Answers wanted from "global warming" supporters

[ScreamingEagle]

1. Is 1 degree of warming in 100 years really a Crisis? Why?

2. If rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...then why no warming during the last 10 years?

 

[Old Rocks]

1. Effects. Glaciers melting, Artic Ice melting. Outgassing of yedoma and permafrost. Outgassing of Arctic Ocean clathrates.

2. Look at the graph. Notice that there have been many periods when the temperature actualy declined for more than ten years. In fact, in the period of the intense industrialization of Europe, Japan, and North America, the temperature declined due to solar and reflectivity of sulphates put into the atmosphere.

However, in spite of the intense industrialization of Asia, and the resultant pollution, in spite of a record solar minimum for the last 180 years, and a strong La Nina in 2008, 2009, if you start from 1998, the last ten years have been flat. If you start from 1997, or 1999, there has been a rise.

So your statement is the result of a cherry picked starting point. The last decade has been the warmest decade on record.

But rejoice! The next decade will be even warmer.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1. Effects. Glaciers melting, Artic Ice melting. Outgassing of yedoma and permafrost. Outgassing of Arctic Ocean clathrates.

2. Look at the graph. Notice that there have been many periods when the temperature actualy declined for more than ten years. In fact, in the period of the intense industrialization of Europe, Japan, and North America, the temperature declined due to solar and reflectivity of sulphates put into the atmosphere.

However, in spite of the intense industrialization of Asia, and the resultant pollution, in spite of a record solar minimum for the last 180 years, and a strong La Nina in 2008, 2009, if you start from 1998, the last ten years have been flat. If you start from 1997, or 1999, there has been a rise.

So your statement is the result of a cherry picked starting point. The last decade has been the warmest decade on record.

But rejoice! The next decade will be even warmer.

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

 

[Oddball]

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

That claim has been debunked for so long and so thoroughly, that only the terminal and willful moonbats cling to it.

Increased CO2 concentrations follow periods of warming, rather than precede them.

 

[Caligirl]

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

PDO and NAO are likely reasons. Decadal ocean oscillations can explain the cooling circa 1945, circa 1975, and the steady temperatures now. If true, the temp will start rising dramatically again in the coning years. The el nino that has recently formed and is predicted through the spring also predicts a warm year next year.

Anyway, here is a paper for you. There is a figure in it that shows multidecadal temperature oscillations and these correlate with certain fish species dominating in the oceans, (that's the basis for the name of the article.)

From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal ... [Science. 2003] - PubMed result

 

[ScreamingEagle]

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

PDO and NAO are likely reasons. Decadal ocean oscillations can explain the cooling circa 1945, circa 1975, and the steady temperatures now. If true, the temp will start rising dramatically again in the coning years. The el nino that has recently formed and is predicted through the spring also predicts a warm year next year.

Anyway, here is a paper for you. There is a figure in it that shows multidecadal temperature oscillations and these correlate with certain fish species dominating in the oceans, (that's the basis for the name of the article.)

From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal ... [Science. 2003] - PubMed result

And these are related to co2 how?

 

[Caligirl]

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

PDO and NAO are likely reasons. Decadal ocean oscillations can explain the cooling circa 1945, circa 1975, and the steady temperatures now. If true, the temp will start rising dramatically again in the coning years. The el nino that has recently formed and is predicted through the spring also predicts a warm year next year.

Anyway, here is a paper for you. There is a figure in it that shows multidecadal temperature oscillations and these correlate with certain fish species dominating in the oceans, (that's the basis for the name of the article.)

From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal ... [Science. 2003] - PubMed result

And these are related to co2 how?

Many factors affect climate. Were you under the impression that there is a group of people that think all of climate is down to CO2? There is no such group. The CO2 people simply think that CO2 is one factor that affects climate, and one that causes warming.

Anyway, I misunderstood, I though you genuinely wanted to know why there are variations within the general trend of a warming planet. Some of these variations within the general trend are due to factors other than CO2, such as ocean oscillations. Sun spot activity and volcanic activity and particulate output and so on - these things all affect climate. Ocean oscillations affect climate. CO2 affects climate. We have control ofer some of these things, and are directly responsible for some of these things, and not others. The only things we could hope to chaneg are the things we have some control over, like CO2 emissions.

