No Global Climate change in 100 years

[Old Rocks]

That is NO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, we have the same climate today as we did in 1912.

So you show a temp reading from the USA, 2% of the globe, and call it global?

Your average 3rd grader could spot the error in that logic. As an adult, you should be ashamed to have said something that stupid in public.

You should do some self-examination, concerning how you partisan blinders caused you to embrace such idiot logic. If the propaganda of your masters fooled you so easily there, what other scams of your political cult have you fallen for?

I did not call the temp of the USA Global, you lack comprehension skills.

The USA is not 2% of the surface of the earth, its 1.9%, but I digress, accuracy is discounted while making the argument for Global Warming.

As far as the insults and name calling, that is the behavior of a Bigot. Seems like a lot of them on your side.

No Global Climate change in 100 years
yep, thats right, we are in the midst of the coldest six month period in a 100 years. Or since the coldest six month period on record since 1912. One complete cycle, we have just experienced an equal amount of cold as we had in 1912, in other words, its the same today as it was in 1912.

That is NO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, we have the same climate today as we did in 1912.

US Having Its Coldest Six Month Period Since 1912 | Real Science

.................................................................................................

Elektra, you are a liar by your own words.

 

[BobPlumb]

If you're talking about places outside of America, Europe, Japan and maybe south Africa. Well, the error is quite respectable of up to a few degrees in some area's. This is why there's a error bar on the giss graph with a lower and higher estimate.

Error has been going down since that time but even today there's some error.

The error is quite respectable up to a few degrees? So a few degrees is respectable error?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oceans and glaciers release co2 once the earth has warmed up enough from the natural solar cycles. They add co2 that then takes thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere and the cycle begins again as the natural cycle sucks the co2 into the glaciers and oceans.

Throughout the last 2 million years co2 has only been able to extend the innerglacial periods. The natural cycles were the main forcer...

It doesn't take thousands of years. CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 20 years.

According to whom?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you're talking about places outside of America, Europe, Japan and maybe south Africa. Well, the error is quite respectable of up to a few degrees in some area's. This is why there's a error bar on the giss graph with a lower and higher estimate.

Error has been going down since that time but even today there's some error.

The error is quite respectable up to a few degrees? So a few degrees is respectable error?

For local error that is smoothed out over the rest of the world.

 

[Abraham3]

Oceans and glaciers release co2 once the earth has warmed up enough from the natural solar cycles. They add co2 that then takes thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere and the cycle begins again as the natural cycle sucks the co2 into the glaciers and oceans.

Throughout the last 2 million years co2 has only been able to extend the innerglacial periods. The natural cycles were the main forcer...

It doesn't take thousands of years. CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 20 years.

I won't say that's a lie, but you know it's damned close. If I took a pristine, 1750 Earth and dropped about 3,500 gigatonnes of CO2 onto it (as we have done between 1750 and today), CO2 levels would not return to 280 ppm, 1750 levels, for many centuries at the least. Refute that if you can.

 

[jc456]

Oceans and glaciers release co2 once the earth has warmed up enough from the natural solar cycles. They add co2 that then takes thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere and the cycle begins again as the natural cycle sucks the co2 into the glaciers and oceans.

Throughout the last 2 million years co2 has only been able to extend the innerglacial periods. The natural cycles were the main forcer...

It doesn't take thousands of years. CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 20 years.

I won't say that's a lie, but you know it's damned close. If I took a pristine, 1750 Earth and dropped about 3,500 gigatonnes of CO2 onto it (as we have done between 1750 and today), CO2 levels would not return to 280 ppm, 1750 levels, for many centuries at the least. Refute that if you can.

See the thing is, you can't prove an increase of CO2 causes a warmer climate. The evidence just isn't there. You have zero, zip, nada of any causal examples to point at.

 

[Abraham3]

Are you suggesting that the thousands of laboratory experiments showing that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation are flawed? Or perhaps you think the experiments never took place and all the stories are just fabrications? Or perhaps you think the thousands of conspiring scientists have decided to lie about the results of such measurements?

Which is it?

 

[elektra]

Are you suggesting that the thousands of laboratory experiments showing that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation are flawed? Or perhaps you think the experiments never took place and all the stories are just fabrications? Or perhaps you think the thousands of conspiring scientists have decided to lie about the results of such measurements?

Which is it?

When you can not link to anything but press releases and wikipedia then what you post is bullshit

 

[Abraham3]

Have you posted ANY evidence here of ANY point you've attempted to make?

When you have, maybe you can put your evidence against our evidence.

 

[IanC]

If you're talking about places outside of America, Europe, Japan and maybe south Africa. Well, the error is quite respectable of up to a few degrees in some area's. This is why there's a error bar on the giss graph with a lower and higher estimate.

Error has been going down since that time but even today there's some error.

