Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

It's "global" ---- but there are regions where it doesn't exist.. Do I have that right?
So a 100 year trend in a region that DOESN'T OBEY your theory is no problem?

Wasn't N. America one of those regions where the RECENT warming has been the most pronounced?

Who's not thinking straight? 100 year trend IS climate by your definition. It can't be GLOBAL if there are INCONVIENIENT local exceptions by logic and reason..

Is this why AGW morphed into "climate change"??

Is this why a distinguished recent Senate Panel said it was "important to NOT focus on the Global Atmosphere and surface temps...... and address SPECIFIC REGIONS only".. That is was REGIONAL SIGNALS that we should be looking for...

The story is getting a little muddled -- isn't it??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.

He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him.

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).

I see the green sin of envy spreading out over someone's jaw. Hoo-haw!

Where?

 

[RollingThunder]

More recent research from the World Meteorological Organization using data from 139 countries confirms what the world scientific community has been saying for the last few years - global warming and its associated climate changes are still accelerating.

UN: Global warming is accelerating, and with disastrous consequences
By John Heilprin, Associated Press
RYOT News
July 3, 2013
(excerpts)
GENEVA (AP) — Global warming accelerated since the 1970s and broke more countries’ temperature records than ever before in the first decade of the new millennium, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday. A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organization says average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average. The decade ending in 2010 was an unprecedented era of climate extremes, the agency said, evidenced by heat waves in Europe and Russia, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, and huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina. Data from 139 nations show that droughts like those in Australia, East Africa and the Amazon Basin affected the most people worldwide. But it was the hugely destructive and deadly floods such as those Pakistan, Australia, Africa, India and Eastern Europe that were the most frequent extreme weather events.

Experts say a decade is about the minimum length of time to study when it comes to spotting climate change. From 1971 to 2010, global temperatures rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade. The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990. Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterized by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which comes from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions. Given those circumstances, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud says the data doesn’t support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years. “The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin,” he said. “If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration.” Jarraud says the data show warming accelerated between 1971 and 2010, with the past two decades increasing at rates never seen before amid rising concentrations of industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.


Copyright 2013 RYOT LLC

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him.

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).

Its funny how these hypocritical clown fawned over Gore, praised his winning a Nobel and an Oscar, and practically made it manditory for students to watch AIT in school. But now he is off limits for discussion.

Every new study is proclaimed definitive proof of global warming but when they are shown to be exaggerated and faulty, it doesn't matter because they are just a small piece of a large pile of evidence. What warmers don't realize is that almost all of these studies are exaggerated and faulty when examined closely.

If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.

If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

 

[RollingThunder]

If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.

If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

Well, Toadthepatsy, if you kept up with the scientific research on this subject (or if you could comprehend it, which is pretty doubtful), you would know that CO2 increases actually do come before the warming and then the increased CO2 also amplifies the warming in a feedback loop.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Published online - 04 April 2012

Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Ice Bubbles May Solve Carbon-Temperature Paradox
Climate Central
February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward. In a new analysis of bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, published Thursday in Science, lead author Frederic Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment, in Grenoble, France, and his colleagues write that at the end of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, “. . . Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of CO2, as has been suggested in earlier studies.” “Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause,” Parrenin said. “Now we’re saying it could be the cause.”

This doesn't mean CO2 isn’t an amplifier as well. If the oceans warm, basic chemistry says that some of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water will emerge into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s land surface melts, it will put enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (plus methane, an even more powerful greenhouse), into the atmosphere as well. Still, if there remained any doubt that CO2 itself could initiate global warming, this paper — along with a 2012 paper that also showed no time lag — should go a long way toward putting that doubt to rest. The time lag suggested by those earlier studies didn’t call into question the well-established relation between CO2 and warming, and did nothing to lessen scientists’ confidence — and fear — that without curbing human greenhouse-gas emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise dangerously through the rest of this century. Nevertheless, the new research emphasizes that the CO2-warming relationship could be somewhat more straightforward in some ways than previously thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.

If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

Well, Toadthepatsy, if you kept up with the scientific research on this subject (or if you could comprehend it, which is pretty doubtful), you would know that CO2 increases actually do come before the warming and then the increased CO2 also amplifies the warming in a feedback loop.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Published online - 04 April 2012

Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Ice Bubbles May Solve Carbon-Temperature Paradox
Climate Central
February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward. In a new analysis of bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, published Thursday in Science, lead author Frederic Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment, in Grenoble, France, and his colleagues write that at the end of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, “. . . Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of CO2, as has been suggested in earlier studies.” “Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause,” Parrenin said. “Now we’re saying it could be the cause.”

