Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.
As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).
The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.
That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.
This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.
As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).
The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.
That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.
AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.
Pretty much.That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.
AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.
So it is no different from globalization?
This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.
As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).
The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.
I used to think that this topic was worth debating, until I realized that it was actually religion...i.e. the lay minister above.
But, for any that aren't acolytes,
a. new findings, suggest that changes in the output of the sun have caused most recent climate change. By comparison, variations in carbon dioxide, the gas most targeted by national climate change campaigns, have shown poor correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. ICSC Chair Professor Tim Patterson, a leading paleoclimatolgist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada One Time Publication Rights
b. Global warming theorists believe that rising CO2 levels drive up the atmospheric temperature. But the rate and amount of warming at the beginning of the 20th century was greater than now, despite lower CO2 emissions, or why Greenland has cooled since the 1940s, or why the Arctic was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than now. (Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, p. 438
You have displeased the Goracle!
This is the history of that, but today, we see CO2 leading temperature.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.
As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).
The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.
I used to think that this topic was worth debating, until I realized that it was actually religion...i.e. the lay minister above.
But, for any that aren't acolytes,
a. new findings, suggest that changes in the output of the sun have caused most recent climate change. By comparison, variations in carbon dioxide, the gas most targeted by national climate change campaigns, have shown poor correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. ICSC Chair Professor Tim Patterson, a leading paleoclimatolgist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada One Time Publication Rights
b. Global warming theorists believe that rising CO2 levels drive up the atmospheric temperature. But the rate and amount of warming at the beginning of the 20th century was greater than now, despite lower CO2 emissions, or why Greenland has cooled since the 1940s, or why the Arctic was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than now. (Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, p. 438
That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.
AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.
Just because CO2 wasn't the primary cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be the cause today. To suggest otherwise is to really try and "baffle with bullshit"!
That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.
AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.
So, putting the US in a position to be energy independent by getting off of the oil tit is wealth redistribution?
Well, it may be at that. If most citizens of this nation were not only consumers, but also producers of energy, both for their homes and their vehicles, then a lot of very wealthy people would be seeing their income stream drying up.
So, let's all join Dave in preventing the average citizen from achieving any kind of independence from the oligarchs.
Just because CO2 wasn't the primary cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be the cause today. To suggest otherwise is to really try and "baffle with bullshit"!
konrad, poor delusional konrad. You reeeeaalllyy need to take some science classes my friend. Look up Occams Razor again. Then re-read your above statement.
Just because CO2 wasn't the primary cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be the cause today. To suggest otherwise is to really try and "baffle with bullshit"!
konrad, poor delusional konrad. You reeeeaalllyy need to take some science classes my friend. Look up Occams Razor again. Then re-read your above statement.
More yap-yap from a delusional liar. GSA Today, July issue simply states that AGW is happening, and that the primary cause is the increase in GHGs due to the use of fossil fuels.
And a lecture pertinent to the issue from the fall AGU convention.
A23A
That is a real contribution, there, Dave. Best you can do with a limited intellect, obviously.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Every "solution" to AGW involves redistribution of wealth from the Western world to developing nations.
AGW isn't about the environment. It's about control.
So, putting the US in a position to be energy independent by getting off of the oil tit is wealth redistribution?
Well, it may be at that. If most citizens of this nation were not only consumers, but also producers of energy, both for their homes and their vehicles, then a lot of very wealthy people would be seeing their income stream drying up.
So, let's all join Dave in preventing the average citizen from achieving any kind of independence from the oligarchs.