The error is quite respectable up to a few degrees? So a few degrees is respectable error?

For local error that is smoothed out over the rest of the world.

BP- I agree with your concern over both accuracy and precision of individual station temperature readings but I fear that the real problem lies in how those individual stations are adjusted, and the way they are combined to build up local, regional, country, continental and global averages.

eg. historical global and especially US average temps both soared and changed shape during the 90's, when fewer and fewer reporting stations were used to compute the averages. was this coincidental? who knows. but every new algorithm since 2000 has also increased recent temps while decreasing historical (<1950) ones.

I might add that the official temperature record now disagrees with historical concerns of rapid ice melting in the 30's, and ice accumulation in the 60's. unless the temperature of water freezing has been altered by a few parts per million CO2, of course.

 

[jc456]

Have you posted ANY evidence here of ANY point you've attempted to make?

When you have, maybe you can put your evidence against our evidence.

Our evidence? Since when do you have any evidence. Show me your evidence. It is your claim of something, so your evidence is more than welcomed here. Let's see what you, you have?

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you suggesting that the thousands of laboratory experiments showing that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation are flawed? Or perhaps you think the experiments never took place and all the stories are just fabrications? Or perhaps you think the thousands of conspiring scientists have decided to lie about the results of such measurements?

Which is it?

When you can not link to anything but press releases and wikipedia then what you post is bullshit

OK. Here is the American Institute of Physics site on this very subject. Damned hard to get more authoratative than that.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

Have you posted ANY evidence here of ANY point you've attempted to make?

When you have, maybe you can put your evidence against our evidence.

Our evidence? Since when do you have any evidence. Show me your evidence. It is your claim of something, so your evidence is more than welcomed here. Let's see what you, you have?

Statement of the American Geophysical Union, the scientfic society with more people studying climate and the effects of climate than any other in the world.

AGU Statement on Climate Change: Update | Environment

AGU Statement on Climate Change
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long- understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

 

[Old Rocks]

From the Geological Society of America;

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

jc456, that is just a very minute part of evidence that I can show you, all from real scientists, not charatans like the fake Lord Monkton.

 

[jc456]

Are you suggesting that the thousands of laboratory experiments showing that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation are flawed? Or perhaps you think the experiments never took place and all the stories are just fabrications? Or perhaps you think the thousands of conspiring scientists have decided to lie about the results of such measurements?

Which is it?

When you can not link to anything but press releases and wikipedia then what you post is bullshit

OK. Here is the American Institute of Physics site on this very subject. Damned hard to get more authoratative than that.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

So as to not forget while reading all of this I have but one quick observation. If the earth is composed of an atmosphere of gases needed to warm the planet and that CO2 is obviously the largest component to consider, where did the CO2 go to when "tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe" after the earth was already warm? Because for me the insinuation is that the CO2 vanished.

So then a second question arises, where did the CO2 come from to melt the ice? I'm sorry, but now I'm totally confused.

You see I have also been taught that a thick cloud covered the earth for a very long time to keep the rays of the sun out. not that the CO2 evaporated. And a cloud is made up of water, and a thin piece of paper is more able to block the sun then water. So, I'm now confused.

Thanks!

Edit:
Ok so if a loss of CO2 causes water to eventually evaporate, where did all of the ice come from that covered all of northern Europe?
And further, jc logic here, if less CO2 causes water to evaporate, wouldn't more CO2 cause the opposite reaction? Wouldn't therefore more water be present in the atmosphere and more clouds and then we'd end up with a mass of clouds and then wouldn't the planet cool? Doh!

 

[jc456]

Have you posted ANY evidence here of ANY point you've attempted to make?

When you have, maybe you can put your evidence against our evidence.

Our evidence? Since when do you have any evidence. Show me your evidence. It is your claim of something, so your evidence is more than welcomed here. Let's see what you, you have?

Statement of the American Geophysical Union, the scientfic society with more people studying climate and the effects of climate than any other in the world.

AGU Statement on Climate Change: Update | Environment

AGU Statement on Climate Change
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
&#8220;Human activities are changing Earth&#8217;s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long- understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

It must be ground hog day all over again.

do you even know what the word evidence means? It means that someone actually experimented and knows that a certain number of parts per million of CO2 will increase temperatures at some degree per that parts per million of CO2. Because you see, the last fifteen years is my evidence that all of this is pure nonsense. And that you are the denier.
As well as, the years 1940 to 1980 why did it get cooler when the CO2 was increasing?

 

[jc456]

From the Geological Society of America;

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Did you say something?

 

[jc456]

jc456, that is just a very minute part of evidence that I can show you, all from real scientists, not charatans like the fake Lord Monkton.

Lord Monkton has more knowledge in his hands then all of those speculators in those groups, you see he follows the data and the lack there of.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/345683-finally-some-real-climate-science.html

AGW in a death spiral