This doesn't mean CO2 isn’t an amplifier as well. If the oceans warm, basic chemistry says that some of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water will emerge into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s land surface melts, it will put enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (plus methane, an even more powerful greenhouse), into the atmosphere as well. Still, if there remained any doubt that CO2 itself could initiate global warming, this paper — along with a 2012 paper that also showed no time lag — should go a long way toward putting that doubt to rest. The time lag suggested by those earlier studies didn’t call into question the well-established relation between CO2 and warming, and did nothing to lessen scientists’ confidence — and fear — that without curbing human greenhouse-gas emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise dangerously through the rest of this century. Nevertheless, the new research emphasizes that the CO2-warming relationship could be somewhat more straightforward in some ways than previously thought.

February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

Are you saying that at the time Gore made his movie, scientists thought that increases in CO2 came hundreds of years after rising temps?

That lying sack of shit.

Is he going to give back his Oscar and Nobel?

 

[RollingThunder]

If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

Well, Toadthepatsy, if you kept up with the scientific research on this subject (or if you could comprehend it, which is pretty doubtful), you would know that CO2 increases actually do come before the warming and then the increased CO2 also amplifies the warming in a feedback loop.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Published online - 04 April 2012

Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Ice Bubbles May Solve Carbon-Temperature Paradox
Climate Central
February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward. In a new analysis of bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, published Thursday in Science, lead author Frederic Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment, in Grenoble, France, and his colleagues write that at the end of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, “. . . Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of CO2, as has been suggested in earlier studies.” “Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause,” Parrenin said. “Now we’re saying it could be the cause.”

This doesn't mean CO2 isn’t an amplifier as well. If the oceans warm, basic chemistry says that some of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water will emerge into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s land surface melts, it will put enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (plus methane, an even more powerful greenhouse), into the atmosphere as well. Still, if there remained any doubt that CO2 itself could initiate global warming, this paper — along with a 2012 paper that also showed no time lag — should go a long way toward putting that doubt to rest. The time lag suggested by those earlier studies didn’t call into question the well-established relation between CO2 and warming, and did nothing to lessen scientists’ confidence — and fear — that without curbing human greenhouse-gas emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise dangerously through the rest of this century. Nevertheless, the new research emphasizes that the CO2-warming relationship could be somewhat more straightforward in some ways than previously thought.

February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

Are you saying that at the time Gore made his movie, scientists thought that increases in CO2 came hundreds of years after rising temps?

That lying sack of shit.

Is he going to give back his Oscar and Nobel?

I suppose it is not very surprising that you are apparently much too retarded to understand this, you poor brainwashed little troll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, Toadthepatsy, if you kept up with the scientific research on this subject (or if you could comprehend it, which is pretty doubtful), you would know that CO2 increases actually do come before the warming and then the increased CO2 also amplifies the warming in a feedback loop.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Published online - 04 April 2012

Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Ice Bubbles May Solve Carbon-Temperature Paradox
Climate Central
February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward. In a new analysis of bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, published Thursday in Science, lead author Frederic Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment, in Grenoble, France, and his colleagues write that at the end of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, “. . . Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of CO2, as has been suggested in earlier studies.” “Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause,” Parrenin said. “Now we’re saying it could be the cause.”

This doesn't mean CO2 isn’t an amplifier as well. If the oceans warm, basic chemistry says that some of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water will emerge into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s land surface melts, it will put enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (plus methane, an even more powerful greenhouse), into the atmosphere as well. Still, if there remained any doubt that CO2 itself could initiate global warming, this paper — along with a 2012 paper that also showed no time lag — should go a long way toward putting that doubt to rest. The time lag suggested by those earlier studies didn’t call into question the well-established relation between CO2 and warming, and did nothing to lessen scientists’ confidence — and fear — that without curbing human greenhouse-gas emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise dangerously through the rest of this century. Nevertheless, the new research emphasizes that the CO2-warming relationship could be somewhat more straightforward in some ways than previously thought.

February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

Are you saying that at the time Gore made his movie, scientists thought that increases in CO2 came hundreds of years after rising temps?

That lying sack of shit.

Is he going to give back his Oscar and Nobel?

I suppose it is not very surprising that you are apparently much too retarded to understand this, you poor brainwashed little troll.

Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

I understand fine.
Now they're claiming CO2 increases at the same time or before temps rise, previously, they thought temps rose first.
Previously, when Gore lied about it in his movie.
Get it, idiot?

