poor konrad...yes you can. Not only that you must. THE most fundamental principal in geology is Uniformatarianism.

I suggest you read a little about it....

10(c) Concept of Uniformitarianism

We can look back in geological history and see what happens when there is a rapid increase in GHGs. P-T Extinction, and the PETM are the two best known periods. There are a number of other periods. Even some negative ones that resulted in a 'snowball' earth.

I would suggest that you look at something a bit more advanced than a Geo. 101 course.

Methane catastrophe

 

[Old Rocks]

Except that it has also been conclusively proven that CO2 concentrations have followed increases in temperatures, rather than leading/causing them. Moreover, there are uncountable organic ecological processes which would mitigate the situation and seek to maintain an equilibrium.

In short, that Malthusian declinist dog don't hunt.

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Bull....I've seen no really credible estimate that pegs man's contribution to the total planetary output of CO2 at any number above 6%....This source is about as mainstream as they come.

Yet again, the scaremongering Malthusian dog don't hunt.

Dumb ol' Dooodeee....... You haven't seen the real numbers because you have not looked for them.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

100 ppm out of 387 ppm is a lot more than 6%.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey, can someone tell me what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

Somewhere above the freezing point of water and below the boiling point of lead. But only if you average it out over the life of the planet

OhMyGaea! Only world socialism can maintain the planet in that very narrow range!

Oh my God, only Dave can be such a stupid ass.

 

[daveman]

Somewhere above the freezing point of water and below the boiling point of lead. But only if you average it out over the life of the planet

OhMyGaea! Only world socialism can maintain the planet in that very narrow range!

Oh my God, only Dave can be such a stupid ass.

On the contrary...there are many leftists who truly believe in what I say mockingly.

So who's the stupid ass...he who says it to mock, or he who actually believes it?

 

[Greenbeard]

Problems with your experiment:

What experiment?

 

[westwall]

In the past maybe, but you can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, humans putting 60-70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere DAILY, more in a few days than all Earth's volcanoes emit in a year!

Oh konrad, poor poor konrad...yes you can. Not only that you must. THE most fundamental principal in geology is Uniformatarianism.

I suggest you read a little about it....

10(c) Concept of Uniformitarianism

We can look back in geological history and see what happens when there is a rapid increase in GHGs. P-T Extinction, and the PETM are the two best known periods. There are a number of other periods. Even some negative ones that resulted in a 'snowball' earth.

I would suggest that you look at something a bit more advanced than a Geo. 101 course.

Methane catastrophe

Right back at ya old fraud You seem to think that your so called Methane Catastrophe actually occured. So far there is not too much compelling evidence to support it however. EVERYTHING I have stated however has ample evidence to support it. Go ahead, call me a liar and then fail yet again to point to a single case where I have lied. Go ahead, I dare you!