Growing Days..... Shorten again

[ding]

Who shouldn't be including it where?

Anyone. Any dataset that is being used to assess the associated temperature of CO2.

 

[Crick]

Anyone. Any dataset that is being used to assess the associated temperature of CO2.

So you think temperature data affected by the urban heat island effect should be ignored when looked at growing days? Why? Are those not the temperatures to which crops in those areas would be exposed?

 

[ding]

So you think no temperature data affected by the urban heat island effect should be ignored when looked at growing days? Why? Are those not the temperatures to which crops in those areas would be exposed?

I think the UHI effect should not be included if investigating CO2 as a cause for the recent warming trend because it's not CO2 related. My original post was in reply to your comment concerning examination of climate not growing days.

 

[Crick]

I think the UHI effect should not be included if investigating CO2 as a cause for the recent warming trend because it's not CO2 related. My original post was in reply to your comment concerning examination of climate not growing days.

Are you really this stupid? What do you see here?

Do you see the entry for "Surface albedo"? What the fuck do you think that is? And while we're here, do you see the entry for Solar Irradiance? Had you been thinking they were just ignoring the sun?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Then show me a graph of TSI that matches the temperature data in trend and sufficient energy.

PS, Bob Tisdale is a complete fucking idiot.

TSI is not the only indicator of solar output since it doesn't show you the change in wavelength strength during a cycle and long term trends this is 101 stuff you seem oblivious on.

No evidence that Tisdale is wrong who has been lyingly attacked by several allegedly intelligent people who tried hard to lie about his posting contents which Tisdale has replied in detail several times on his blog.

P.S. Crick in the head is a complete fucking idiot.

 

[ding]

Are you really this stupid? What do you see here?

A graphic that can't explain any of these warming and cooling trends.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

 

[ding]

Do you see the entry for "Surface albedo"? What the fuck do you think that is? And while we're here, do you see the entry for Solar Irradiance? Had you been thinking they were just ignoring the sun?

Ummm... wrong? Like I said, this graphic can't explain any previous warming or cooling trend because it's biased towards CO2 which is an artifact of the computer model which is an artifact of a failed climate sensitivity concept. So since it can't explain any other warming and cooling trend it's worthless.

 

[ding]

Are you really this stupid? What do you see here?

View attachment 649009

Do you see the entry for "Surface albedo"? What the fuck do you think that is? And while we're here, do you see the entry for Solar Irradiance? Had you been thinking they were just ignoring the sun?

According to your graphic the planet should have never cooled for the past 55 million years as CO2 levels were 600 ppm and greater.

 

[Crick]

According to your graphic the planet should have never cooled for the past 55 million years as CO2 levels were 600 ppm and greater.

View attachment 649047

That is incorrect. The point is that the graphic illustrates that mainstream science has all along been studying all the factors you claim they've ignored and that are responsible for current warming.

 

[ding]

That is incorrect. The point is that the graphic illustrates that mainstream science has all along been studying all the factors you claim they've ignored and that are responsible for current warming.

Actually the point is spot on. It's because they have over emphasized the radiative forcing strength of CO2 - relative to all other factors - that they can't explain the 50 million cooling trend which occurred with higher levels of CO2 than today.

 

[ding]

That is incorrect. The point is that the graphic illustrates that mainstream science has all along been studying all the factors you claim they've ignored and that are responsible for current warming.

They have minimized the other factors to the point that factors other than CO2 can't be responsible for driving any climate change at all.

 

[Crick]

Actually the point is spot on. It's because they have over emphasized the radiative forcing strength of CO2 that they can't explain the 50 million cooling trend which occurred with higher levels of CO2 than today.

"The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now." --Andrew Freedman, Climate Central

You know there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. If you have data that refutes that correlation, I think you should tell the world about it.

vostok-temp-vs-co2

Vostok ice core record showing temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations for the last 420000 years.

andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com

 

[Crick]

They have minimized the other factors to the point that factors other than CO2 can't be responsible for driving any climate change at all.

Who, how and when did they "minimize the other factors"

 

[ding]

Who, how and when did they "minimize the other factors"

You only need to look at the radiative forcing component graphic you keep posting. The only component that can effect change is CO2. So how did the planet overcome 600 to 1000 ppm over the last 50 million years and cool while CO2 was lagging temperature. According to the radiative forcing component graphic you keep posting that shouldn't have been possible because no other factor could overcome CO2 dominance.

 

[ding]

"The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere...

Was about 6 million years ago. Right before the planet transitioned to a greenhouse planet and developed extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation. How was it possible for this to happen with so much CO2 in the atmosphere?

Answer: because CO2 does not drive climate change.

 

[ding]

the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now." --Andrew Freedman, Climate Central

And yet the planet cooled another 4C.

 

[ding]

You know there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. If you have data that refutes that correlation, I think you should tell the world about it.

I'm pretty sure they already know that prior to the industrial revolution that CO2 was a proxy for temperature because of sequestration of CO2 by the ocean when temperatures got colder and CO2 release by the oceans when the planet got warmer.

But this in no way proves CO2 affects temperature to the ridiculous degree they claim it does.

 

[Crick]

I'm pretty sure they already know that prior to the industrial revolution that CO2 was a proxy for temperature because of sequestration of CO2 by the ocean when temperatures got colder and CO2 release by the oceans when the planet got warmer.

But this in no way proves CO2 affects temperature to the ridiculous degree they claim it does.

CO2 is released from the ocean when its temperature increases. There IS ALSO evidence in the historical record that CO2 CAUSES warming. See Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation - Nature. The full article is behind Nature's paywall but here is the Abstract

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.

 

[ding]

CO2 is released from the ocean when its temperature increases. There IS ALSO evidence in the historical record that CO2 CAUSES warming.

Incorrect. The geologic record overwhelmingly shows that CO2 lags temperature. It proves the relationship between CO2 solubility in water versus temperature. That's all it proves.

There is literally no mechanism for CO2 to increase during a glacial cycle other than temperature causing it's release from the ocean. Is this magic CO2?

 

[Crick]

Incorrect. The geologic record overwhelmingly shows that CO2 lags temperature. It proves the relationship between CO2 solubility in water versus temperature. That's all it proves.

There is literally no mechanism for CO2 to increase during a glacial cycle other than temperature causing it's release from the ocean. Is this magic CO2?

CO2 is released from the oceans by warming. CO2 also produces warming through the greenhouse effect and Shakun 2012 clearly shows it. Your rejection of the greenhouse effect makes it impossible to believe you have any real science literacy.