 

[flacaltenn]

More recent research from the World Meteorological Organization using data from 139 countries confirms what the world scientific community has been saying for the last few years - global warming and its associated climate changes are still accelerating.

UN: Global warming is accelerating, and with disastrous consequences
By John Heilprin, Associated Press
RYOT News
July 3, 2013
(excerpts)
GENEVA (AP) — Global warming accelerated since the 1970s and broke more countries’ temperature records than ever before in the first decade of the new millennium, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday. A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organization says average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average. The decade ending in 2010 was an unprecedented era of climate extremes, the agency said, evidenced by heat waves in Europe and Russia, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, and huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina. Data from 139 nations show that droughts like those in Australia, East Africa and the Amazon Basin affected the most people worldwide. But it was the hugely destructive and deadly floods such as those Pakistan, Australia, Africa, India and Eastern Europe that were the most frequent extreme weather events.

Experts say a decade is about the minimum length of time to study when it comes to spotting climate change. From 1971 to 2010, global temperatures rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade. The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990. Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterized by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which comes from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions. Given those circumstances, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud says the data doesn’t support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years. “The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin,” he said. “If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration.” Jarraud says the data show warming accelerated between 1971 and 2010, with the past two decades increasing at rates never seen before amid rising concentrations of industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.


Copyright 2013 RYOT LLC

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Wow.. Written just for morons like the dweebs who post this shit..

This part borders on all out desparation and LYING...

Experts say a decade is about the minimum length of time to study when it comes to spotting climate change. From 1971 to 2010, global temperatures rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade. The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990.

Notice the deviant shift from talking about RATES OF INCREASE to just averages???
NO PACE HAS PICKED UP THIS PAST DECADE.. They are completely lying and FOS...

It's ******* propaganda.. No way to justify it.. And the media just FAILS to vet it...
And the public just looks at the relative SIZE of the numbers, GASPS and buys the big lie..

We can pretty END this forum right here. The panic has started to set in.. This is all they got left. To rely on the stupidity of the public and the Mainstream Media.. They know they are hosed..

And WHO EXACTLY is responsible for this massive lie? The header says it's UN.. But the text says World Met. Org. We should KNOW who doesn't have a leg to stand on...

 

[RollingThunder]

February 28th, 2013
(excerpts)
Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

Are you saying that at the time Gore made his movie, scientists thought that increases in CO2 came hundreds of years after rising temps?

That lying sack of shit.

Is he going to give back his Oscar and Nobel?

I suppose it is not very surprising that you are apparently much too retarded to understand this, you poor brainwashed little troll.

Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

I understand fine.
Now they're claiming CO2 increases at the same time or before temps rise, previously, they thought temps rose first.
Previously, when Gore lied about it in his movie.
Get it, idiot?

LOLOLOL....what I "get", Toadthepatsy, what is clear as day, is that you are idiotically obsessed with former VP Gore, who was only the messenger conveying the scientific truths about AGW to the public, not the source of the scientific facts. You are filled with fraudulent denier cult myths about how 'inaccurate' his movie was. Actually his movie was quite accurate on almost all of the important points and only contained a few minor errors, as many climate scientists have affirmed. Scientists then, at the time of the movie, knew quite well that increased CO2 causes temperature increases and that mankind's actions in burning fossil fuels and deforestation were responsible for the rising CO2 levels and those rising levels were responsible for the trend of rising temperatures, melting ice, etc., etc.. Gore was right about the fact that rising CO2 levels were responsible for the ending of the last glacial period, and scientists knew that at the time, even if there was some uncertainty at the time about exactly what factors started the warming cycle.

 

[skookerasbil]

what a dummy.......


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RollingThunder]

what a dummy.......

Yup, you sure are. It must suck to be as retarded as you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I suppose it is not very surprising that you are apparently much too retarded to understand this, you poor brainwashed little troll.

Scientists may have resolved a long-standing puzzle in climate science by showing that ancient increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide came at the same time as rising temperatures, rather than hundreds of years afterward.

I understand fine.
Now they're claiming CO2 increases at the same time or before temps rise, previously, they thought temps rose first.
Previously, when Gore lied about it in his movie.
Get it, idiot?