 

[uscitizen]

1. Is 1 degree of warming in 100 years really a Crisis? Why?

2. If rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...then why no warming during the last 10 years?

You got me, I am not a scientist. R U? I do however tend to listen to those smarter and more educated than myself. That is why I don't pay much mind to right wingnutz.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

PDO and NAO are likely reasons. Decadal ocean oscillations can explain the cooling circa 1945, circa 1975, and the steady temperatures now. If true, the temp will start rising dramatically again in the coning years. The el nino that has recently formed and is predicted through the spring also predicts a warm year next year.

Anyway, here is a paper for you. There is a figure in it that shows multidecadal temperature oscillations and these correlate with certain fish species dominating in the oceans, (that's the basis for the name of the article.)

From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal ... [Science. 2003] - PubMed result

And these are related to co2 how?

Many factors affect climate. Were you under the impression that there is a group of people that think all of climate is down to CO2? There is no such group. The CO2 people simply think that CO2 is one factor that affects climate, and one that causes warming.

Anyway, I misunderstood, I though you genuinely wanted to know why there are variations within the general trend of a warming planet. Some of these variations within the general trend are due to factors other than CO2, such as ocean oscillations. Sun spot activity and volcanic activity and particulate output and so on - these things all affect climate. Ocean oscillations affect climate. CO2 affects climate. We have control ofer some of these things, and are directly responsible for some of these things, and not others. The only things we could hope to chaneg are the things we have some control over, like CO2 emissions.

That makes sense....that many factors affect climate.

So why is it "global warmers" point to man-made CO2 emissions as the big bad reason for global warming?

 

[Caligirl]

And these are related to co2 how?

Many factors affect climate. Were you under the impression that there is a group of people that think all of climate is down to CO2? There is no such group. The CO2 people simply think that CO2 is one factor that affects climate, and one that causes warming.

Anyway, I misunderstood, I though you genuinely wanted to know why there are variations within the general trend of a warming planet. Some of these variations within the general trend are due to factors other than CO2, such as ocean oscillations. Sun spot activity and volcanic activity and particulate output and so on - these things all affect climate. Ocean oscillations affect climate. CO2 affects climate. We have control ofer some of these things, and are directly responsible for some of these things, and not others. The only things we could hope to chaneg are the things we have some control over, like CO2 emissions.

That makes sense....that many factors affect climate.

So why is it "global warmers" point to man-made CO2 emissions as the big bad reason for global warming?

It's one thing we can change, unlike milankovich cycles or sunspot activity or etc.

They also sometimes point to deforestation and land use (erosion, loss of soil fertility, desertification, albedo, all remove carbon sinks and could contribute to warming), as other things that might be involved and that we can change.

I don't personally think that the CO2 thing is a conspiracy but I guess it is technically possible, if that is where you're going with this.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Many factors affect climate. Were you under the impression that there is a group of people that think all of climate is down to CO2? There is no such group. The CO2 people simply think that CO2 is one factor that affects climate, and one that causes warming.

Anyway, I misunderstood, I though you genuinely wanted to know why there are variations within the general trend of a warming planet. Some of these variations within the general trend are due to factors other than CO2, such as ocean oscillations. Sun spot activity and volcanic activity and particulate output and so on - these things all affect climate. Ocean oscillations affect climate. CO2 affects climate. We have control ofer some of these things, and are directly responsible for some of these things, and not others. The only things we could hope to chaneg are the things we have some control over, like CO2 emissions.

That makes sense....that many factors affect climate.

So why is it "global warmers" point to man-made CO2 emissions as the big bad reason for global warming?

It's one thing we can change, unlike milankovich cycles or sunspot activity or etc.

They also sometimes point to deforestation and land use (erosion, loss of soil fertility, desertification, albedo, all remove carbon sinks and could contribute to warming), as other things that might be involved and that we can change.

I don't personally think that the CO2 thing is a conspiracy but I guess it is technically possible, if that is where you're going with this.

Since CO2 is only one factor among many factors that cause climate change....who is to say conclusively that reducing man-made CO2 emissions will actually reduce global warming...?

 

[Chris]

More ignorance on display.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859!