LOLOLOL....what I "get", Toadthepatsy, what is clear as day, is that you are idiotically obsessed with former VP Gore, who was only the messenger conveying the scientific truths about AGW to the public, not the source of the scientific facts. You are filled with fraudulent denier cult myths about how 'inaccurate' his movie was. Actually his movie was quite accurate on almost all of the important points and only contained a few minor errors, as many climate scientists have affirmed. Scientists then, at the time of the movie, knew quite well that increased CO2 causes temperature increases and that mankind's actions in burning fossil fuels and deforestation were responsible for the rising CO2 levels and those rising levels were responsible for the trend of rising temperatures, melting ice, etc., etc.. Gore was right about the fact that rising CO2 levels were responsible for the ending of the last glacial period, and scientists knew that at the time, even if there was some uncertainty at the time about exactly what factors started the warming cycle.

Scientists then, at the time of the movie, knew quite well that increased CO2 causes temperature increases

And that temperature increases increase CO2 levels.
I don't remember him mentioning that.
I'm not obsessed with that fat liar, I just laugh at him.
And the idiots he's fooled.
Hey, there you are.

 

[westwall]

what a dummy.......

Yup, you sure are. It must suck to be as retarded as you are.

Does that still work on the playground junior?

 

[PMZ]

Its funny how these hypocritical clown fawned over Gore, praised his winning a Nobel and an Oscar, and practically made it manditory for students to watch AIT in school. But now he is off limits for discussion.

Every new study is proclaimed definitive proof of global warming but when they are shown to be exaggerated and faulty, it doesn't matter because they are just a small piece of a large pile of evidence. What warmers don't realize is that almost all of these studies are exaggerated and faulty when examined closely.

If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.

If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

You're saying that global warming caused the increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere instead of fossil fuels?

Bizarre. What's the theory behind that?

 

[PMZ]

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

It's "global" ---- but there are regions where it doesn't exist.. Do I have that right?
So a 100 year trend in a region that DOESN'T OBEY your theory is no problem?

Wasn't N. America one of those regions where the RECENT warming has been the most pronounced?

Who's not thinking straight? 100 year trend IS climate by your definition. It can't be GLOBAL if there are INCONVIENIENT local exceptions by logic and reason..

Is this why AGW morphed into "climate change"??

Is this why a distinguished recent Senate Panel said it was "important to NOT focus on the Global Atmosphere and surface temps...... and address SPECIFIC REGIONS only".. That is was REGIONAL SIGNALS that we should be looking for...

The story is getting a little muddled -- isn't it??

Certainly the way that you tell it, it is. But you lie to make your point. Which means that you have no point. Science, on the other hand, does. For those who understand science. Not for those whose understanding is limited to politics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.

If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

You're saying that global warming caused the increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere instead of fossil fuels?

Bizarre. What's the theory behind that?

If you watched Gore's silly movie, you could see the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels.

You don't know that warming increases CO2? Bizarre.

 

[PMZ]

One of the global problems with AGW is that scientists are specialists in facts and politicians are specialists in lying.

So it's a match up between truth and lies.

As many here prefer what the liars promise to what the truth predicts, it's an uphill battle for AGW.

You fraudsters have had the POLITICIANS and the MEDIA in your pockets for 30 years. It is indicative of the failure of your fraud that even with unrequited support you have still lost the battle for the minds of the people. Science eventually won out over fraud.

What science concluded a 100 years ago is that GHGs warm the planet. And they've explained why. You have nothing that explains anything. Just what you wish was true. When you come up with a theory and data that demonstrates how GHGs do anything other than warm our climate, give us a call.

 

[PMZ]

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

That's because we don't need to. YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory. You haven't and you can't. I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

The deluded leading the blind! The only people to have changed their story is you fraudsters! Global Warming.... gave way to Climate Change....gave way to Global Climate Disruption.....gave way to Biodiversity Attack....etc. etc. etc.

You guys have changed your story so many times no one even knows what you are talking about anymore....much less YOU!

No, you have changed our story many times. Because you hate the truth. Your choice but you have to accept being wrong.

 

[westwall]

One of the global problems with AGW is that scientists are specialists in facts and politicians are specialists in lying.

So it's a match up between truth and lies.

As many here prefer what the liars promise to what the truth predicts, it's an uphill battle for AGW.

You fraudsters have had the POLITICIANS and the MEDIA in your pockets for 30 years. It is indicative of the failure of your fraud that even with unrequited support you have still lost the battle for the minds of the people. Science eventually won out over fraud.

What science concluded a 100 years ago is that GHGs warm the planet. And they've explained why. You have nothing that explains anything. Just what you wish was true. When you come up with a theory and data that demonstrates how GHGs do anything other than warm our climate, give us a call.

Wrong again Tojo! What the scientists figured out a century ago is that GHG's EXIST. That's a huge difference from what you claimed.

Better get your facts straight...