We have doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The North Polar ice cap is melting, inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

If the permafrost melts it will release enormous amounts of methane which is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

That claim has been debunked for so long and so thoroughly, that only the terminal and willful moonbats cling to it.

Increased CO2 concentrations follow periods of warming, rather than precede them.

Continueing to show what a dumb fuck you are? The little ice age was a warm period? For that is what preceded the present period. The CO2 level went up from the burning of fossil fuels, then the temperature went up.

A dumb fuck like you cannot differentiate between the results of the Milankovic Cycles and the increased GHGs due to industrialization.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. Effects. Glaciers melting, Artic Ice melting. Outgassing of yedoma and permafrost. Outgassing of Arctic Ocean clathrates.

2. Look at the graph. Notice that there have been many periods when the temperature actualy declined for more than ten years. In fact, in the period of the intense industrialization of Europe, Japan, and North America, the temperature declined due to solar and reflectivity of sulphates put into the atmosphere.

However, in spite of the intense industrialization of Asia, and the resultant pollution, in spite of a record solar minimum for the last 180 years, and a strong La Nina in 2008, 2009, if you start from 1998, the last ten years have been flat. If you start from 1997, or 1999, there has been a rise.

So your statement is the result of a cherry picked starting point. The last decade has been the warmest decade on record.

But rejoice! The next decade will be even warmer.

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

I would like to know why you are so dumb as to purposely ignore the natural variatins in the graph where the temperature has gone done for over ten years in spite of increasing CO2. Then the temperature rises well above the previous highs.

 

[Old Rocks]

That makes sense....that many factors affect climate.

So why is it "global warmers" point to man-made CO2 emissions as the big bad reason for global warming?

It's one thing we can change, unlike milankovich cycles or sunspot activity or etc.

They also sometimes point to deforestation and land use (erosion, loss of soil fertility, desertification, albedo, all remove carbon sinks and could contribute to warming), as other things that might be involved and that we can change.

I don't personally think that the CO2 thing is a conspiracy but I guess it is technically possible, if that is where you're going with this.

Since CO2 is only one factor among many factors that cause climate change....who is to say conclusively that reducing man-made CO2 emissions will actually reduce global warming...?

Just almost 100% of the scientists involved in climate research.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since 100% of smokers do not get lung cancer, who is there to say that there is a link between lung cancer and cigerettes?

Interesting that this fraudelent logic was used for the profits of the tobacco companies, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans to smoking related illnesses. Now they use it concerning GHGs. And the same people are paying the same "scientists" to make these fraudulent statements.

And the same suckers are believing them.

 

[Oddball]

Just almost 100% of the scientists involved in climate research.

Have a link to back up that fraudulent claim?

I didn't think so.

 

[Chris]

Just almost 100% of the scientists involved in climate research.

Have a link to back up that fraudulent claim?

I didn't think so.

Fradulent claim?

It is a scientific fact proven in 1859!

 

[Oddball]

1. why are those so-called effects "bad" or considered a "crisis"?

2. yes i realize that the earth's temps can vary over time....they have historically done so....but you didn't answer the question except by your own cherry picking......i'd like to know why since CO2 has increased over the past ten years.....why didn't the temperature? The claim has been there is a direct correlation.....

That claim has been debunked for so long and so thoroughly, that only the terminal and willful moonbats cling to it.

Increased CO2 concentrations follow periods of warming, rather than precede them.

Continueing to show what a dumb fuck you are? The little ice age was a warm period? For that is what preceded the present period. The CO2 level went up from the burning of fossil fuels, then the temperature went up.

A dumb fuck like you cannot differentiate between the results of the Milankovic Cycles and the increased GHGs due to industrialization.

None of which disproves the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations follow temperature warming periods throughout the Earf's history. That's been proven so conclusively that AGW cult cleric Algore doesn't even use the fake charts which show that CO2 is a leading indicator.

You really need to get with the program here, Methuselah.

 

[Oddball]

Just almost 100% of the scientists involved in climate research.

Have a link to back up that fraudulent claim?

I didn't think so.

Fradulent claim?

It is a scientific fact proven in 1859!

Being a stupid asshole on purpose again, I see.